View Thread

Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can think
comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk perception in
particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry about the
effect of pollution on their personal health. This research also tries
to compare individual perception of various different risks to establish
risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm. However, this
literature does not necessarily treat the question of changes in risk
perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as you suggest.

I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position to
make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
greenwashing.

EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information disclosure,
including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
improvements?

I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I believe
largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....

Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders for
> reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
greenwash.
>
> Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
on
> environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do firms
> respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> such behavior?



Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research

Mail address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
26th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3573
(202) 343-9687

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409

These companies Joseph refers to below have all taken board level advise
from key players in the sustainability consulting industry (some former
activitists and now board members).

Another somewhat CEO of a another somewhat petrochemical company
implied that he dealt with risks (disasters) as they arise. Through my
various pursuits in a wide variety of spehers (not just consulting and
academia) I have had privileged insight into the causes of things
blowing up, dropping out of the sky, and other disasters. Ultimately
(my opinion) it is the cost-quality (in the broadest sense of
conformance to the broadest range of requirements) tradeoff that causes
this approach; that is, inappropriate incentives being manipulated by
people who are trying to maximise their personal remuneration.

Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
Research Fellow - lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
Centre for Management Quality Research
What's up?: http://intergon.net/events.html
Mother&Child Relief Foundation see events page
http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway

>>> Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu> 14/09/2007 4:24 am >>>
Dinah, et al.,

I do not wish to sidetrack this interesting discussion. But wish to
point out that BP has not left the greenwashing world. On its website
it is still pushing its greenness and sustainability strategy. Also,
this past summer I saw commercials touting their greenness (Exxon had a
commercial touting their greenness on in the same time period too!).
So, unless they dropped the Beyond Petroleum argument in the past few
weeks, it seems to still be in the forefront.

I am interested in this issue since I will be the BP case in my class
this semester and was surprised to hear of the stepping down of BP's
CEO. But, the public shaming seems to have not much to do with the
environment. I saw the press release on why he stepped down and it was
due to a sex scandal
(http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
<http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766>
), and possible misappropriation of funds.

It is interesting that raping the environment will not get someone
fired, but a simple sexual affair with a colleague will. We would not
be worrying so much about the environment these days if only people
worried as much about the environment as they do about the private
personal sexual lives of CEO's.

-Joe S.

________________________________

From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:05 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Can greenwashing be identified?



Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can
think
comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk perception
in
particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry about the
effect of pollution on their personal health. This research also tries
to compare individual perception of various different risks to
establish
risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm. However, this
literature does not necessarily treat the question of changes in risk
perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as you suggest.

I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position
to
make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
greenwashing.

EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information
disclosure,
including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
improvements?

I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I
believe
largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....

Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders
for
> reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
greenwash.
>
> Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
on
> environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do
firms
> respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> such behavior?



Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research

Mail address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
26th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3573
(202) 343-9687

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409

There is a very interesting article on the front page of today's WSJ
on GE's Ecoimagination campaign that provides a useful perspective on
this very interesting and important discussion on greenwashing. By
going into issues of corporate culture (and customer backlash) as
well and the cost trade offs that are making it difficult and
complicated for Imelt to put his firm on a greener path, it suggests
that we err in looking at this in black/white - a company is either
green or greenwashing itself - terms. The greening of business is a
huge, complex, multidimensional and very long term process. It's not
going to happen quickly or easily. It's odd to say we need to think
in shades of gray about greening, but I think we do.


