News

Every small business, every primary school, big bank, car company, media conglomerate, clothing manufacturer, you name it, has gone 'green' lately. Or, at least, would like to have you believe that. In this era of eco-adulation, however, how can consumers distinguish between what's marketing-driven greenwashing, and what's a legitimate effort to care for the environment? Equally vexing, how can businesses which sincerely want to do the right thing be seen (and appreciated) above the fray?

Few know more about this subject than Peter Robinson, CEO of the Vancouver-based David Suzuki Foundation, one of the most respected organizations in Canada on the issues of science and the environment. Before joining DSF in January 2008, Mr. Robinson spent seven years as CEO of Mountain Equipment Co-op, the country's largest outdoor equipment retailer. He began his career as a park ranger in B.C., where he was twice decorated for bravery by the Governor General of Canada.

Mr. Robinson was here earlier to provide insights and advice to both businesses and consumers trying to steer a path through the increasingly congested world of green hype. To join the conversation, please click here

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Noel Hulsman, Globeandmail.com, writes: Thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate you being here.

I asked you to join us today because we've all seen increasing number of companies scramble to wrap themselves in a green flag. Even oil and mining companies now fall over themselves to be seen as dutiful custodians of the natural environment. I am interested in your take on this evolution. Do you feel it's essentially a marketing phenomena? Or are you seeing some genuine commitment on the part of these companies? And if the latter, how do you evaluate it? How can consumers discern whether a company's messaging is legitimate or just greenwashing?

Peter Robinson writes: Hi Noel — your topic is both timely and just a little complex. After all, organizations are challenged to get out the message of "who they are, what they do, and why should you pay attention to them", yet much of the audience is cynical of traditional marketing techniques. Given the current focus on the environment, it's no wonder that businesses and governments are trying to talk to their own "green initiatives." It's what's on people's minds.

The question therefore is one of authenticity. Is the message designed to be a truthful representation of an organization's environmental performance, or is it just a crass attempt to cash in on something topical? How do you know? Well … there's always the "sniff test." If it stinks, it's probably not authentic.

In fact, one of the ways you can check to see if it stinks is to compare what comes out of the marketing department against the information that comes out from the public reporting group. For example, does the company produce an accountability report? Such reports go beyond traditional annual reports (which are typically combinations of regulatory reporting and a little bit of positive "spin") and seek to outline how an organization is performing more broadly. The indices include financial, sustainability, human resources, design, etc. Furthermore, the report says what's worked … and more importantly, what's not working. My belief is you can tell authenticity of environmental marketing if it lines up with honest environmental reporting.

Stan Hunter from Port Carling Mr. Robinson, I have to believe that turning shades of green needs to be done and accepted in small increments. We don't stop building cars, we make improved cars. We don't stop building smart centres, we consider developing brown fields and infill locations. We don't stop eating, we try to eat more locally produced foods. I build boats. Can I build a greener boat and not be accused of green washing?

Peter Robinson writes: I agree — in fact, you illustrates a very important point about human behavioural change. We don't change just because we get new information. I mean, really, did anyone who watched "An Inconvenient Truth" go out and sell their car the next day? But what does cause change, once the information is out there, is that you see others doing things differently. You want to belong to a group that is making a difference. Networks and relationships are therefore important. So as you say, we seek to make the improvements, one step at a time, and trust that everyone else will be doing this too.

As to building greener boats, marketing this fact, and avoiding the "green washing" label — yeah, it can be done. It's all in how you do it. For example, a claim that your boat is the greenest on the planet might be viewed with some scepticism — but a humble statement that you're making small differences through the construction and use of materials, in other words your own efforts to make a difference, would be viewed much differently.

Ian McDonald from Toronto I must admit I am not that big on the argument about global warming and more or less believe that the climate changes no matter what. Given that I try to cut down on my pollution for the mere reason that the air is disgusting or the need to close beaches. In a nut shell I would just like to see a cleaner environment. Given that, I never see everything laid out to a logical conclusion on why something is better for the environment over its alternative. Look at light bulbs. The government is pushing the use of the flourescent for the mere reason that they use less electricity to run. But what about the costs to make them over traditional light bulbs? Or when it comes to disposal, I understand they have chemicals that are worse for the environment. Is there anywhere to get the information that will show the total cost comparisons from start to the end of the life cycle of alternatives?

Peter Robinson writes: Hi Ian. You're right that the marketplace is becoming very confusing — there are lots of claims and counterclaims about a product's health, its environmental footprint, or even what happens at the end of its useful life. To some extent, this reflects the fact that we often don't really know the impact of the materials in a product. Take the recent issue about hard plastic bottles and bisphenol. For a long time, these bottles were seen as a safe way to store liquids. It's only been in the last year or so that new studies have indicated that leaching of bisphenol might in fact pose a health risk for children and pregnant mothers. The claims of safe versus unsafe were equally compelling. In such instances, who do you believe? How do you distinguish the fact from fad?

Which is your question — where to go to get the information.

