GREENWASHING: WHAT DOES IT MEAN AS ONE OF MANKIND’S GREATEST EMBARRASSMENTS?

Greenwashing is one of the most renowned forms of intentional deception by firms enacted on consumers in an effort to boost sales by appealing to the environmentally conscious. Greenwashing is the purposeful concealing or alteration of information relating to the goods that firms are selling in order to give them a more presentable outlook for consumers, further encouraging them to buy the aforementioned goods. Does this underhanded tactic go against the ethical imperatives that we have set for ourselves as a society, to be true, transparent, and trustworthy? There are many schools of thought regarding this moot point, but there are mainly a few arguments that are much more sensible and sound.

It is no surprise that climate change has taken its toll on the entire planet; in Singapore, temperatures have risen from an average of 27.0 degrees Celsius in the early 1990s to about 28.5 degrees Celsius today. Globally, the average rise in temperature with respect to the 1902-2000 average in 2024 was 1.28 degrees Celsius, and this shocking statistic has heavily backed the cause for a counter to climate change – the implementation of carbon sequestration efforts, renewable energy sources, environmental talks – all in an effort to calm the tumultuous tides of climate change that loom over future generations. However, as the global world order of capitalism continues to expand, businesses come to an ethical crossroads; in a more competitive market, do they fight to survive by potentially adopting greenwashing or increase the risk of shutting down in the short run? For IKEA, Shein and many others, it has seemed that survival of the fittest was the name of the game, with IKEA purportedly engaging in illegal logging activities to obtain the wood used in the do-it-yourself furniture building products they sell, which are sold under the guise of being sustainably-obtained, and SHEIN being accused by the Italian antitrust agency of potentially partaking in greenwashing as well. This has brought many harsh realities to consumers as they are now indirectly involved in the depletion of natural resources at an alarming rate; with the action of purchasing being an insurmountable consequence of consumerism, tantamount to large-scale environmental degradation.

As these firms grow, many critics have pointed out the snowball effect that it may bring as these deceptive firms grow as a result of greenwashing and thus through economies of scale, increase their supply, and this may even cause further environmental damage just to compensate for their need for spare inventory. In Australian brand Celys’ own words, “now that sustainability has also become a popular new social topic, many consumers also want to contribute to it. When they see friends and peers promoting 'green’ products and brands, they naturally want to follow suit. And they hardly ever question the evidence on display thinking that if the crowd trusts it, so will they.” This “groupthink” only enables firms to continue using these tactics to further deceive its consumer base and further exacerbate the state of the world as we know it. There can also be the argument that it is the consumers’ faults for blindly following the perceived social zeitgeist. This proves to be valid but at the same time cannot account for the fact that consumers and firms have almost perfectly asymmetric information and may completely buy into their lies and the blame should be put on firms. Yet, even though it is the most popular opinion to point the finger at the latter, there is another stakeholder to consider that sets greenwashing in motion.

Another source, Det Norske Veritas (DNV), a risk management company, has a slightly different opinion on the matter. They argue that due to the myriad of differing standards and frameworks for the measurement and reporting of sustainability such as the Green Reporting Initiative or the EU Green Taxonomy, these standards have created a breeding ground ripe for greenwashing due to the incongruences between them. They further state that it is precisely due to these standards being partially in disagreement with each other that firms can find loopholes around them to intentionally mislead consumers. This second viewpoint does show that firms are not completely to blame and while the firm’s conscious volition is still involved in partaking in such practices, it was driven by a failed system of standardisation that has led to environmental callousness; if we do not demarcate clear boundaries, what is right and what is not? With no way to tell, it gives an excessive amount of leeway for firms to greenwash freely as they please with no severe or immediate consequences, escaping scot-free as the climate caves in and collapses in on itself as a direct result of their actions.

It is evident that with the significant number of parties involved in these greenwashing scandals; firms, legislative bodies and even governments who do not properly enforce clear standards, it is one of mankind’s greatest embarrassments and something that we ought to work towards with utmost urgency. The earth is begging us to bring it back to equilibrium and stop, as consumers, buying goods just because of the “100% Green” label and contributing to the ongoing irreversible damage as it seeks to feed the moving industrial gears that create them.