Chris Rosen
UC Berkeley


At 06:02 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
>These companies Joseph refers to below have all taken board level advise
>from key players in the sustainability consulting industry (some former
>activitists and now board members).
>
>Another somewhat CEO of a another somewhat petrochemical company
>implied that he dealt with risks (disasters) as they arise. Through my
>various pursuits in a wide variety of spehers (not just consulting and
>academia) I have had privileged insight into the causes of things
>blowing up, dropping out of the sky, and other disasters. Ultimately
>(my opinion) it is the cost-quality (in the broadest sense of
>conformance to the broadest range of requirements) tradeoff that causes
>this approach; that is, inappropriate incentives being manipulated by
>people who are trying to maximise their personal remuneration.
>
>Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
>Research Fellow - lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
>Centre for Management Quality Research
>What's up?: http://intergon.net/events.html
>Mother&Child Relief Foundation see events page
>http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway
>
> >>> Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu> 14/09/2007 4:24 am >>>
>Dinah, et al.,
>
>I do not wish to sidetrack this interesting discussion. But wish to
>point out that BP has not left the greenwashing world. On its website
>it is still pushing its greenness and sustainability strategy. Also,
>this past summer I saw commercials touting their greenness (Exxon had a
>commercial touting their greenness on in the same time period too!).
>So, unless they dropped the Beyond Petroleum argument in the past few
>weeks, it seems to still be in the forefront.
>
>I am interested in this issue since I will be the BP case in my class
>this semester and was surprised to hear of the stepping down of BP's
>CEO. But, the public shaming seems to have not much to do with the
>environment. I saw the press release on why he stepped down and it was
>due to a sex scandal
>(http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
><http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766>),
>and possible misappropriation of funds.
>
>It is interesting that raping the environment will not get someone
>fired, but a simple sexual affair with a colleague will. We would not
>be worrying so much about the environment these days if only people
>worried as much about the environment as they do about the private
>personal sexual lives of CEO's.
>
>-Joe S.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
>Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
>Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:05 PM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Can greenwashing be identified?
>
>
>
>Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can
>think
>comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk perception
>in
>particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry about the
>effect of pollution on their personal health. This research also tries
>to compare individual perception of various different risks to
>establish
>risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm. However, this
>literature does not necessarily treat the question of changes in risk
>perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as you suggest.
>
>I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
>emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
>needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
>risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
>finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position
>to
>make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
>the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
>Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
>complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
>"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
>greenwashing.
>
>EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information
>disclosure,
>including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
>asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
>improvements?
>
>I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
>relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
>(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
>your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
>releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I
>believe
>largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
>accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
>environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
>case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....
>
>Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders
>for
> > reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> > other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
>greenwash.
> >
> > Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
>on
> > environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> > unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do
>firms
> > respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> > such behavior?
>
>
>
>Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>Economics and Decision Sciences Research
>National Center for Environmental Research
>
>Mail address:
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>290 Broadway
>Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
>26th Floor
>New York, NY 10007
>(212) 637-3573
>(202) 343-9687
>
>Courier Delivery Address:
>USEPA, NCER
>Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>1025 F Street NW
>Washington, DC 20004-1409

============================
Christine Rosen

Associate Professor
Business and Public Policy
Haas School of Business #1900
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900

Office: 510 - 642-8695
FAX: 510 - 642-4700
crosen@haas.berkeley.edu

Shades of grey re "greenwashing".....

I have been thinking along similar lines as Chris suggests. But on the
other hand I have a hard time convincing myself that it's ok for a firm
to claim a "green" image when it continues to be "sloppy" or dirty in
its core area, such as the basic gutts of pipeline management, etc. Or
cleaning up its past environmental liabilities for that matter. As we
know we face not only higher temperatures, but a toxic heritage which is
not to be taken lightly.

Certainly, it may be easier to claim greeness in new product lines,
especially when the science as to what constitutes "green" is not
entirely clear. For example, we may believe ethanol is a GHG-improving
alternative to petroleum, but preliminary research using life cycle
assessment shows that ethanol is GHG neutral, and not a significant
improvement from a global warming perspective compared with petroleum.

The problem in many corporate claims of "greeness" is that few companies
think wholistically, i.e. systemically, and do not take the very real
trade-offs in environmental impacts of various products into account.
Nor do many (if no) firms in fact consider the cumulative effects of
industrial activity that will impact, if not negate, any individual
company's efforts at greening. On the margin, no firm may be able to
claim to be green.


Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research
National Center for Environmental Research

Mail address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
26th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3573
(202) 343-9687

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409



Christine Rosen
<crosen@HAAS.BER
KELEY.EDU> To
Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Organizations cc
and the Natural
Environment Subject
Discussion Re: Can greenwashing be
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS. identified?
pace.edu>


09/14/2007 11:33
AM


Please respond
to
Organizations
and the Natural
Environment
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
pace.edu>






There is a very interesting article on the front page of today's WSJ
on GE's Ecoimagination campaign that provides a useful perspective on
this very interesting and important discussion on greenwashing. By
going into issues of corporate culture (and customer backlash) as
well and the cost trade offs that are making it difficult and
complicated for Imelt to put his firm on a greener path, it suggests
that we err in looking at this in black/white - a company is either
green or greenwashing itself - terms. The greening of business is a
huge, complex, multidimensional and very long term process. It's not
going to happen quickly or easily. It's odd to say we need to think
in shades of gray about greening, but I think we do.


Chris Rosen
UC Berkeley


At 06:02 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
>These companies Joseph refers to below have all taken board level
advise
>from key players in the sustainability consulting industry (some former
>activitists and now board members).
>
>Another somewhat CEO of a another somewhat petrochemical company
>implied that he dealt with risks (disasters) as they arise. Through my
>various pursuits in a wide variety of spehers (not just consulting and
>academia) I have had privileged insight into the causes of things
>blowing up, dropping out of the sky, and other disasters. Ultimately
>(my opinion) it is the cost-quality (in the broadest sense of
>conformance to the broadest range of requirements) tradeoff that causes
>this approach; that is, inappropriate incentives being manipulated by
>people who are trying to maximise their personal remuneration.
>
>Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
>Research Fellow - lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
>Centre for Management Quality Research
>What's up?: http://intergon.net/events.html
>Mother&Child Relief Foundation see events page
>http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway
>
> >>> Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu> 14/09/2007 4:24 am >>>
>Dinah, et al.,
>
>I do not wish to sidetrack this interesting discussion. But wish to
>point out that BP has not left the greenwashing world. On its website
>it is still pushing its greenness and sustainability strategy. Also,
>this past summer I saw commercials touting their greenness (Exxon had a
>commercial touting their greenness on in the same time period too!).
>So, unless they dropped the Beyond Petroleum argument in the past few
>weeks, it seems to still be in the forefront.
>
>I am interested in this issue since I will be the BP case in my class
>this semester and was surprised to hear of the stepping down of BP's
>CEO. But, the public shaming seems to have not much to do with the
>environment. I saw the press release on why he stepped down and it was
>due to a sex scandal
>(
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
><
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
>),
>and possible misappropriation of funds.
>
>It is interesting that raping the environment will not get someone
>fired, but a simple sexual affair with a colleague will. We would not
>be worrying so much about the environment these days if only people
>worried as much about the environment as they do about the private
>personal sexual lives of CEO's.
>
>-Joe S.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
>Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
>Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:05 PM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Can greenwashing be identified?
>
>
>
>Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can
>think
>comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk perception
>in
>particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry about the
>effect of pollution on their personal health. This research also tries
>to compare individual perception of various different risks to
>establish
>risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm. However, this
>literature does not necessarily treat the question of changes in risk
>perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as you suggest.
>
>I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
>emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
>needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
>risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
>finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position
>to
>make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
>the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
>Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
>complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
>"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
>greenwashing.
>
>EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information
>disclosure,
>including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
>asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
>improvements?
>
>I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
>relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
>(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
>your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
>releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I
>believe
>largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
>accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
>environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
>case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....
>
>Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders
>for
> > reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> > other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
>greenwash.
> >
> > Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
>on
> > environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> > unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do
>firms
> > respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> > such behavior?
>
>
>
>Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>Economics and Decision Sciences Research
>National Center for Environmental Research
>
>Mail address:
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>290 Broadway
>Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
>26th Floor
>New York, NY 10007
>(212) 637-3573
>(202) 343-9687
>
>Courier Delivery Address:
>USEPA, NCER
>Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>1025 F Street NW
>Washington, DC 20004-1409

============================
Christine Rosen

Associate Professor
Business and Public Policy
Haas School of Business #1900
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900

Office: 510 - 642-8695
FAX: 510 - 642-4700
crosen@haas.berkeley.edu

HI,

an interesting discussion, I think...I just read Esty and Winston's book/ Green to Gold...they definitely begin the process of answering many of the questions that you have asked. They develop a corporate ranking, but with the caveat that many of the firms are only the best in their industry and many of them are some of the worst polluters. just adding this resource to the discussion, Kathy Rehbein
________________________________
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion [ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph Sarkis [jsarkis@clarku.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 4:06 PM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: Can greenwashing be identified?