There are a number of websites, including our own at the David Suzuki Foundation, but also others at Health Canada, grist.org, NationalGeographic.com, and a number of environmental and certification organizations. If you want to know more, drop us an e-mail at contact@davidsuzuki.org

One further thought about the example of bisphenol and your original concern about global warming. The issue of bisphenol illustrates something we call the "precautionary principle" — which essentially says, if we aren't 100% sure of the impact of our actions, but do know there's a high possibility that they might be causing harm, then perhaps we should act in the safest way possible. Using this example, would you put your child's health at risk by continuing to use hard plastic baby bottles until the science is 100% certain?

Trevor Cassidy from King City Canada writes: I am a new father interested in doing what i can to ensure the world is a better place for my son then when I came into it. Aside from making the individual changes i.e.: changing light bulbs, biking to work, buying local etc... What can I do on a larger scale to help make a significant change?

Peter Robinson writes: Great question Cassidy. In fact, it's the big one — how does the average citizen try to make a difference when the problems seem so huge, so daunting? Well, you still need to make the little changes first. The aggregate effects of a community making these small changes — not driving to work, recycling, composting, reducing water and energy use — are pretty huge. And when that happens (i.e., an entire community), then other communities are inspired to get on board, too. And so on. Eventually even our governments are inspired to change!

But what can you do on a larger scale to effect change? Well, first of all you need to define who it is who can impact the bigger change — which usually means business and political leaders. At this level, individuals are highly influenced by large numbers of people who criticize what's not working — but equally important, praising things that are done right. Don't underestimate the power of group action on issues.

Also, on a larger scale you can get involved with environmental and conservation organizations — such as the David Suzuki Foundation — but also local groups in your community. These organizations normally have programs for volunteers that can help

Grant Lowe from Toronto writes: I think that voluntary compliance is wonderful and is sorely needed, but how do we make this the norm for the general public as opposed to only limited to those who are interested in doing the right thing? I think financial (and other) penalties resulting from environmental degradation is one way to do that. Affecting what truly motivates people. How this will happen as politics are in the mix, I am not sure. Alternatively, should we experience like what just happened in Burma that might be a cold lesson in itself that we cant take mother earth for granted. For some thought, GL

Peter Robinson writes: Voluntary compliance is good, and should be encouraged. In fact, compliance eventually has to be the norm — but compliance at this level involves more than just the good will of businesses and individuals. It also requires regulation, policy — plus incentives and penalties. For example, in B.C. where I live, the government is just introducing a carbon tax. This will have the effect of putting a price on carbon which will eventually lead to shifts in behavior and technology that move us in the right direction. To link this back to your point of voluntary compliance — businesses and individuals who took the initiative early on will be later be financially rewarded.

D.J. From Toronto writes: I feel that if business really wants to be seen as caring for the environment, they need to ask consumers to buy only what they need, rather than more, green or not. Otherwise, it just feels like another marketing ploy that makes us feel a little better as we consume more stuff. Do you think it's possible for mainstream business to actually put the planet ahead of the bottom line? What will it take to get there?

Peter Robinson writes: Hmm … how much time do I have? This is a tough question, but to start off — let's draw a distinction between selling products and selling services. I think you're really talking about "stuff" aren't you? For example, a company that wants to provide you with information about how to make your home warm and comfortable is a good thing, right?

So if we're talking about products, well… let's acknowledge that consumerism as we know is not environmentally sustainable. But consumption by itself is not necessarily bad. We just have to acknowledge the distinction between products that are useful, that can be produced in an environmentally safe manner, and have what I call a "cradle to cradle" responsibility (i.e., they get taken back and recycled at the end of their useful life).

Given the current reality, those businesses that provide products and services that are environmentally sustainable are the businesses that will survive and prosper in the long run.

RP from Toronto writes: For some businesses, it may cost more to operate as a green company. For instance, dry cleaning companies might have to pay more for environmentally-friendly chemical products. Are you aware of any government programs that would reimburse small businesses for taking these 'green' initiatives?

Peter Robinson writes: I have to confess that I don't know of any government initiatives, but it's a good idea. However, I also think (in fact I know from my experience at Mountain Equipment Co-op) that consumers will likely pay a small premium for similar products if it can be shown they are more benign or manufactured in a more sustainable / environmentally sound manner. Furthermore, the polling indicates the premium can be as much as 25%.

One last point, as these more environmentally sound products become the norm, their price will likely go down.

Anna Potoczna from Toronto writes: Hi Peter, is single attribute certification (for example focusing on recycled content) really a form of greenwashing since it does not consider the other environmental impacts a product may have on the planet (for example during its production process)? Or is this a legitimate claim? Would it not be better to be slightly green than not at all?

Peter Robinson writes: Single attribute certification could be an incremental improvement — although we really need to go to reporting on total attribute impacts. The manner in which the production occurs often has a much greater impact than the contents of the product. Nevertheless, I believe that beginning to include percentages of recycled product in manufacturing is the right way to go. And it takes time. In some cases the understanding and technology do not yet exist for what I referred to earlier as a true "cradle to cradle" product philosophy. One further point, and that's to look at the certification process itself, because not all certifications are equal. In this regard, there are already some that take into account the full suite of potential environmental impacts — and only certify those that meet all criteria. The "Gold Standard" for carbon offsets is one such example.

Noel Hulsman, Globeandmail.com, writes:That's our hour. Peter, thank you once again for being here. We really appreciate it. Have a great weekend. Best