October 2, 2012
FTC Puts Greenwashers on Notice
The Federal Trade Commission has issued new marketing guidelines intended to clarify what the agency considers to be truthful claims about a product or company’s eco-friendliness. Claims made outside the FTC’s "Green Guides" are likely to draw the type of scrutiny that marketers can do without.
“The introduction of environmentally friendly products into the marketplace is a win for consumers who want to purchase greener products and for producers who want to sell them,” said Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, in a statement. “But this win-win can only occur if marketers’ claims are truthful and substantiated. The FTC’s changes to the Green Guides will level the playing field for honest business people and it is one reason why we had such broad support.”
The FTC’s update is the first made by the agency since 1998. According to the FTC, Green Guides took into account "nearly 340 unique comments and more than 5,000 total comments received" since it first released proposed revisions in the fall of 2010.
While the new guidelines are not rules or regulations from the FTC, the agency has said that violation could lead to it issuing warnings or fines.
“We’re very pleased with what we see,” Arthur Weissman, president and CEO of Green Seal, told USA Today. “With this new guidance, we hope that there will be enforcement to help rid the marketplace of the many less-than-credible seals and greenwashing that exists,” Mr. Weissman added in an interview with The Associated Press.
The Guides caution companies from making broad claims about eco-friendliness. Reproduced here from the FTC’s press release, the Guides also:
- advise marketers not to make an unqualified degradable claim for a solid waste product unless they can prove that the entire product or package will completely break down and return to nature within one year after customary disposal;
- caution that items destined for landfills, incinerators, or recycling facilities will not degrade within a year, so marketers should not make unqualified degradable claims for these items; and
- clarify guidance on compostable, ozone, recyclable, recycled content, and source reduction claims.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
How widespread do you think greenwashing is in the U.S.? What effect do you think the new FTC Green Guides will have on eco-marketing?
Poll
Green has been “in” for some time. There is no question some companies are intentionally greenwashing. Other manufacturers may have positioned themselves as being green simply because the actions they took made them greener than they were historically.
The new rules being spelled out by the FTC provide a more cohesive framework for companies to judge whether they should label their products as eco-friendly. If they don’t meet the guidelines, they point out what actions need to be taken to do so. I believe this is good for manufacturers, consumers, and the environment.
Greenwashing is rampant. Marketers will say (and should say) whatever they can that hits a customer’s hot button. Unless the guidelines actually carry penalties, they are close to worthless.
Laws are the only things that keeps labeling honest and often times they even fail. It is the responsibility of the marketer to sell product via communication that generates a sale. It is not the marketer’s responsibility to be honest about it.
Greenwashing has become viral around the globe. Not sure the FTC will limit some of the broad claim, since those claims can easily be manipulated to conform with the regulations. However, it is a step in the right direction.
We are awash in greenwashing claims.
Nice to see the Fed is right on top of this issue. Not only are revised regulations 14 years overdue, they seem to be as brainless as their poorly written regulatory forbears.
For the uninitiated — NOTHING “degrades” in a properly built landfill. A fact in evidence for over several decades thanks to the pioneering work of William Rathje and his, “Garbage Project.”
So, yes, some packaging will, “degrade,” if left, say, at the side of a road where it rains a lot and the sun beats down in the interims between downpours.
But even all degradation isn’t created equal. Polymers break down, but some of their component parts often leach into groundwater supplies. It’s that whole Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy thing you slept through in elementary school.
If you want to understand what real ecological regulation can look like, check out some of the early efforts of our Canadian neighbors to develop full lifecycle management laws for all manufactured products.
It seems to me the entire ecological vocabulary, from “organic,” and “biodegradable,” to the big offender “sustainability,” has been hopelessly co-opted in the U.S.
You don’t make a broken machine more effective just by polishing it, Again, as far as I can see, it’s all greenwash. We don’t want to get serious about these issues because it would be expensive, (something manufacturers and retailers don’t want) and it would “negatively” impact our lifestyles, (something consumers and marketers don’t want).
Greenwashing is just another form of marketing. You basically take an everyday item and re-brand it as eco-friendly or nutritious. It’s more about making the consumer feel better than reality. The FTC is wasting their time and being too picky.
With no guidelines or guidelines created by individual organizations or associations, most every claim could probably be considered greenwashing by someone’s guidelines. Now there is another set of guidelines. In the end, is is still a caveat emptor ares — who knows which guidelines are being followed and how valid those guidelines are.
I’m not sure I agree with Gene that “It is not the marketer’s responsibility to be honest”; well actually I AM sure…I disagree with that. But we’re here to discuss the FTC regs: they seem limited and timid, which I suppose is what happens when you try to please everyone and have limited enforcement power. Speaking of which, I find the claim “the new guidelines are not rules or regulations … (but) violation could lead to … warnings or fines” to be something of a non-sequitur; although, again, I suppose that kind of doublethink is the inevitable result of conservative/business demands that — on the one hand, ask that rules be flexible and creative, but then — on the other hand — turn around and say no one should be held accountable because the law is ambiguous.
The FTC is a toothless monster. Why are they “protecting” us again when they can’t keep Rachel from calling me 10 times a day to lower my credit card rates when I don’t even have a credit card with “rates.” I would hope that the government would actually concentrate our resources on things that matter. Just let the market fix these problems. Let the do-gooder groups file the lawsuits and allow our legal system to fix the problems.