Some thoughts and questions.

Can a company be considered green if they are in an industry that is not green? Can petroleum extraction and mining really be green?

Can a company be considered green if they are doing just a little more than their industry counterparts?

Is a company, who is doing just as much as any other company in its industry, green when it just has a better greening campaign? (This question arises from my brief talk with an Exxon environmental manager who said they were doing as much as BP but not touting it in public as much).

Can a company be considered green if it is doing one thing well, while having a history of bad environmental performance or performing poorly in other areas?

Yes, there are shades of green and brown. To keep touting yourself as green (e.g. BP) while all these environmental issues are still occurring still make you a green company.

If a company donates millions to a University to do environmental research, does that make them green?

Maybe just having ads in the media is a good awareness raising among consumers and competitors, and companies should be lauded for raising this awareness, even though they are doing things in other areas that are not environmentally sound? Maybe your competitors may actually believe you?

There are various scorecards that have and continue to be used and that is why we have difficulty in our research when trying to determine the environmental performance of organizations. The data is weak, the talk is large, and the practice is inconsistent.

My final question(s), has there ever been a true 'backlash' for companies that are greenwashing and how long have these backlashes lasted? I have a feeling that many of these companies realize that the overall consumer memory is very short, usually until the next campaign diverts attention to style, quality, and price.











________________________________
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of Christine Rosen
Sent: Fri 9/14/2007 11:33 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: Can greenwashing be identified?


There is a very interesting article on the front page of today's WSJ
on GE's Ecoimagination campaign that provides a useful perspective on
this very interesting and important discussion on greenwashing. By
going into issues of corporate culture (and customer backlash) as
well and the cost trade offs that are making it difficult and
complicated for Imelt to put his firm on a greener path, it suggests
that we err in looking at this in black/white - a company is either
green or greenwashing itself - terms. The greening of business is a
huge, complex, multidimensional and very long term process. It's not
going to happen quickly or easily. It's odd to say we need to think
in shades of gray about greening, but I think we do.


Chris Rosen
UC Berkeley


At 06:02 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
>These companies Joseph refers to below have all taken board level advise
>from key players in the sustainability consulting industry (some former
>activitists and now board members).
>
>Another somewhat CEO of a another somewhat petrochemical company
>implied that he dealt with risks (disasters) as they arise. Through my
>various pursuits in a wide variety of spehers (not just consulting and
>academia) I have had privileged insight into the causes of things
>blowing up, dropping out of the sky, and other disasters. Ultimately
>(my opinion) it is the cost-quality (in the broadest sense of
>conformance to the broadest range of requirements) tradeoff that causes
>this approach; that is, inappropriate incentives being manipulated by
>people who are trying to maximise their personal remuneration.
>
>Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
>Research Fellow - lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
>Centre for Management Quality Research
>What's up?: http://intergon.net/events.html
>Mother&Child Relief Foundation see events page
>http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway
>
> >>> Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu> 14/09/2007 4:24 am >>>
>Dinah, et al.,
>
>I do not wish to sidetrack this interesting discussion. But wish to
>point out that BP has not left the greenwashing world. On its website
>it is still pushing its greenness and sustainability strategy. Also,
>this past summer I saw commercials touting their greenness (Exxon had a
>commercial touting their greenness on in the same time period too!).
>So, unless they dropped the Beyond Petroleum argument in the past few
>weeks, it seems to still be in the forefront.
>
>I am interested in this issue since I will be the BP case in my class
>this semester and was surprised to hear of the stepping down of BP's
>CEO. But, the public shaming seems to have not much to do with the
>environment. I saw the press release on why he stepped down and it was
>due to a sex scandal
>(http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
><http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766>),
>and possible misappropriation of funds.
>
>It is interesting that raping the environment will not get someone
>fired, but a simple sexual affair with a colleague will. We would not
>be worrying so much about the environment these days if only people
>worried as much about the environment as they do about the private
>personal sexual lives of CEO's.
>
>-Joe S.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
>Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
>Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:05 PM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Can greenwashing be identified?
>
>
>
>Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can
>think
>comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk perception
>in
>particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry about the
>effect of pollution on their personal health. This research also tries
>to compare individual perception of various different risks to
>establish
>risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm. However, this
>literature does not necessarily treat the question of changes in risk
>perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as you suggest.
>
>I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
>emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
>needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
>risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
>finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position
>to
>make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
>the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
>Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
>complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
>"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
>greenwashing.
>
>EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information
>disclosure,
>including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
>asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
>improvements?
>
>I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
>relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
>(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
>your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
>releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I
>believe
>largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
>accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
>environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
>case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....
>
>Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders
>for
> > reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> > other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
>greenwash.
> >
> > Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
>on
> > environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> > unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do
>firms
> > respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> > such behavior?
>
>
>
>Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>Economics and Decision Sciences Research
>National Center for Environmental Research
>
>Mail address:
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>290 Broadway
>Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
>26th Floor
>New York, NY 10007
>(212) 637-3573
>(202) 343-9687
>
>Courier Delivery Address:
>USEPA, NCER
>Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>1025 F Street NW
>Washington, DC 20004-1409

