Consumer Trust In Brands Is Low. Here’s How To Build Trust And Avoid “Greenwashing”
We’ve all seen it. The dubious marketing claims that exploit our genuine environmental concerns, especially as we get closer to Earth Day. Instead of impacting change, they seem to only serve to generate confusion and skepticism toward planet-friendly products. Well, there’s a name for that! It’s called “greenwashing” and it needs to end.
Why? Well for starters because it causes real damage. A recent study showed that ONLY 6.4% of people believe companies are telling the truth when they talk about their climate efforts. Yikes! Undoing the damage done by decades of false and misleading claims by brands and advertisers is clearly going to be an uphill battle.
Given the global environmental threat of climate change, consumers are ready to do their part, and they want to buy things that have a positive impact. But it’s extremely difficult for the average consumer to meaningfully investigate and verify “green” claims. This means they – we – are dependent on marketers to share accurate, reliable information to make informed decisions.
The good news is that the nonprofit WFA (World Federation of Advertisers) is doing something about it! WFA recently published six recommendations on environmental claims. This global guidance was developed as part of a commitment to use marketing as a force for positive change, both for consumers and within the advertising industry. Essentially, the principles give brands a framework to make sure their assertions are credible and to build trust with consumers.
So what are the six principles? Let’s break them down. We’ll look at the original language first, and then our take on what it means.
Principle 1: Claims must not be likely to mislead, and the basis for them must be clear.
What it means: Basically, this principle recommends marketers take care to be truthful and transparent about the facts. They shouldn’t imply, exaggerate, or diminish information about environmental impact. This is probably the easiest one to spot in the wild because we’ve all wondered about those vague claims of “environmentally friendly”, “green” and “zero impact.”
Principle 2: Marketers must hold robust evidence for all claims likely to be regarded as objective and capable of substantiation.
What it means: Share evidence and data to back up your claims. Chipotle has made some pretty big noise about how much food is diverted from the landfill and how they manage staff waste like gloves. The nonprofit NAD (National Advertising Division) of the US Better Business Bureau found that while many of Chipotle’s claims were “adequately substantiated” – 51% diversion from landfills is no joke! – they needed to modify their claims about reduced carbon emissions by making clear which parts of the supply chain actually have reduced carbon emissions.
Principle 3: Marketing communications must not omit material information. Where time and space are limited, marketers must use alternative means to make qualifying information readily accessible to the audience and indicate where it can be accessed.
What it means: Marketers shouldn’t omit information, and they shouldn’t make claims that are only accurate in certain circumstances. So if the only part of the product that’s recyclable is the packaging, they can’t claim it’s recyclable without making the limits clear.
Principle 4: Marketers must base general environmental claims on the full life cycle of their product or business, unless the marketing communication states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle.
What it means: Be more specific about claims so consumers understand the whole picture. For example, if a car company makes a claim of “zero emissions” but there are only zero emissions while driving, that’s a little fishy.
Principle 5: Products compared in marketing communications must meet the same needs or be intended for the same purpose. The basis for comparisons must be clear, and allow the audience to make an informed decision about the products compared.
What it means: Don’t make vague comparisons. Fashion brand Everlane ran into trouble making claims that the recycled content and dyes in its products were “safer for the environment.” This naturally raises the question “safer for the environment than what?” NAD regulators recommended the claims should be “further qualified.” It’s like when a product is advertised as “better for you.” Better than what? And in what way specifically?
Principle 6: Marketers must include all information relating to the environmental impact of advertised products that is required by law, regulators, or codes to which they are signatories.
What it means: Marketers should not only follow the laws in countries where their products are sold, but should also abide by industry-standard agreements.
As an industry, marketers need to change the way we communicate with consumers. We need to build trust and demonstrate not just a commitment to making consumers feel better about what they buy, but to actually ensure that the environmental claims we make are accurate, complete, and given context.
A recent article in Adweek entitled To Survive in Today’s Climate, Agencies Must Zero In On Sustainability stated,
As more brands weave planet-first initiatives into every corner of business, they also expect that their partners provide expertise…When it comes to sustainability, agencies have a few groups of stakeholders that they need to please—their clients, their employees, and the consumers of the brands they represent. And the qualifications for what makes an environmentally-ethical business are only becoming more rigorous.
Here at Totally Taryn Social, we are proud to focus exclusively on brands and service providers that are good for the planet and its inhabitants. So if you’re looking for a partner to bring your earth-friendly offerings to life on social media you know where to find us! Together I believe we can create an environment (no pun intended) where consumers can feel more confident about their purchasing decisions and where we can all hold brands accountable for their claims.
Totally,
Taryn