Green Marketing Goes Negative: The Advent of Reverse Greenwashing

Author(s): Eric L. Lane

Source: European Journal of Risk Regulation , 2012, Vol. 3, No. 4 (2012), pp. 582-588
Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24323826

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to European Journal of Risk Regulation

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 582 I Reports EJRR 4|20i2

down specific purity criteria on foo

than colours andIntellectual
sweeteners8, Property lysoz
from hen's This section
eggs whites. is devoted to giving
Eggsreaders an inside
and view p
of the crossing point between intellectual property (IP)
are listed as allergens in Annex I
law and risk regulation. In addition to updating read
2000/13/EC the European Parliam of
ers on the latest developments in IP law and policies
Council of 20 March 2000 on the ap
in technological fields (including chemicals, pharma
the laws of the Member States relatin
ceuticals, biotechnology, agriculture and foodstuffs),
presentation and advertising of foodst
the section aims at verifying whether such laws and
the presence of lysozyme in beers m
policies really stimulate scientific and technical pro
on the labelling with the word 'cont
gress and are capable of minimising the risks posed
the name of theby ingredient
on-going industrial developments to(i.e.,
individuals' eg
this context, in a Scientific
health and safety, inter alia. Opinion
October 2011 related to the request f
exemption from labelling for lysoz
egg to be used inGreen
the Marketing Goes Negative: The
manufacture o
microbial stabilizer/additive,10
Advent of Reverse Greenwashing EFSA
wines treated with lysozyme may t
lergic reactions Eric
in L. Lane*
susceptible indiv
therefore, labelling was required. Sc
and requests forI. Introduction
authorisation of n
ing food additives for technological
those previouslyWe authorised
are now well into a period of unprecedented
appear lev
less costly alternative
els of green branding andto the
green marketing deve
in which
additives.Since advertising
the adoption
environmentally friendly products,ofser th
vices, and business practices
Commission Regulation (EU) is prolific
No.and prof 112
vember 2011 amending
itable.1 Many authors andAnnex
commentators, including
II to
No. 1333/2008 ofthis the European
one, have written Parlia
extensively about the resulting
Council by explosion of greenwashing
establishing a Union - making false or mis
list of
this procedure leading claims
has been about purportedly
used environmentally
six tim
friendly aspects of products or services - its effects
on consumers, and efforts to combat the practice.2
Indeed, greenwashing is occurring on a vast scale.
TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, a sustainabil

Eric L. Lane is the author of Clean Tech Intellectual Property: Eco

marks, Green Patents, and Creen Innovation (Oxford: Oxford Uni
versity Press, 2011) and the founder and author of Green Patent
Blog, which covers intellectual property issues in clean technol
ogy. Mr. Lane is Of Counsel at McKenna Long & Aldridge in San
Diego, where he is part of the Climate, Energy & Sustainability
practice group and the Intellectual Property & Technology prac
tice group and is an adjunct professor at Thomas lefferson School
of Law.

8 OJ 2008 L 253/1.
9 O) 2000 L 109/29, repealed by Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on
the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regula
tions (EC) No. 1924/2006 and (EC) No. 1925/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive
87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive
1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC
and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 608/2004, Ol 2011 L 304/18.
10 EFSA Journal 2011 ;9(10):2386 [11 pp.].
11 OJ 2011 L 295/1.
See, e.g., Heidi Tolliver-Nigro, "Green Market to Grow 267 Per
cent by 2015", Matter Network, 29 )une 2009, available on the
Internet at <http://www.matternetwork.com/2009/6/green-market
grow-267-percent.cfm> (last accessed on 31 October 2012) ("[t| he
market for products and services meeting the needs [of green] con
sumers is currently estimated at $230 billion, according to Collette
Chandler, an author and consultant specializing in green marketing,
and is predicted to grow to $845 billion by 2015.").
See, e.g., Eric L. Lane, "Consumer Protection in the Eco-mark Era: A
Preliminary Survey and Assessment of Anti-Greenwashing Activity
and Eco-mark Enforcement", 9 /. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 742
(2010); David Gibson, Comment: Awash in Green: A Critical Per
spective on Environmental Advertising, 22 Tul. Envtl LJ. 423 (2009).