============================
Christine Rosen

Associate Professor
Business and Public Policy
Haas School of Business #1900
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900

Office: 510 - 642-8695
FAX: 510 - 642-4700
crosen@haas.berkeley.edu

Great question.

We have a company whose primary product is made from nonrenewable petrochemicals and other chemicals that are not biogredable and can be hazardois. The products are distributed in containers that are carbon-intensive--their carbon footprint is huge. They are shipped in a very unsustainable way--often by gas belching vehicles. The products themselves are "luxury" products--they are not, at least at their price point, "necessary"--meaning that products of similar or superior quality can be purchased at much lower prices.

On the other hand, the former founder of the company made a lot of noise how she supported all the causes that her products--what made her rich--was the antithesis of.

Is such a company--or this "leader"--"green."

Guess who fits this description?

Think hard before you reflexively condemn companies that at least turn out a product useful to society, while beatifying (sure the spelling) "leaders" whose fame and fortune is based on selling hypocrisy--personal and societal--at every stage of their lives.

Think about it.

Jon Entine

-----Original Message-----
>From: Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu>
>Sent: Sep 14, 2007 5:06 PM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Re: Can greenwashing be identified?
>
>Some thoughts and questions.
>
>Can a company be considered green if they are in an industry that is not green? Can petroleum extraction and mining really be green?
>
>Can a company be considered green if they are doing just a little more than their industry counterparts?
>
>Is a company, who is doing just as much as any other company in its industry, green when it just has a better greening campaign? (This question arises from my brief talk with an Exxon environmental manager who said they were doing as much as BP but not touting it in public as much).
>
>Can a company be considered green if it is doing one thing well, while having a history of bad environmental performance or performing poorly in other areas?
>
>Yes, there are shades of green and brown. To keep touting yourself as green (e.g. BP) while all these environmental issues are still occurring still make you a green company.
>
>If a company donates millions to a University to do environmental research, does that make them green?
>
>Maybe just having ads in the media is a good awareness raising among consumers and competitors, and companies should be lauded for raising this awareness, even though they are doing things in other areas that are not environmentally sound? Maybe your competitors may actually believe you?
>
>There are various scorecards that have and continue to be used and that is why we have difficulty in our research when trying to determine the environmental performance of organizations. The data is weak, the talk is large, and the practice is inconsistent.
>
>My final question(s), has there ever been a true 'backlash' for companies that are greenwashing and how long have these backlashes lasted? I have a feeling that many of these companies realize that the overall consumer memory is very short, usually until the next campaign diverts attention to style, quality, and price.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of Christine Rosen
>Sent: Fri 9/14/2007 11:33 AM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Re: Can greenwashing be identified?
>
>
>
>There is a very interesting article on the front page of today's WSJ
>on GE's Ecoimagination campaign that provides a useful perspective on
>this very interesting and important discussion on greenwashing. By
>going into issues of corporate culture (and customer backlash) as
>well and the cost trade offs that are making it difficult and
>complicated for Imelt to put his firm on a greener path, it suggests
>that we err in looking at this in black/white - a company is either
>green or greenwashing itself - terms. The greening of business is a
>huge, complex, multidimensional and very long term process. It's not
>going to happen quickly or easily. It's odd to say we need to think
>in shades of gray about greening, but I think we do.
>
>
>Chris Rosen
>UC Berkeley
>
>
>At 06:02 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
>>These companies Joseph refers to below have all taken board level advise
>>from key players in the sustainability consulting industry (some former
>>activitists and now board members).
>>
>>Another somewhat CEO of a another somewhat petrochemical company
>>implied that he dealt with risks (disasters) as they arise. Through my
>>various pursuits in a wide variety of spehers (not just consulting and
>>academia) I have had privileged insight into the causes of things
>>blowing up, dropping out of the sky, and other disasters. Ultimately
>>(my opinion) it is the cost-quality (in the broadest sense of
>>conformance to the broadest range of requirements) tradeoff that causes
>>this approach; that is, inappropriate incentives being manipulated by
>>people who are trying to maximise their personal remuneration.
>>
>>Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256
