Green Tech

There is real money behind the claims of corporations "going green," but consumers still need convincing that it's more than just feel-good PR, a couple of recently released studies show.

Nearly every day seems to bring fresh news of corporations boosting their commitment to the environment, either through internal energy-efficiency measures or plans to introduce green tech products.

In a report released on Wednesday called the State of Green Business, consultant and writer Joel Makower and his colleagues from Greener World Media say that businesses are making progress in addressing environmental problems, such as climate change or toxic waste.

But those efforts don't appear to be enough to sufficiently reduce greenhouse gas emissions or meet other environmental targets.

"Companies are getting cleaner and more efficient, but only incrementally, and many of the gains are offset by the ever-growing economy. So, while greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of economic activity may be dropping, the growing economy means those emissions are largely unchanged," Makower wrote.

Still, more and more companies are recognizing that pursuing environmentally aware policies does not necessarily conflict with a corporation's financial goals, he said.

Separately, Allianz Global Investors published another in a steady stream of reports from investment firms singling out business opportunities from climate change.

Allianz, however, surveyed consumers as well and found that there is a strong desire to find socially or environmentally conscious ways to invest.

Out of over 1,000 investors surveyed, almost half said they were likely to invest in a company or mutual fund with an environmental component to it. Seventeen percent said they already have made that sort of investment.

But the survey also uncovered some mistrust of corporations' claims. Seventy-eight percent said that most companies today are choosing to focus on environmental issues for public relations, rather than financial, value.

The State of Green Business study also noted that "greenwashing" has become concern among consumers

Yet despite any consumer skepticism, businesses' commitments to green technology and products are expected to rise, as they seek to capitalize on environmental problems and appeal to consumers' desire for greener products.

"Environmental products and services are moving from the realm of corporate social responsibility or niche activities to core businesses that will generate significant future revenue stream," Bozena Jankowska, lead portfolio manager of the Allianz RCM Global EcoTrends Fund, said in a statement.

Manufacturers are falling over themselves to call their products "green" these days yet consumers often have limited means to verify those claims. But before consumers get cynical about those claims, better standards and certifications are needed, according to one expert.

Surveys show that about 20 percent of the public is interested in green products, with a small percentage of "deep greens" who are very well educated on products and services.

But how can a consumer avoid getting duped or disillusioned? Follow the lead of other industries, where there is some oversight of food and car safety or the financial statements that companies put out, said Scot Case, a vice president of environmental marketing firm TerraChoice.

In other words, what green products need are standards and reputable certifications.

"One of the ways to avoid so-called greenwashing is to actually prove that you can meet the standard," Case said.

TerraChoice, which administers the EcoLogo program, covering about 7,000 products, did a survey late last year that found that "greenwashing," where companies make overinflated or false statements about products, was rampant. Out of more than 1,000 consumer products investigated, nearly all committed a greenwashing "sin."

The situation has become so serious that the Federal Trade Commission earlier this month started a series of hearings on green marketing.

The FTC chose to focus first on voluntary carbon offsets, where people purchase a certificate that represents an investment in reducing carbon emissions, such as a renewable-energy project.

But everything from televisions to home-cleaning products are calling themselves clean. Green alternatives was the theme of both the North American International Auto Show (aka the Detroit auto show) and the Consumer Electronics Show in the past few weeks.

The danger is that aggressive green marketing, combined with a proliferation of more specialized certificates, will lead to misinformation and unhappy consumers, said Case.

"This is what absolutely terrifies me," said Case. "It killed the movement in the 1980s. Green products were all the rage but the volume of greenwashing created so much cynicism that people walked away."

The other problem in the 1980s was that many environmental products were simple and not as good.

These days, consumers have many more choices to buy products that are as good, if not better, and priced the same.

The long arm of ISO.
How were standards set? The EcoLogo program starts with ISO, the international standards organization that sets blueprints for everything from battery sizes to digital documents. The ISO outlines how a standards should be set. For example, a printer's green certificate should take into account the amount of recycled material and hazardous chemicals used.

Then certification authorities write a standard with input from interested parties. Then they are published, Case explained.

In the case of EcoLogo, manufacturers apply to gain the certification and then independent auditors go out to test the products. The goal, Case said, is to set the standard so that only the top 20 percent of the market can get the certification, while recognizing the inevitable trade-offs that occur between say, energy efficiency, and recycled materials.