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EJRR 4|2012 Reports | 583

ity and marketing As we know,

consultancy,
many green brand owners are mak pub
initially called the "Six
ing legitimate Sins
green advertising of
claims Gree
in relation to
updated to thousands
include a of products and services, sin.3
seventh and many are Th
found that, of over
engaged in deceptive
1000 greenwashing.
self-declar
In either case,
ucts reviewed, all but
the notion is thatone exhibited
the products or services confer
greenwash environmental benefits. It flows
by committing from this of
one premise th
ish government that
watchdog agency,
if certain products are environmentally superior, t
Standards Authority,
there must be some has
products seen comp
that are environmen
advertisements making environmen
tally inferior to those "green" products.
quadruple in a recent one-year
This is where the perio
concept of reverse greenwashing
Thus, it is comes in. Greenwashing
becoming entails advertising that mis dif
increasingly
one brand owner or advertiser to stand out and be leads consumers about the environmental benefits of
noticed by green consumers amid the vast cacophonythe brand owner's goods or services, such as better
of legitimate and bogus green marketing claims. Per
energy efficiency of consumer appliances or lower
haps this challenge is one of the factors that has led toenvironmental impact of waste materials. Reverse
the latest phenomenon in green marketing - claimsgreenwashing, on the other hand, consists of false or
of environmental detriment - and the legal allega
deceptive claims about the negative environmental
tions lodged in response to it, which may be called impact of a competitor's products, such as the det
"reverse greenwashing." rimental effects of plastic bags on the environment.
To date the environmental marketing claims ac
cused of reverse greenwashing relate to petroleum
based products such as plastic bags. Depending on
one's point of view the companies targeted in this
3 5eeTerraChoice Environmental Marketing, The Seven Sins of Green
washing: Environmental Claims in Consumer Markets, April 2009, way for making fossil fuel-based products are being
available on the Internet at <http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/
rightfully called out or unfairly demonized, but one
greenwashing-report-2009/> (last accessed on 31 October 2012).
thing is for sure: if the critiques are actionable the
4 SeeTerraChoice Environmental Marketing, The Six Sins of Green
washing: Environmental Claims in Consumer Markets, Novembercompanies will take legal action.
2007, available on the Internet at <http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/ This article discusses the advent of reverse green
findings/greenwashing-report-2007/> (last accessed on 31 Octo
ber 2012). washing allegations with particular attention to a
5 See Advertising Standards Authority, Compliance Report: Envi high profile case in the United States involving plas
tic bags and a Danish court decision about metal
ronmental Claims Survey 2008 at p. 5, available on the Internet
at <http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Reports-and-surveys.
aspx> (last accessed on 31 October 2012) ("In 2006, the ASA repackaging products. This article also examines the
ceived 117 complaints about 83 ads making environmental claims.implications of reverse greenwashing from both the
During 2007 we received 561 complaints about 410 ads and, but
the end of June, the ASA had received 218 complaints about 160consumer protection standpoint and the perspective
ads in 2008."). of green brand owners and green marketers.
6 See ChicoBag home page, available on the Internet at <http://www.
chicobag.com/> (last accessed on 27 July 2012) ("ChicoBag special
izes in offering fashionable, environmentally friendly reusable shop
ping bags and lifestyle totes that are designed to be unforgettable."). II. Green Ads Go Negative
7 See id. ("The ChicoBag Company mission is to reduce single-use
bag waste by offering compact reusable bags and packs that are
designed to be unforgettable."). 1. Hilex Poly Company v. ChicoEco d/b/a
8 See ChicoBag About Us web page, available on the Internet at ChicoBag
<http://www.chicobag.com/about-us> (last accessed on 31 Octo
ber 2012) ("In 2004, Andy Keller, now ChicoBag president, took
ChicoBag is a popular provider of environmentally
a trip to his local landfill after spending the day landscaping his
backyard. He was horrified by what he saw. Single-use bags were friendly reusable shopping bags.6 By offering a vari
visually the dominant article at the landfill that day, blanketing the
landscape in a thin mix of white and beige plastic. On his way home
ety of stylish bags and totes, ChicoBag aims to reduce
he began to notice plastic bags everywhere, caught in trees andthe number of single use shopping bags entering the
on fence posts, half drowned in gutter puddles and blowing in the
streets like urban tumbleweeds.That day Andy vowed to stop using
waste stream.7 According to the company's web site,
single-use bags. Inspired, Andy dropped a few bucks on a secondChicoBag President and Founder Andy Keller started
hand sewing machine and began sewing what would ultimately
become the first ChicoBag® brand reusable bag.").
the company after witnessing first hand the volume