>>Research Fellow - lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au
>>Centre for Management Quality Research
>>What's up?: http://intergon.net/events.html
>>Mother&Child Relief Foundation see events page
>>http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway
>>
>> >>> Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu> 14/09/2007 4:24 am >>>
>>Dinah, et al.,
>>
>>I do not wish to sidetrack this interesting discussion. But wish to
>>point out that BP has not left the greenwashing world. On its website
>>it is still pushing its greenness and sustainability strategy. Also,
>>this past summer I saw commercials touting their greenness (Exxon had a
>>commercial touting their greenness on in the same time period too!).
>>So, unless they dropped the Beyond Petroleum argument in the past few
>>weeks, it seems to still be in the forefront.
>>
>>I am interested in this issue since I will be the BP case in my class
>>this semester and was surprised to hear of the stepping down of BP's
>>CEO. But, the public shaming seems to have not much to do with the
>>environment. I saw the press release on why he stepped down and it was
>>due to a sex scandal
>>(http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
>><http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766>),
>>and possible misappropriation of funds.
>>
>>It is interesting that raping the environment will not get someone
>>fired, but a simple sexual affair with a colleague will. We would not
>>be worrying so much about the environment these days if only people
>>worried as much about the environment as they do about the private
>>personal sexual lives of CEO's.
>>
>>-Joe S.
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
>>Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
>>Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:05 PM
>>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>>Subject: Can greenwashing be identified?
>>
>>
>>
>>Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can
>>think
>>comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk perception
>>in
>>particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry about the
>>effect of pollution on their personal health. This research also tries
>>to compare individual perception of various different risks to
>>establish
>>risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm. However, this
>>literature does not necessarily treat the question of changes in risk
>>perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as you suggest.
>>
>>I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
>>emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
>>needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
>>risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
>>finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position
>>to
>>make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
>>the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
>>Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
>>complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
>>"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
>>greenwashing.
>>
>>EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information
>>disclosure,
>>including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
>>asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
>>improvements?
>>
>>I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
>>relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
>>(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
>>your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
>>releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I
>>believe
>>largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
>>accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
>>environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
>>case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....
>>
>>Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders
>>for
>> > reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
>> > other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
>>greenwash.
>> >
>> > Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
>>on
>> > environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
>> > unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do
>>firms
>> > respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
>> > such behavior?
>>
>>
>>
>>Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>>Economics and Decision Sciences Research
>>National Center for Environmental Research
>>
>>Mail address:
>>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>>290 Broadway
>>Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
>>26th Floor
>>New York, NY 10007
>>(212) 637-3573
>>(202) 343-9687
>>
>>Courier Delivery Address:
>>USEPA, NCER
>>Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>>1025 F Street NW
>>Washington, DC 20004-1409
>
>============================
>Christine Rosen
>
>Associate Professor
>Business and Public Policy
>Haas School of Business #1900
>University of California
>Berkeley, CA 94720-1900
>
>Office: 510 - 642-8695
>FAX: 510 - 642-4700
>crosen@haas.berkeley.edu
>
>

24 February 2005 saw the release of a new guideline on ethical and
environmental marketing claims - the latest of joint guidelines issued by
the Nordic Consumer Ombudsmen.