Depending on how you look at the numbers, the failure rate for gaining green bragging rights is quite high.

Ninety-seven percent of people who show initial interest in the EcoLogo program don't get to the point of applying for certification. About 83 percent who think they can meet the standard can prove it, said Case, who also mentioned the Green Seal certification.

"This is the Information Age. If I want to buy green product, I should be able to go online in the store with my phone to get details," he said. "That's the way to stop greenwashing. You provide the information."

Printer companies are under attack as more people become concerned about global warming and toxic pollution.

The solution? "Printer Vendors Need to Greenwash Their Image."

That unfortunate headline was the theme of an e-mail newsletter this morning from Lyra Research, a well-respected firm that tracks the digital imaging industry.

Apparently the writer didn't realize or care that "greenwashing" is a negative term. It describes how companies aiming to appeal to treehuggers are painting a green face, without necessarily cleaning up their act.

Picky consumers detest this trend, which makes it nearly impossible to tell which companies walk the green walk instead of merely spouting a green talk. Earlier this decade, greenwashing wasn't so insidious because most claims of eco-friendliness were made by small enterprises, like, say, your local weaver of organic hemp hacky sacks.

But now that the world's biggest corporations aim to appear green--sincerely or cynically--it's easy to be fooled by multimillion-dollar public relations campaigns.

This year, printer hardware is expected to contribute 1 million tons of solid waste in this country alone, while pulp and paper companies are the fourth-largest toxic polluters of water, according to Lyra.

The Lyra newsletter asked, "What can the industry do to prevent an attack by environmental groups and create a better image for itself?"

To start, the industry could gain some friends by reworking its razor cartridge model of ink replacement. I learned quickly--through reviewing printers for CNET--how much people hate that the cost of ink and toner quickly exceeds the price of the printer itself. Vendors insist that people use their premium-price, branded inks or suffer crummy-looking pages. And disposing of cartridges is a pain, even if you're organized enough to mail them in or bring them to stores, such as Walgreen's, for reuse.

Also, how about better tech support and repair? Fixing gadgets should be no harder than taking a cracked heel to the shoe cobbler. The tech industry overall should make better-quality, longer-lasting hardware. A printer that cranks out one page faster per minute than last season's model is not efficient. A printer that lasts but a year and costs more to fix than replace is not sustainable.

Yes, people at HP and most other printer companies have made sincere efforts to establish responsible recycling programs. They've also made more models Energy Star efficient, experimented with corn-based plastic and modular components, and made it easier to print on two sides of a page to reduce paper waste. You might even argue that personal photo printers are kinder to the planet than traditional lab photofinishing.

Still, what's the secret sauce in all that proprietary ink and toner? Materials safety data sheets that companies are required by law to report do not detail the little-tested toxicity of these chemical cocktails. The information is limited largely because American laws regulating potentially dangerous chemicals are notoriously weak.

It took independent testing by an Australian lab to root out potentially cancerous, asthma-inducing ingredients in laser toner.

I don't want to breathe in that noxious dust at my desk, and I certainly don't want to breathe in the hot air of greenwashing. Let's hope that tech companies boast of small successes in moving toward sustainability without getting ahead of themselves.

Environmental marketing firm TerraChoice found that many retail products overstate their environmental attributes, a practice which risks causing skepticism among consumers.

The company sent people to big-box retail stores to find products labeled as green. In the process, it found that almost all of them committed at least one of what it calls "sins of greenwashing."

(Credit: TerraChoice)

Most common was the "Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off," where manufacturers claim a product has a green feature, such as recycled paper content, but don't pay attention to potentially more important issues, such as global warming or water use.

Second most common was the Sin Of No Proof, where consumers don't have the means to verify claims. Click here for a PDF of the study which details the other "sins." It was released this month.

To many people, this may sound like nitpicking. If manufacturers use more recycled material or make an effort to use benign chemicals, they should be able to label their products as such. And clearly, you'd expect a company like TerraChoice, whose business is environmental marketing, to have high standards.

On the other hand, the more information that manufacturers can provide, the better. If a "green consumer" is purchasing in part on the basis of environmental attributes, why not be as explicit and detailed as possible?

TerraChoice calls for better standards and labels and for consumers to be more savvy in their purchases.