Phrases like “packaging made from 30% recycled plastic” or “ocean-friendly sun protection” labeled the number of products we buy on a daily basis. with these messagesbrands try to show their commitment to the environment and the product they sell environmentally friendlythus, the consumers to whom they are directed prefer their offers at the expense of others that do not exhibit these ecological guarantees.
But the truth is, most of these labels, almost always flamboyantly painted green, with illustrations of plants on their packaging, and terms like “bio”, “eco”, “natural” or “organic”, are nothing short of authentic. claims that are unnecessary or too untrue to be credible and reliable.
In fact, a study commissioned by the European Commission in 2020 concluded: 53.3% of the claims on these ‘ecological’ labels were ‘vague, misleading or unfounded’ and 40% lacked scientific support.
this is what is known as “ecological stance” or green wash English, a strategy aimed at laundering products and services through environmental slogans that do not provide any evidence.
Concept green wash It is relatively young (now 40 years old since it was invented by the American researcher Jay Westerveld) and is now at the center of major complaints, not only by ecological associations and environmental activism, but also by advocacy organizations. consumers. These demands have succeeded in making their voices heard in institutions and regulatory bodies.
In Spain, in the strategy of the National Commission on Markets and Competition (CNMC) until 2024, it is more than symbolic to explicitly warn that financial companies control the information they provide to their potential consumers in terms of their relation to the environment.
And in Europe, the European Commission’s latest move to curb such disinformation, a directive proposal ( Directive on Green Claims) aims to regulate these environmental statements.
Thus, companies that decide to include these ecological statements on their labels, they must meet minimum standards to argue and justify these claims through accepted scientific evidence.
“Member States, Verification and implementation processes to be carried out by independent and accredited verifiers», says the Commission. Before being definitively ratified, this directive must receive the approval of the Parliament and the Council of Europe.
“Anything that is misleading advertising, like making an industrial cake and saying it’s handmade and biological… that world consists of unconfirmed affirmations, which does not have a label that guarantees it. Miguel Ángel Soto, campaign manager for Greenpeace, said: “After decades of claims by manufacturers that a green culture of hoax is being produced, all this is already socially stigmatized and persecuted by regulations.”
Gas and nuclear: green?
Despite the European Union’s strong hand against these misleading advertising practices, the reality is that environmental organizations such as Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth in Germany and Transport & Environment they opened a judicial front against the European Commission, which they accuse. green wash.
This paradox occurs because European agency recognized energy from nuclear power plants as “sustainable” Gas plants with construction permits before 2045 and emitting less than 270 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour by 2031, or less than 100 grams of CO2 over their entire useful life.
This is how the European Commission defined them in its “green classification”, a guide that came into effect on 1 January this year. Classifies environmentally friendly projects, investments and economic activities. against those who are not.
Due to the inclusion of gas and nuclear (temporarily, according to the EU), environmental organizations are criticizing the European Commission’s action. green wash and so they will defend before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). For these assets, green classification violates EU Climate Law and the Paris Agreement’s goals to mitigate climate change.
As Efe reports, the court hearing is expected in the second half of 2024, so the sentence will not be known until 2025. “This is exactly what the European Commission is trying to avoid, false green statements. One cannot say that investing in ecological transition, gas, or nuclear power infrastructures is green, because that is the same as when we tell citizens that we can’t tell unnatural or non-recyclable things,” says Soto, noting that he regrets this. “institutionalisation” green wash». The problem is that the energies on this list are likely to receive the most public funding.
“This is very worrying, because If the gas industry is to be financed, we face a very serious breach of the Paris Agreement.“, To add.
The distinction regarding the inclusion of these two energy sources in the European sustainable finance guidelines extends to the Glasgow Summit in 2021, COP26. and Germany in the centre. In the example of France, 70% of the energy it produces is nuclear, while Germany is highly dependent on gas.
Teresa Ribera, Minister of Ecological Transition on behalf of the Spanish Government, expressed a clear stance against the inclusion of nuclear and natural gas production in the green classification, which she sees as a “key” tool in decarbonizing the economy. “This makes no sense and gives false signals for the energy transition in the EU as a whole.”
In fact, the Observatory Against Greenwashing, an independent project made up of environmental organizations such as WWF, Ecologistas en Acción, BirdLife or Ecos, Faced with what he saw as the “failure” of European institutions, he created his own green taxonomy.because neither the Parliament nor the Council of Europe oppose the inclusion of gas and nuclear energy.
“The initiative aims to provide clarity to investors after the European Union lists gas energy, nuclear power, burning trees, heavy logging and other harmful activities as ‘sustainable’ in its Energy Taxonomy. European Union, new guidance for Europe ‘green’ investment”, WWF They indicate from. With this alternative taxonomy“banks, investors and insurers will be able to check whether their investments are truly green and in line with science”.
This classification can be consulted on the website www.greenwashed.net.
HOW TO DETECT ‘GREENWASHING’?
Environmentally conscious purchasing involves much more than being guided by the indications of a questionable label. It’s possible to avoid falling into ‘green laundering’ cases with these cheats:
one.He doubts the “biological” and the “organic”. Sustainability-related adjectives are often used in labeling by ‘Ecopostureo’, and in most cases these adjectives are not presented with a scientific argument or sufficient evidence to show artisanal origin or procedures. environmentally friendly.
2.There is a lot of green in the package. Another marketing tactic green wash It consists of painting the packaging and packaging of products green, and in some cases even drawing plants to give the impression that the item is natural or less processed.
3.Incorrect or invalid certificates. In some cases, brands base their environmental liability statements on certificates made by a third party that may be inaccurate or lack official verification. Always check their origin and whether they have been authorized by an official regulatory agency.
4.Fill in the information. In order to try to add value to their products, companies exhibit some features in their products that they are actually obliged to guarantee by law. This is the case for CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) in any aerosol, banned in the EU since 1995, or lead in gasoline, which has been banned in Spain since 2001.
5.Composition. Especially in food, it is seen that packaging emphasizes only two or three natural ingredients or ingredients, deliberately ignoring other substances harmful to the environment or to the health of the consumer.
……..
Contact address of the environment department: [email protected]