In recent years, values have become a key element differentiating brands against the competition. What once was the domain of product-level competition has transformed into a race for a company image consistent with societal expectations. Unfortunately, too often these are merely superficial actions.
Free access to this article is provided to you by MU Group.
The few sentences above are a brief history of the so-called "washing" - a practice in which brands try to join important social issues, often without real commitment and building foundations based on values. Washing takes various forms and colors, each of which symbolizes different areas of improper brand activity.
Do you feel that everything that is sold now is ecological, bio, environmentally friendly or comes from recycling? Me too. There would be nothing wrong with this, after all, we have a serious ecological crisis in the world, for which large corporations are primarily responsible, which have now decided to label their products with a green leaf.
Although of course many brands conduct socially responsible activities and really focus on ecology, unfortunately for many it has become a slogan, which they even write on plastic bottles, as was recently the case with Coca-Cola. The brand was reported to the European Commission, due to the inscription on the drink packaging, which stated that the bottle was made 100% from recycled plastic, which is not even technically achievable. A similar fate in recent weeks, for the same reasons, was shared by Danone and Nestle. The brands were accused of greenwashing.
This is a practice of giving your products or actions the appearance of being environmentally friendly, which in reality do not have a significant impact on nature protection. The growing ecological awareness of society has caused consumers to prefer products and services considered ecological. Companies, seeing an opportunity in this trend to increase profits, began to promote themselves as "green", often without real commitment to environmental protection.
The most well-known examples of greenwashing often make it to mainstream media, allowing a wider audience to become aware of this issue. This was the case in 2000, when the company BP, changed its logo to a more "green" one and launched a campaign under the slogan "Beyond Petroleum", suggesting a focus on renewable energy sources. Despite this, the majority of the brand's activities still focused on fossil fuels. Another example is Volkswagen and the "Dieselgate" scandal, when the company advertised its cars as "cleaner", while in reality it used software to falsify emission test results.
However, reaching for products from the store shelf every day, we can easily be fooled, because a green label, leaf or lofty slogans do not necessarily mean that the brand has anything to do with saving the planet. It is therefore worth knowing that greenwashing is characterized by several key features.
The first of these is the inconsistency of actions and declarations - if a company advertises itself as "green", but its business activities in reality harm the environment, this may be an obvious signal of greenwashing. The second feature is the lack of specific data and the use of vague declarations, which at first glance may seem very credible. For example, companies often use generic terms like "eco-friendly", without providing specific evidence to support these claims. The third feature is focusing on small, superficial changes, such as introducing "more ecological" packaging, while at the same time not making changes in the harmful production process. The last, but equally important feature, is the lack of transparency and avoidance of independent verification by external environmental organizations, which often accompanies companies using greenwashing.
However, soon the vigilance of consumers will not be so necessary, and the actions of some brands will have to undergo a serious transformation. All because of the European Union's plans to introduce a special directive, which is to concern justifications and the transmission of environmental information. It will force companies that want to label products or services with an ecological declaration to comply with standards set by the European Commission, and also to provide relevant statements on this subject. The statements will have to include independent research confirming the ecological nature of the products.
In addition, the EU has established the world's first standard for green bonds, known as the European Green Bond. Its aim is to prevent companies from pretending to be more environmentally friendly than they actually are. Companies and countries issuing green bonds will have to prove that their actions actually contribute to environmental protection.
Transitioning from green to all the colors of the rainbow, one can also make a number of mistakes. Supporting LGBTQ communities by brands is often very superficial, making it easy to notice inconsistencies between slogans written on banners and actual activities. Lack of authenticity and deeper engagement in support or attempts to solve real problems of LGBTQ people is a mistake made by many brands.
This usually happens around June, which is referred to as Pride Month. It is supposed to be a time of pride in being part of the LGBTQ community, as well as taking actions aimed at counteracting the stigmatization and discrimination of non-heteronormative people. Pride Month is therefore a time when the LGBTQ community and its allies organize various events, such as parades, marches, festivals and various educational and cultural initiatives.
It is also a time when many brands change their logo to a rainbow one on social media. This was also the case with Mercedes-Benz, which did so, but only in those markets where LGBTQ rights are respected, omitting countries with less tolerance. Such actions were perceived as calculated and mainly focused on profit, not on real support for minorities. Another example, which was perceived as rainbow washing, was the action of the jewelry brand YES, which announced a competition related to rings for same-sex couples. The condition of participation was to spend a certain amount in their store, and the prize was to be received by couples only after the legalization of same-sex unions. This action was perceived as an attempt to use the LGBTQ community to promote the brand, which resulted in a wave of negative comments and ultimately an apology from YES.
If you're wondering, "why all this?", I'll give you a hint. According to Census Bureau data, the median income in LGBTQ households significantly exceeds the income of heteronormative households. Moreover, Nielsen research has shown that LGBTQ households spend on average 7% more in retail stores than the average household, with even greater differences in the case of specialty stores. A large part of the LGBTQ community also belongs to the DINK group (Dual Income No Kids), which means that as adults living in couples without children, they can allocate a larger part of their income to their own expenses, including luxury goods. This in turn makes this group attractive to marketers.
However, not wanting to share the fate of the brands described above, it is worth taking examples from those companies that are treated as a model of commitment to the LGBTQ community. One of them is the ice cream manufacturer Ben&Jerry. This is a brand that has been socially engaged since the 1970s, and their actions are extensive and authentic. The brand promotes diversity and inclusion within its organization, creating an environment friendly to LGBTQ people, providing, for example, the possibility of insurance for partners of non-heteronormative people.
Ben & Jerry's also engages in campaigns for equality and the rights of LGBTQ people, collaborating with organizations such as Stonwell or Human Rights Campaign. The brand's marketing actions are also thoughtful and consistent with the overall strategy. In 2009, the brand changed the name of its popular flavor "Chubby Hubby" to "Hubby Hubby" to support the push for the legalization of same-sex marriages in Vermont.
Contemporary brands cannot and should not rely solely on slogans that are hollow. They must define their values and implement appropriate internal solutions. Only then can they communicate their real impact on the environment, instead of fooling consumers.
Chat with RTX from NVIDIA is free, works fully locally on the user's computer and does not need an internet connection. And this means a much higher level of data privacy and significantly faster work.
Google's BardAI started speaking Polish, Warsaw University of Technology launched its VC fund, and OpenAI still has to defend itself in Italy against privacy violation allegations. What else did we live through last week?
The CBM Indicator study for the Confederation of Leviathan reveals mixed feelings among company managers - 61% perceive a deterioration of business conditions, 59% are optimistic about the future, and 60% positively assess the upcoming changes in the law.
As the only company in the world, it is able to produce processors in the most advanced 3 nm technology. In addition, it owns the most expensive factory ever built, and its clients are Apple, NVIDIA and Intel. How did it happen that Taiwanese TSMC became one of the most important companies in the world?
English