Eco luxury or extravagant greenwash

A tree-saving tale 

I typically don't 'call out' brands on this blog for doing the wrong thing, but I had to share with you the most extreme case of greenwashing I'd seen in awhile (a discussion on greenwash follows this tale).

I was contacted by a wooden watch company asking me to write an article about their latest product in exchange for a watch valued between $1000 and $5000 (this price point was the first red flag). The key selling point? They were going to, and I quote, "Take down the world's oldest tree", Old Tjikko, who resides on Fulufjället Mountain in Sweden.

Yes, you read that correctly - they wanted me to write about a watch made from killing the world's oldest tree - currently aged 9,558 years.

Between you and me - I don't know that this tree could
even make 500 watches! Old Tjikko is part of a clonal
system, meaning that even if the trunk dies, the roots
are still alive and a new trunk can grow. He is also playing
an important role in some climate change research.

Look, I get it, wooden things are made of trees. But no conservationist in her right mind would propose using an old growth tree for making consumer goods. And why in the world would a company contact an environmentalist to spruik a product made from a tree that is over 9,500 years old?!

After I made sure the media release was not dated April Fool's Day, I wrote back to the company asking for more details on why Old Tjikko was coming down, admitting that I was quite shocked to read that this was their plan. I suppose I was hoping that perhaps Old Tjikko was dying and being cut down anyway, and that the company wasn't just trying to make some cash off of what they perceived to be a lucrative opportunity (because whether I like it or not, there is definitely a market who wants products with this type of notoriety).

The response I received from the company was another head scratcher - without telling me anything about why Old Tjikko was coming down, they wrote of the substantial "regulatory hurdles" and that they planned on going to environmental court the next month. Also telling me "I hope to have some good news for you over the coming weeks".

Good news for me would mean the tree was not being cut down . . .

I gave them one more chance and asked again what the reason was to 'take down' Old Tjikko. In response I received more of the same, with the added bonus of being told how much they've already paid in legal fees ($100,000USD), that they expect to go to court at the end of the month, and how much they expect to spend in legal fees altogether ($670,000USD). All of this to produce 500 custom watches.

But don't worry, they plan on planting 100 new trees for each watch sold.

BUT WHY ARE YOU KILLING THE WORLD'S OLDEST TREE?!

At this point I was incredibly irritated and took to the internet to find out what I could about the tree.

Thanks to the magic of Google, a good Swedish friend, and a kind Swedish artist who has spent time with Old Tjikko, I got in touch with a representative at the forest. He was as shocked and appalled as I was - well, probably a great deal more, to be honest - and over the course of the day I received three emails from him assuring me that Old Tjikko is well protected and not coming down, that his boss agreed the tree was well protected, and that his boss checked with her boss at the Swedish EPA who also confirmed there was no way Old Tjikko was coming down (particularly not to make watches).

"As the tree is within the national park, it is protected for all foreseeable future."

I cannot even express the relief I felt at learning this news. I think with all the troubles in the world right now (with greedy companies taking advantage of people who want to save the planet just a tiny part of the problem), I really needed to hear some good news and to know that there are true environmentalists doing the hard work of protecting nature from the likes of this watch company.

Feeling like a tree-saving sleuth, I eventually emailed the wooden watch company and told them that my environmentalist values had led me to contact the forest representatives and what I had learned about the protected nature of Old Tjikko.

I also told them that, "At any rate, I cannot in good conscience support the cutting down of this tree to make any product unless there is a sound reason to do so, which there does not appear to be."

Within a day, the media release announcing this product was off their wesbite and the Wikipedia page of Old Tjikko was returned to normal (some 'marketing genius' from the company had added a sentence to the page stating that the company was going to make watches from the tree).

So . . . the moral of the story? I guess there are a few.

• Beware of greenwashing, it's everywhere (and usually not as blatant as this example)
• If something doesn't seem right to you, ask about it. And ask about it again. And if you're still not satisfied, don't buy the product. For every decent, well-intentioned brand, unfortunately there are many more willing to scam you, and the good brands have no trouble being transparent.
• Love old growth trees - and perhaps plan a trip to Sweden. You may not get to see Old Tjikko, he's very well protected, but it's nice to know he has some serious guardians protecting him from the likes of this watch company.