9 See id. ("Andy's ChicoBag brand reusable bags were first sold in
of single-use bags in his local landfill.8 The company
2005 on Earth Day at the Farmers Market in Chico, CA."). sold its first bags in 2005,9 enjoyed sales of $2 mil

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 584 ! Reports EJRR 4|20i2

lion after just a statementyears

two that "somewhere between
in 500 billion
busine
fers dozens of and a trillion plastic bags are
products inconsumed world
various
designs and wide each year";18
styles.11
For a product like
statements thatChicoBag's
"the world's largest landhll can reu
be found floating between
bags, the key market Hawaii and San Fran
differentiato
mental advantage cisco" and "this 'landhll'
they is estimated to be twiceover
confer
the size of Texas" and
ucts, single-use plastic the landhll is comprised
bags. To of effe
distinction the "mostly plastic bags";19
marketing pitch m
statements that
form of comparison in "[e]achwhich
year hundreds of thousing
sands of sea
are presented as an birds and marine life die from in
unfavorable opt
not, real and gestable [sic] [plastics mistaken or
substantiated for food" and
false
there has to be a that
badsuch plastics
guy are comprised
in mostly of plastic
compar
Therefore, bags.20
ChicoBag's marketing m
The plastic bag makers
detailed information also alleged that some
about the of neg
ChicoBag's assertions about its own reusable
tal impact of single-use plastic bags ba
has a "Learn the
were falseFacts" web
or misleading, such as the statement that page
detailed information
its products are superior toand
plastic bags and statistic
that a
lected from other
reusable bag needssources,
to be used only eleven times to about
mental harms such asimpact
have a lower environmental large
than using eleven marin
and threatened disposable bags.21
wildlife.12 ChicoBag
its own mascot, The
the bag makers Bag
noted that the key marketing is
Monster,
head to toe in a costume
sue here compris
is the question of the environmental impact
bags.13 The Bag of Monster
the shopping bags sold by the parties:
is a stark
Whether a bag causes environmental
of the average American damage is a
individua
bag consumption.14 material issue to consumers interested in purchas
Given ChicoBag's ing and/or using shopping bags.22
growth and popu
inherently negative slant of its ma
it is no surprise that some major m
plastic bags took notice and put th
10 5ee Coeli Carr, String Theory, Time, 17 July 2008 ("The product's
ery in motion in an
patented design helpedattempt
generate sales of $2 million in 2007."). to mu
January 2011, three of
11 See ChicoBag Products web pages, those
available on the Internet at bag m
<http://www.chicobag.com/category/shopping> (last accessed on
Company, Superbag Operating, an
31 October 2012); available on the Internet at <http://www.chico
- sued ChicoBag bag.com/category/fashion>
in federal court
(last accessed on 31 October 2012);
under the Lanham Act and state law for false adver available on the Internet at <http://www.chicobag.com/category/
on-the-go> (last accessed on 31 October 2012); available on the
tising and unfair competition in connection with its Internet at <http://www.chicobag.com/category/special-edition>
(last accessed on 31 October 2012).
statements and messages about the environmental
impact of plastic bags.15 12 See ChicoBag Learn the Facts web page, available on the Inter
net at <http://www.chicobag.com/learn-facts> (last accessed on
Specifically, the plastic bag makers accused Chico 31 October 2012).

