Product Design & Development
 Share
RSS Feed 

At Issue

Greenwashing — I've Been Had

 Permanent link

I like to think that I’m pretty shrewd when it comes to marketing schemes and statistics being twisted.

by Carrie Ellis, Editor, Chem.Info

Carrie_Ellis_Editor_Chem_InforThere aren’t many feelings worse than that of being duped, especially if you have an elevated estimation of your own intellectual powers. (I tested at 29 on my ACT exam, I swear.) Most of the time, I like to think that I’m pretty shrewd when it comes to marketing schemes and statistics being twisted by the most keen of spin doctors, distinctly because as an editor — trust me — I’ve seen it all.

However, in light of all the new greenwashing PR gracing my inbox, the social media, and the trade and popular consumer media at large, I feel as if things are getting greener, albeit the actual environmental benefits are hazier — at times, maybe even pseudo-green. I fell victim to one such case.

Not long ago, I received a hurried voicemail in regard to some research I’d been conducting on environmentally friendly plastic and resin alternatives. Turns out, one of the self-professed pro-environmental plastics experts I interviewed not necessarily lied, but rather thrust his products into a rose-colored spectrum of ambiguity and/or ambivalence, using language that would be particularly vexing for someone who’s not familiar with the topic at hand. (That’d be me.)

Now, I’m not sure if this greenwashing land mine is true of those just like me — those who are unable to stake a claim on the validity of provided facts given the absence of a scientific background — or the population in general, but either way, it has to stop. As individual/commercial consumers turn to green labeling to make purchasing decisions, this problem escalates in importance. How do we make the best decision when ill-informed?

Thankfully, this particular issue was brought to my attention, but in the future, to whom should I turn? Obviously commercial enterprises are not to be trusted on the merits of their own capabilities, nor their marketing cohorts. Should I just remain appalled by the audacity of those looking to contribute a quote here or there for the sake of honest journalism when I find ‘em out? Who knows? But in any case, I should definitely remain suspicious.

Regardless, here’s an abbreviated list of reliable sources, which I unearthed in my quest for finding independent or government-sponsored organizations whom you can trust (for the most part, I think) on environmental issues with verifiable information and sources: 

Of course, the only pragmatic way to cool something as hot, as widely varying and as pervasive as false greenwashing is through widespread education from a source that can be safely said to have no vested interests in monetizing that education.

Tell me what you think, if you have a solution (if you deem one necessary), or if you have any other recommendations for valid environmental resources via carrie.ellis@advantagemedia.com or post your comments below.


"Green" itself is a questionable, fuzzy concept at its core. Fore example, we all now think that CO2, a main component of photosynthesis, and therefore a core source of food, is a pollutant, despite the fact that all animal life depends on it. It is not the main driver for climate temperature; there is significant scientific dissent; and it is present in concentrations that are less than optimal for plant needs. The assumption that government sponsorship of green implies unbiased scientific trust is also ridiculous. Multimillion dollar government handouts to PhD's are not independent of political power motives and agendas.
Posted by: Alex at 11/13/2009 12:15 PM


Hi Alex,

I actually completely agree with your statement about the government, although if we were to assess any information resource, they'd all be at least somewhat biased. Those people/organizations who have a vested interest in a particular claim are the ones who typically get directly involved with it. So where does that leave us when it comes to information dissemination? That being asked, I guess we don't trust anyone unless we can duplicate research results ourselves, but how many avergage Joes/Janes have the ability to do so?
Posted by: Carrie at 11/13/2009 2:05 PM


Yes, every person and every organization has a bias, so bias is not a reason to discount or believe what anyone says. It is a difficult and interesting question to determine the truth of complex technical issues, even if one has sufficient technical background and particularly if one does not. Depending on one's own firsthand logic and reason seems to be all there really is. This goes a long way if one sets a high personal standard that puts less weight on popular hype, emotion, polling of experts, etc. and puts greater weight on logical evaluation of the evidence along with insistence on 100% consistency of the conclusions with what one already knows to be true. For example, I would be far more interested and impressed with "Unmodified year 2000 climate model continues with accurate global climate predictions up to present day" than with "international government panel of climate scientists predict run away global warming".
Posted by: Alex at 11/13/2009 3:05 PM


register or log in to comment on this blog!

At Issue

Beta Products & The Human Guinea Pig
Mike Willshaw, Radius Creative
My Garbage Blanket
Anna Wells, Editor, IMPO
A Quick Fix
Meaghan Ziemba, Associate Editor, PD&D

Quick Links

Site Sponsors


Most Viewed

Videos & Webcasts

Cannon vs. Skull 3/17/2010
Schmit Prototypes builds a canon powerful enough to blow your brains out.   Continue
Dynamic Structures Digital Prototyping 3/17/2010
When designing their structures, Dynamic Structures uses Audtodesk Inventor to go beyond 3D design.   Continue
Augmenting Reality 3/17/2010
The new technology makes driving more safe and convenient by enhancing the driver’s site.   Continue