I decided not to tell you the name of the company here, though if you tried hard enough I'm sure  you'd find it (the media release is still on other news pages). They claim to plant a tree for each of their current range of wooden watches, but those watches aren't made of sustainably sourced wood, either. So if you're truly in the market for an eco-friendly wooden watch, stick with the original WeWood, and feel good about your decision. And don't reward blatant greenwashing and attempts to make a quick buck off your environmental values.

* * * *

I never heard from the watch company again, so I can only assume their motives were purely financial whether they actually used Old Tjikko or just wanted to create hype with a media release talking about it in this way. I feel very confident this company is not about the environment but about their bank accounts and an attempt to take advantage of the so-called 'cashed up green consumer'.

It's reported that 'green' consumers will pay 10-20% more for products that have an environmental benefit, as those who endeavour to live a green lifestyle know all too well. There are multiple conferences dedicated to promoting products to this group of shoppers, 'sustainability' experts who are really just green marketing experts, and as a dedicated environmentalist, I often feel I'm fending off greenwashing attacks at every turn. Becoming a writer and a blogger has made this all the more apparent.

Sometimes it's worth it - I'm happy to pay more so the person sewing my clothes is paid a fair wage and works in a safe factory, or that my produce is organic and free of toxins. Other times it can feel like a scam, as in the case of this 'eco luxury' wooden watch and other goods painted with a similar 'green' hue but not created with environmental values at their core.

But at the end of the day, I know that living a green lifestyle is less expensive than my previous mode of existence mostly because I don't buy what I don't need or love - so these greenwashers can't touch me

* * * *

What is greenwashing?

In short, it's when companies claim to be more environmentally-friendly than they really are - and it's everywhere. There are some great articles about the '7 sins of Greenwashing', including one by my friend Robin Mellon at Better Sydney, which describe the varying degrees of greenwashing:

• The hidden trade off
• No proof
• Vagueness
• Worshipping false labels
• Irrelevance
• Lesser of two evils
• Fibbing

This watch company was using a mixture - the hidden trade off (planting new trees though cutting down an old growth tree), vagueness (no information about the wood used in their current range of watches), worshipping false labels (planting trees with a certified company though not using certified wood to create watches), fibbing (probably . . .)

Have you been greenwashed lately? I'd love to hear about it . . . we can vent with each other.
xxLisa

Also, a special thanks to Robin, who was an excellent support and sounding board during this stressful time of Old Tjikko - thank you!

a green sustainable brands fling

Whew!

I just wrapped up four days at Sustainable Brands 2013 here in San Diego and my head is swimming. American culture shock mixed with immersing myself in the US sustainability and CSR (corporate social responsibility) market and being surrounded by lots of outgoing marketing types was a heady combination my first week back on the mainland. I am now happily sipping on an Aussie-style flat white (I found one in Bird Rock!) and reflecting on the past few days.

First, a huge shout out to the organizers of the event, Sustainable Brands. Having been involved with three Green Cities conferences I can totally appreciate all the work that goes into these events.  From an attendee perspective, it was flawless. I especially appreciated the commitment to sustainability including the goal to become zero waste, the availability of real coffee cups and glasses, and the amazing sustainable food options, most notably the vegetarian barbeque.

Well done!

My lunch one day - so many delish local vegetarian dishes!

I don't have such a positive opinion on all the content, however. As someone who is undoubtedly 'dark green' (to use marketing lingo), I had a hard time with some of the speakers. London-based sustainability communications agency Futerra led an ongoing debate as to whether brands are the problem or the solution to sustainability, and after this week I remain on the fence. I'd like to think they could be (they do have the dosh, after all!), but some of the companies at the conference do a whole lot of greenwashing and leave me skeptical of their intentions. Many keynote speakers highlighted the importance of transparency and authenticity, so I hope all the brands start taking notice.

I was particularly disappointed in the session on the Bangladesh disaster and other outsourced factory worker safety issues. Apart from one or two panelists (who did not represent brands) and the excellent moderator, the panelists seemed to largely pass the buck to consumers for demanding cheap goods and/or the broken auditing systems. Whilst I understand it is a complex situation on all sides, the blatant refusal to acknowledge brands' roles in the overall problems is unacceptable to this fashion purchaser and ethical goods advocate. Trust me, people will respect your company more if you are open, acknowledge that your company plays a part in the status quo, and commit to work on a solution - even if you don't know what your brand's specific solution is just yet. Enough is enough, and we consumers are demanding more and better of you.