You can download it
http://www.forbrug.dk/english/dco/dcopressreleases/news/newnordicguidelineet
/


Burton Hamner
Cleaner Production International LLC
www.cleanerproduction.com
206-491-0945, wbhamner@cleanerproduction.com
5534 30th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105
Fax (215) 565-4558

-----Original Message-----
From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion
[mailto:ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu] On Behalf Of Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 10:37 AM
To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Subject: Re: Can greenwashing be identified?

Shades of grey re "greenwashing".....

I have been thinking along similar lines as Chris suggests. But on the other
hand I have a hard time convincing myself that it's ok for a firm to claim a
"green" image when it continues to be "sloppy" or dirty in its core area,
such as the basic gutts of pipeline management, etc. Or cleaning up its past
environmental liabilities for that matter. As we know we face not only
higher temperatures, but a toxic heritage which is not to be taken lightly.

Certainly, it may be easier to claim greeness in new product lines,
especially when the science as to what constitutes "green" is not entirely
clear. For example, we may believe ethanol is a GHG-improving alternative to
petroleum, but preliminary research using life cycle assessment shows that
ethanol is GHG neutral, and not a significant improvement from a global
warming perspective compared with petroleum.

The problem in many corporate claims of "greeness" is that few companies
think wholistically, i.e. systemically, and do not take the very real
trade-offs in environmental impacts of various products into account.
Nor do many (if no) firms in fact consider the cumulative effects of
industrial activity that will impact, if not negate, any individual
company's efforts at greening. On the margin, no firm may be able to claim
to be green.


Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
Economics and Decision Sciences Research National Center for Environmental
Research

Mail address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
26th Floor
New York, NY 10007
(212) 637-3573
(202) 343-9687

Courier Delivery Address:
USEPA, NCER
Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
1025 F Street NW
Washington, DC 20004-1409



Christine Rosen
<crosen@HAAS.BER
KELEY.EDU> To
Sent by: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
Organizations cc
and the Natural
Environment Subject
Discussion Re: Can greenwashing be
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS. identified?
pace.edu>


09/14/2007 11:33
AM


Please respond
to
Organizations
and the Natural
Environment
Discussion
<ONE-L@AOMLISTS.
pace.edu>






There is a very interesting article on the front page of today's WSJ on GE's
Ecoimagination campaign that provides a useful perspective on
this very interesting and important discussion on greenwashing. By
going into issues of corporate culture (and customer backlash) as well and
the cost trade offs that are making it difficult and complicated for Imelt
to put his firm on a greener path, it suggests that we err in looking at
this in black/white - a company is either green or greenwashing itself -
terms. The greening of business is a huge, complex, multidimensional and
very long term process. It's not
going to happen quickly or easily. It's odd to say we need to think
in shades of gray about greening, but I think we do.