Eco-marketing would seem to be just another scam fostered on the American populace designed to lull the uninformed into thinking they can rely on anyone other than themselves. The FTC Green Guides are a waste of national resources. Greenwashing will continue as long as consumers remain ignorant and I see nothing that will abolish ignorance!
Very little. It is difficult to manage the “green” level of a product, let alone determine who is responsible for this, without having some level of accountability.
I seldom favor additional oversight from the federal government, but here’s one instance. Those who know me are familiar with my rants about overuse and fraudulent use of “organic,” “all-natural,” “sustainable,” biodegradable,” and “green” — mostly for their loose definitions and absence of proof that products identified with these labels are beneficial in any way whatsoever.
These new marketing guidelines from the FTC assuage my concerns — a little. As an ad agency veteran, however, I experienced first-hand the practice of “make the claim until they make you stop.” “Nine out of ten doctors agree?” Some things never change.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Green has been “in” for some time. There is no question some companies are intentionally greenwashing. Other manufacturers may have positioned themselves as being green simply because the actions they took made them greener than they were historically.
The new rules being spelled out by the FTC provide a more cohesive framework for companies to judge whether they should label their products as eco-friendly. If they don’t meet the guidelines, they point out what actions need to be taken to do so. I believe this is good for manufacturers, consumers, and the environment.
Greenwashing is rampant. Marketers will say (and should say) whatever they can that hits a customer’s hot button. Unless the guidelines actually carry penalties, they are close to worthless.
Laws are the only things that keeps labeling honest and often times they even fail. It is the responsibility of the marketer to sell product via communication that generates a sale. It is not the marketer’s responsibility to be honest about it.
Greenwashing has become viral around the globe. Not sure the FTC will limit some of the broad claim, since those claims can easily be manipulated to conform with the regulations. However, it is a step in the right direction.
We are awash in greenwashing claims.
Nice to see the Fed is right on top of this issue. Not only are revised regulations 14 years overdue, they seem to be as brainless as their poorly written regulatory forbears.
For the uninitiated — NOTHING “degrades” in a properly built landfill. A fact in evidence for over several decades thanks to the pioneering work of William Rathje and his, “Garbage Project.”
So, yes, some packaging will, “degrade,” if left, say, at the side of a road where it rains a lot and the sun beats down in the interims between downpours.
But even all degradation isn’t created equal. Polymers break down, but some of their component parts often leach into groundwater supplies. It’s that whole Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy thing you slept through in elementary school.
If you want to understand what real ecological regulation can look like, check out some of the early efforts of our Canadian neighbors to develop full lifecycle management laws for all manufactured products.
It seems to me the entire ecological vocabulary, from “organic,” and “biodegradable,” to the big offender “sustainability,” has been hopelessly co-opted in the U.S.
You don’t make a broken machine more effective just by polishing it, Again, as far as I can see, it’s all greenwash. We don’t want to get serious about these issues because it would be expensive, (something manufacturers and retailers don’t want) and it would “negatively” impact our lifestyles, (something consumers and marketers don’t want).
Greenwashing is just another form of marketing. You basically take an everyday item and re-brand it as eco-friendly or nutritious. It’s more about making the consumer feel better than reality. The FTC is wasting their time and being too picky.
With no guidelines or guidelines created by individual organizations or associations, most every claim could probably be considered greenwashing by someone’s guidelines. Now there is another set of guidelines. In the end, is is still a caveat emptor ares — who knows which guidelines are being followed and how valid those guidelines are.
I’m not sure I agree with Gene that “It is not the marketer’s responsibility to be honest”; well actually I AM sure…I disagree with that. But we’re here to discuss the FTC regs: they seem limited and timid, which I suppose is what happens when you try to please everyone and have limited enforcement power. Speaking of which, I find the claim “the new guidelines are not rules or regulations … (but) violation could lead to … warnings or fines” to be something of a non-sequitur; although, again, I suppose that kind of doublethink is the inevitable result of conservative/business demands that — on the one hand, ask that rules be flexible and creative, but then — on the other hand — turn around and say no one should be held accountable because the law is ambiguous.
The FTC is a toothless monster. Why are they “protecting” us again when they can’t keep Rachel from calling me 10 times a day to lower my credit card rates when I don’t even have a credit card with “rates.” I would hope that the government would actually concentrate our resources on things that matter. Just let the market fix these problems. Let the do-gooder groups file the lawsuits and allow our legal system to fix the problems.
Eco-marketing would seem to be just another scam fostered on the American populace designed to lull the uninformed into thinking they can rely on anyone other than themselves. The FTC Green Guides are a waste of national resources. Greenwashing will continue as long as consumers remain ignorant and I see nothing that will abolish ignorance!
Very little. It is difficult to manage the “green” level of a product, let alone determine who is responsible for this, without having some level of accountability.
I seldom favor additional oversight from the federal government, but here’s one instance. Those who know me are familiar with my rants about overuse and fraudulent use of “organic,” “all-natural,” “sustainable,” biodegradable,” and “green” — mostly for their loose definitions and absence of proof that products identified with these labels are beneficial in any way whatsoever.
These new marketing guidelines from the FTC assuage my concerns — a little. As an ad agency veteran, however, I experienced first-hand the practice of “make the claim until they make you stop.” “Nine out of ten doctors agree?” Some things never change.