But let's end on a light note, shall we? There were some amazing examples of projects made possible by corporate brands and the amazing bank accounts and connections they have at their disposal.

(Warning: you may want to have a hanky handy!)

Philips has created Community Light Centers in Africa. I had the privilege of spending two months on this amazing continent last year, and I know these centers will make a huge impact to the daily lives of individuals who could use some more smiling and hope for a brighter future.



Similarly, after visiting India and previously working for a non-profit working on health issues in rural India, I am impressed with the following handwashing campaign led by Unilever called Lifebuoy.



I hope both these organizations have long-term commitments to these important projects. I will definitely be keen to know the long-term impact. Exciting stuff.

Unilever is also behind the Dove Real Beauty Sketches campaign. I suspect most of my female readers have seen it, but it's worth watching again and again, and reminding yourself how beautiful you are.



Finally, this hilarious clip by the Rainforest Alliance had most of us laughing - I can totally relate to this guy! Just as you don't have to give up your style to be sustainable, you don't have to change your entire life, either. Follow the frog instead.



Now after all that serious 'office work' I'm off to Yosemite!  I'm ready to immerse myself in nature for a few days ahead of reconnecting with my family in Utah. I'll keep you posted on the sustainable experiences I have along the way. And watch out for more specific blog posts on some smaller projects I came across at the conference over the coming weeks - there are quite a few things to get very excited about!

xxLisa

a green fling lesson : lca

Have you ever been shopping for shampoo and been faced with conflicting messages across the labels such as:

• 100% natural
• Degradable bottle
• Organic ingredients
• Non-toxic
• Packaging made from recycled plastic

How do you know what’s the most eco-friendly choice?

I wish I could tell you the answer is easy, but it’s not. Not yet, anyway.

Every item we consume has a long environmental rap sheet, and it’s not all available on product packaging. This is where Life Cycle Assessment – or LCA – comes into play.  In the opinion of many environmentalists this represents the future of eco-purchasing across many areas.

Recently I sat down with my mate Ben Kneppers from Edge Environment to get the latest from the world of LCA. 

Can you explain to us non-engineers what LCA is?

LCA is a way of measuring the environmental footprint of a given product, service or system from cradle to grave. LCA takes a holistic approach, considering a range of the most critical environmental aspects of a product – including carbon, pollution, water, energy and materials – throughout its entire life as well as what happens at the end of its life, for example, can it be recycled? Will it biodegrade? Will it end up in a landfill or damaging ecosystems? Can it be upcycled into something else?

A number of products’ environmental claims at present only provide a small amount of information based only on carbon emissions or water use, and the aim of LCA is to provide the complete picture.

Why is it important for consumers to know about LCA?

A lot of consumers want to make environmentally-aware purchases, but unfortunately many of them may be greenwashed or simply give up because of a lack of information. Understanding that a product’s environmental footprint includes more than just carbon takes consumers in the right direction and allows them to make more informed decisions.

Consumers are increasingly aware of this, even if they wouldn’t call it LCA. Research shows that LOHAS (lifestyles of health and sustainability) consumer numbers are continuing to grow each year, and their number one complaint is confusion caused by eco-labelling.

So is the future of LCA eco-labelling?

Absolutely.  Green claims are easy to make, but harder to prove, and consumers are learning this.  Even the experts can get confused.  But having an independently verified ‘seal’ or ‘certification’ on a product that has taken into account the complete environmental cost can provide consumers peace of mind in their eco-purchases.

We’re seeing great work done in this area internationally at the moment, including with Walmart Chile.  Together with Fundación Chile, Edge Environment has developed dozens of product category LCAs for food, beverages and detergents to support the suppliers and sustainability managers at Walmart Chile to focus on key environmental issues.  This work has been closely aligned with the Sustainability Measurement and Reporting System of The Sustainability Consortium, a global network of LCA and sustainability practitioners working to standardise eco-labelling.

What makes you excited about LCA?

I have an engineering degree, and with my ‘scientific-mind’ LCA just makes so much sense.  The hard data is something I can grasp and clearly see what we are doing wrong in terms of resource depletion and unsustainable growth.

And we’re just scratching the surface with what we know and what we can do with LCA. It can dramatically impact the way the world works. The work we’re doing with Walmart is just the tip of LCA iceberg.

Edge Environment was the perfect place for me to get into the field. They’re committed to using best practice scientific methods to pursue pioneering work that makes real change to the sustainability industry. Beyond LCA we consult on Climate Change Adaptation and sustainability strategies for organisations.