Chris Rosen
UC Berkeley


At 06:02 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
>These companies Joseph refers to below have all taken board level
advise
>from key players in the sustainability consulting industry (some former
>activitists and now board members).
>
>Another somewhat CEO of a another somewhat petrochemical company
>implied that he dealt with risks (disasters) as they arise. Through my
>various pursuits in a wide variety of spehers (not just consulting and
>academia) I have had privileged insight into the causes of things
>blowing up, dropping out of the sky, and other disasters. Ultimately
>(my opinion) it is the cost-quality (in the broadest sense of
>conformance to the broadest range of requirements) tradeoff that causes
>this approach; that is, inappropriate incentives being manipulated by
>people who are trying to maximise their personal remuneration.
>
>Lionel Boxer CD PhD MBA BTech(IndEng) - 0411267256 Research Fellow -
>lionel.boxer@rmit.edu.au Centre for Management Quality Research What's
>up?: http://intergon.net/events.html Mother&Child Relief Foundation see
>events page http://www.myspace.com/thesustainableway
>
> >>> Joseph Sarkis <jsarkis@clarku.edu> 14/09/2007 4:24 am >>>
>Dinah, et al.,
>
>I do not wish to sidetrack this interesting discussion. But wish to
>point out that BP has not left the greenwashing world. On its website
>it is still pushing its greenness and sustainability strategy. Also,
>this past summer I saw commercials touting their greenness (Exxon had a
>commercial touting their greenness on in the same time period too!).
>So, unless they dropped the Beyond Petroleum argument in the past few
>weeks, it seems to still be in the forefront.
>
>I am interested in this issue since I will be the BP case in my class
>this semester and was surprised to hear of the stepping down of BP's
>CEO. But, the public shaming seems to have not much to do with the
>environment. I saw the press release on why he stepped down and it was
>due to a sex scandal (
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
><
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7032766
>),
>and possible misappropriation of funds.
>
>It is interesting that raping the environment will not get someone
>fired, but a simple sexual affair with a colleague will. We would not
>be worrying so much about the environment these days if only people
>worried as much about the environment as they do about the private
>personal sexual lives of CEO's.
>
>-Joe S.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Organizations and the Natural Environment Discussion on behalf of
>Koehler.Dinah@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV
>Sent: Thu 9/13/2007 12:05 PM
>To: ONE-L@AOMLISTS.pace.edu
>Subject: Can greenwashing be identified?
>
>
>
>Andy, I appreciate your questions. The best pool of research I can
>think comes from the risk perception literature, and health risk
>perception in particular. The idea is that individuals presumably worry
>about the effect of pollution on their personal health. This research
>also tries to compare individual perception of various different risks
>to establish risk rankings, which are presented in the policy realm.
>However, this literature does not necessarily treat the question of
>changes in risk perception due to corporate actions or greenwashing as
>you suggest.
>
>I have been doing some research on this with respect to toxic chemical
>emissions (our favorite topic) - and it would appear that individuals
>needs LOTS of context/information to understand differences in health
>risks associated with toxic chemical emissions. Given this preliminary
>finding, I would suggest that individuals are not in a good position to
>make judgments on products or company environmental performance given
>the limited information out there. People act on vague beliefs, i.e.
>Tversky and Kahneman's heuristics, and have a hard time processing
>complex data, especially with respect to risks. Therefore,
>"stakeholders"/individuals will not be able to identify instances of
>greenwashing.
>
>EPA (STAR) is funding research on environmental information disclosure,
>including consumer perceptions of green labels, such as Energystar -
>asking whether consumers react to energy savings or environmental
>improvements?
>
>I would suggest that Responsible Care's early focus on community
>relations is potentially an effective way to disperse public outrage
>(vaguely defined) and engage in genteel greenwash - i.e. you found in
>your research that they did not invest in reduction of toxic chemical
>releases. Think also of BP's "beyond petroleum" campaign which I
>believe largely backfired after various highly visible pipeline related
>accidents and public shaming; subsequent firing of CEO and less
>environmental broadcasting since. Perhaps also GE's ongoing Superfund
>case can undermine its efforts at green-branding via Ecomagination....
>
>Proposition: Firms (like the Body Shop) are rewarded by stakeholders
>for
> > reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In
> > other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be
>greenwash.
> >
> > Do you think this is true? Are stakeholders prone to being credulous
>on
> > environmental matters so that they infer environmental actions when
> > unbiased analysis of the data would suggest otherwise? If so, do
>firms
> > respond knowingly to this susceptibility? Are there good examples of
> > such behavior?
>
>
>
>Dinah Koehler, Sc.D.
>Economics and Decision Sciences Research National Center for
>Environmental Research
>
>Mail address:
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>290 Broadway
>Mail Code: 2 OPM-PPEB
>26th Floor
>New York, NY 10007
>(212) 637-3573
>(202) 343-9687
>
>Courier Delivery Address:
>USEPA, NCER
>Room 3319E Woodies Bldg
>1025 F Street NW
>Washington, DC 20004-1409

============================
Christine Rosen

Associate Professor
Business and Public Policy
Haas School of Business #1900
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720-1900

Office: 510 - 642-8695
FAX: 510 - 642-4700
crosen@haas.berkeley.edu