Thou Shalt Not Pollute (in deed or in thought)

Admit it. You played hooky the day the vice president of global sustainability came to your division. And you nodded off during that session with your company's director of corporate responsibility. And while you're pretty sure you understand Wal-Mart's energy-saving initiatives, if there were an exam, you'd be sneaking peeks at your neighbors' answers*, right? Go ahead. Confession is good for the soul. However, if all of those powerful (and in the case of Bentonville, almost omnipotent) forces still haven't raised your eco-consciousness, there's now one more you'll have to contend with. The Vatican recently mustered up another list of "deadly sins" along the lines of the big seven (pride, envy, lust, etc.) set to paper by Pope Gregory I in the sixth century. The new list adds a social dimension, according to Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, head of the Apostolic Penitentiary. In an interview with the Vatican's official newspaper, l'Osservatore Romano, he warned: "You offend God not only by stealing, taking the Lord's name in vain or coveting your neighbor's wife, but also by wrecking the environment." That's right -- no less an authority than the Pope says thou shalt not ignore memos about printing on both sides of printer paper, and stoppeth kicking thy recycling bin. In case you're curious, the Vatican's seven social sins are: Bioethical violations Morally dubious experiments Drug abuse Polluting the environment Contributing to the divide betweenrich and poor Excessive wealth Creating poverty All joking aside (and discounting "morally dubious experimentation," which sounds like a lot of folks' freshman year in college) I think the above are a matter of personal conscience. But there is one set of sins worth talking about: "The Six Sins of Greenwashing," as promulgated by a decidedly secular group called TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, Reading, PA. "Green-wash" means misleading shoppers about the environmental practices of a company or the eco-benefits of a product or service. In a competitive marketplace, the temptation to puff-up a few claims at the point-of-purchase could cause some shoppers to discount them all. Here are some prime examples of problematic copy: 1. The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: We can honestly claim that our product is "from a sustainably harvested forest." But what if our transportation costs are way out of line? Over-emphasizing one environmental issue shouldn't mask a trade-off with another. 2. The Sin of No Proof: Our label touts the fact that our product is "not tested on animals." But shouldn't there be evidence or certification to back up such a claim? Make sure that company websites, third-party certifiers and toll-free phone numbers have information that delivers proof. 3. The Sin of Vagueness: Our display headers say our gardening products are "chemical free." Wait a minute. Is anything truly "free" of chemicals? Water is a chemical. All plants, animals and humans are made of chemicals. If the marketing claim has no real context -- "here's what we mean by eco" -- the claim may be meaningless. Other popular but vague terms include non-toxic, all natural, environmentally friendly and earth-friendly. 4. The Sin of Irrelevance: It's true that our cleaning product is "CFC free." Of course, every competitor can say the same thing. Is such a claim important or even relevant to this product? If a display touted the "water efficiency benefits" of a light bulb, I'd be tempted to hit it with a shopping cart. 5. The Sin of Fibbing: In one of its studies, TerraChoice looked at products that were "certified organic" and found some with false third-party certification. Legitimate third-party certifiers -- such as EcoLogo, the Chlorine Free Products Association (CFPA), the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Guard or Green Seal -- maintain publicly available lists of certified products. Some even maintain fraud advisories. 6. The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils: (Here's one where reasonable people may differ reasonably.) Is the marketing behind products like "organic tobacco" or "green lawn chemicals" more about assuaging guilt? Would consumers be better served by reducing consumption than by looking for greener alternatives? Read. Discuss. Differ. Reasonably. * Don't worry. Associate Editor Jean Luo provides a terrific crib sheet here.

Thou Shalt Not Pollute (in deed or in thought)

P2PI MEMBERS

JOIN P2PI

Business Topic