"Going green" has become mainstream for companies large and small - that´s good news. What´s not so great is when companies make misleading environmental marketing claims of the benefits of their product or services. In order to compete in a market that demands "green" products, some businesses and manufacturers have resorted to creative advertising instead.

Are these companies really interested in the environment, or just being "green" to gain more market share? Have they made the investments necessary to provide more environmentally preferable products? It´s difficult to figure out whether many of the so-called eco-friendly products are helping to protect the environment or if manufacturers have developed clever marketing ploys that mislead consumers.

Leading critics claim that many of the marketing efforts behind advertising green are just other ways to manipulate the environmentally conscious into spending money on gimmicks and useless products. Some experts say the energy expended to harvest sustainable building products such as bamboo, for example, puts more pollution into the air and uses more of our natural resources to produce than, for example, creating chemicals to make plastic.

The growing demand for more environmentally preferable goods and services has led many manufacturers to find cost-effective ways of improving their environmental performance and the environmental performance of their products. As a result, safer cleaning products are available. Cars are more efficient. Fewer trees are being cut to make paper. Less polluting energy sources are increasingly available. The practice appears to be growing and purchasers are learning that they must carefully examine all environmental claims to ensure the environmental benefits they seek are reflected in the products and services they buy.

History of Greenwashing

In the late 1980s and early 1990s when professional purchasers and individual consumers first became interested in buying "green" products, the following kinds of generic claims began appearing on products:

• Essentially non-toxic
• Earth-friendly
• Eco-safe
• 100% natural
• Environmentally safer
• Environmentally friendly
• Environmentally preferable
• Made with non-toxic ingredients
• Earth smart
• Ozone safe

As part of its investigation following numerous consumer complaints, the FTC (U.S. Federal Trade Commission) identified a variety of deceptive advertising practices, including manufacturers making unsubstantiated environmental claims and misleading consumers about the environmental benefits of their products.

Following its investigation, the FTC issued its Guidelines for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims in 1992 (revised in 1998) outlining acceptable and unacceptable environmental marketing practices.

Before relying on a label, make sure you understand it.

The FTC guidelines require manufacturers to provide specific details explaining any environmental claim without overstating an environmental attribute or benefit. According to the guidelines, generic claims are to be avoided because they do not provide purchasers with any specific information that can be used to compare products. Such claims are unacceptable without an accompanying explanation detailing the specific environmental requirements necessary to justify the claim.

After the release of the FTC guidelines greenwashing decreased but did not completely disappear. In fact, as demand for more environmentally preferable products rises, greenwashing appears to be reemerging as an important concern for purchasers.

A 2007 study of modern greenwashing practices led by Scott Case identifies the following six greenwashing "sins." Scot is currently VP of TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which manages the EcoLogo Program.

Sin of Fibbing. While rare, some manufacturers do mislead customers about the actual environmental performance of their products. Some manufacturers have claimed that their products meet the environmental standards developed by EcoLogo or Green Seal when it is clear they do not. The EcoLogo program even has a fraud advisory section on its web site warning purchasers about misuses of the EcoLogo certification mark.

Sin of Unsubstantiated Claims. Also known as the sin of "just trust us," some manufacturers are unable to provide proof of their environmental claims. Others use words like "green" or "eco" in their corporate or product names and hope no one asks for details. All environmental claims should be verified by an independent certifying body or auditor, or the manufacturer should be willing and able to provide the necessary documentation to prove a claim when it is requested. Purchasers should be able to easily verify the recycled content of a product or to learn whether it contains any ingredients of concern.

Sin of Irrelevance. Some manufacturers make factually correct environmental assessments that are no longer relevant for the particular product category. As an example, many aerosol products continue to make "CFC-free" claims even though CFCs have been banned in these products since 1978. These accurate but irrelevant environmental claims can confuse even savvy purchasing professionals.

Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off. Many products make bold claims about a single environmental attribute, which can lead purchasers to mistakenly believe that it is the only environmental attribute of concern for a particular product category. A cleaning product manufacturer, for example, is currently displaying an environmental certification mark documenting that its cleaning products are manufactured in a facility powered by renewable energy, which is clearly a beneficial environmental feature. The product makes no claims, however, about the potential human health or environmental hazards of the product itself. Purchasers could easily be misled by the certification mark to believe that the product is safer or uses safer ingredients than its competitors when that may not be true. Review products with single attribute claims carefully.

Sin of Vagueness. Broad, poorly defined environmental claims continue to challenge purchasers seeking high-quality environmentally preferable products. A vague claim such as "100 percent natural," for example, can be very misleading because some naturally occurring substances such as arsenic and dioxin can be very harmful to human health. Legitimate environmental claims are not vague.

Sin of Relativism. A product can be the most environmentally preferable product in its class, but still be an inappropriate choice. The most fuel-efficient sport utility vehicle (SUV), for example, is still less preferable if a mid-sized passenger car will suffice.