Thank you Ben!

Do you have any other burning environmental questions you'd like me to investigate for you? Drop me a line!

a green fling lesson: greenwashing

I've been greenwashed!

Nothing frustrates this greenie more than greenwashing.  Never heard of it?

Green-wash (green'wash', -wosh') - verb: the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company of the environmental benefits of a product or service.

Terrachoice has a great website that covers the seven sins of greenwashing - I highly recommend a quick read of the sin explanations, from the hidden trade-off, to no proof, to irrelevance to out and out fibbing.  Greenwashing can be deliberate or not, but is anything that misleads the consumer into thinking she or he is buying 'green' when they are not.  Unfortunately while eco-labelling is not mandatory and we're learning the intricacies of sustainability, it seems we'll all be touched by greenwashing - even me.

It's embarrassing to admit, but I've just been greenwashed by my hair salon (sigh...).  I won't be naming and shaming here, just sharing my story so you can hopefully learn from my experience.

Over a year ago I received an e-newsletter from a local salon who claimed they had gone green - they'd switched to green power, were using natural detergents and cleaning supplies, offering organic coffee, tea and wine to their clients, and had switched to Aveda* hair products and colouring.  This greenie was ecstatic!  When I called and made an appointment I checked that they definitely used Aveda (my previous salon had recently switched from Aveda to another brand), and made sure to tell them the reason I was coming was because they had gone green - I love rewarding moments of green enlightenment!

Over the course of the year I noticed an increase in the range of hair products they sold, not all of them green, and in particular they were pushing the Moroccan Oil brand.  When they tried to get me to purchase it I asked about its environmental credentials, and all they said was that it was green and all natural (a quick look at the ingredients told me it wasn't). Then on my last visit when I walked past the colour cabinet after being rinsed at the oh-so-comfortable-and-decadent massaging chair slash wash-basin, I saw that none of the boxes of colour were Aveda - what?! When I asked about this the response was that Aveda didn't offer the range of colour they were looking for.  By then it was too late, I already had the colour on my head! So in addition to my cut, colour and wash I'd been greenwashed.

Another disturbing fact was that they changed from using natural detergents to wash their towels to using a company called The Big Towel Company - a company selling what they claim to be 'eco-friendly, biodegradable, single use towels'.  The claims on the website make this a tricky one, especially for those just dabbling in the green arena, but my gut feeling was that they were greenwashers.  I called on my favourite LCA expert for his advice to help me sort his one out - thanks Ben! 

Ben explained that the company is making claims without the proof, and leaving out key elements of the process (for instance, it takes a lot of water and energy to turn raw wood into paper, and they have not indicated any accreditation for the timber and its origins - if it's truly sustainable then it would be FSC certified).  They committed sins of the hidden trade-off and no truth in these two facts alone.  In addition nearly all single-use products have a higher environmental impact than multiple-use products, and the salon would be washing and drying using green power, so the salon would be greener if they used cotton towels (organic would be preferred!) and washed in their earth-friendly detergents as they did when they originally went green.

I'm not sure if the salon realises they are being greenwashed and then passing that onto all of us customers or not - I suspect they don't. 

So, what do I do now?  Find another salon, I suppose.  Their moving away from Aveda was enough for me, and the towel thing merely added fuel to that fire.  I think I'll suggest they reconsider using The Big Towel company in case they don't realise they've been greenwashed, just to help clear the air.

So there you have it - greenwashing 101.  I hope this lesson was helpful and encourages you to ask questions and research green claims before you commit to a 'green' purchase.  It can be tricky, but the information is always there if you know where to look! 

If you have any other burning sustainability questions, fire them my way.
xx


*There are rumblings that Aveda itself is greenwashing.  The hair colour products use 97-99% plant-dervived ingredients.  I realise that this means the remainder of the product is synthetic, and don't feel they are deliberately lying.  Also they are the best of the bunch in terms of salon quality colour.  They also have strong sustainability guidelines regarding material sourcing, using windpower and have hired 'Cradle to Cradle' guru Michael Braungart as a consultant to ensure they continue to improve - this is an organisation I'm happy to support.  Other greenies have other opinions.

For now my choice is to use Aveda professional hair colour - I'll write more about hair colour in another post to elaborate on the details, including why this greenie is still colouring her hair.