Bag of making false, misleading and unsubstantiated

13 See ChicoBag Meet the Bag Monster web page, available on the
claims about the consumption, recycling, and envi Internet at <http://www.chicobag.com/meet-bag-monster> (last ac
cessed on 31 October 2012).
ronmental impact of plastic bags.16 According to the
14 See id.
second amended complaint, ChicoBag made several
15 Compl., Hilex Poly Co. v. ChicoEco, Inc., Case No. 11-cv-00116
false or deceptive claims in its advertising and pro JFA (D.S.C. 14 January 2011).
motion, and has falsely indicated that the claims are
16 Second Am. Compl. paras. 16-20, Hilex Poly Co. v. ChicoEco, Inc.,
substantiated. Case No. 11-cv-00116-JFA (D.S.C. 21 June 2011).

17 Id. at para. 16.

The disputed claims, allegedly contained in Chico 18 Id. at para. 17.

Bag's advertising and promotional materials, in 19 Id. at para. 18.

cluded: 20 Id. at para. 19.

a statement in that only one percent of plastic bags 21 Id. at paras. 13-15.

are recycled;17 22 Id. at para.25.

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EjRR 4|2012 Reports | 585

ChicoBag fought back both in the

the court of public opinion. In a
tled "Bag Wars: Plastic Bag Giants
Entrepreneur for Loss of Sales (E
munity Outraged)," ChicoBag add
bag makers' accusations head on a
suit should be viewed as part of
try's strategy of silencing the com
ing to the press release, the statem
made by third party sources such
tal Protection Agency, National
Los Angeles Times, and simply
Bag, with attribution, on it
Moreover, Andy Keller, the inv
and the company's president, sai
makers' complaint actually alter
some of the disputed statements
while some of the statements ac
environmental impact of plastic
the plastic bag makers inserted t
the statements with the result t
falsely presents them as claims
The press release also noted that
vored tactic by plastic bag manu
coalitions and associations such a
tic Bag Coalition, which has file

23 See Press Release, "Bag

size of Texas Wars: Plastic
and thousands of pounds Bag G
of our discarded trash,
Entrepreneur for Loss mostlyof plastics/'Source:
Sales National (Environmen
Geographic.
raged)", available on -the
"Each year hundreds
Internet of thousands of sea birds
at and <http://
marine life
die from ingestible plastics mistaken
sued-by-plastic-press-release> (last for food." Source: L.A.
accessed
Times"). ChicoBag's Learn The
("The plaintiffs point to
vides well sourced and widely accepted inform
25 See Eric L. Lane, "ChicoBag Responds to Plastic Bag Makers
consumption and environmental
in Reverse Greenwash Suit", Green Patent impacts
Blog, 6 September of s
cusing ChicoBag of false 2011, available advertising and unf
on the Internet at <http://www.greenpatentblog.
terestingly, ChicoBag com/2011/09/06/chicobag-responds-to-plastic-bag-makers-in-re
is not the original publi
statements. This information has
verse-greenwash-suit/> (last accessed on 31been
October 2012). used
cations, news stories and websites over many
26 See id.
Company is one of the few organizations th
documented sources 27 for
See supra, notethe facts
24 ("Thus far, the coalition hasthey use o
filed lawsuits against
ler found that lawsuits and
the communities lobbyists
of Marin are
County, Palo Alto, Manhattan not n
Beach, and
dustry. In fact, in 2007, these
Los Angeles County."). same plaintiffs eff
financially strapped City of Oakland from m
28 Id.
their plan to phase out single-use plastic bags.
grew, the Save the Plastic 29 Id. Bag Coalition was fo
ship including Hilex Poly. Thus far, the coalit
against the communities of 30 See Stipulation of Joint Dismissal
Marin with Prejudice of Claims and
County, P
Beach, and Los Angeles Counterclaims Between Plaintiff Superbag Operating, Ltd., Plain
County.").
tiff API Industries, Inc., and Defendant ChicoEco, Inc., Hilex Poly
24 5ee id. ("The plaintiffs Co. v. ChicoEco, specifically
Inc., Case No. 11 -cv-00116-JFA (D.S.C. 16 take
Sep is
statements in their lawsuit: tember 2011 ).
- "A reusable bag needs only to be used elev
31 See Stipulation of Joint Dismissal with Prejudice of Claims and
lower environmental impact than using eleve
Counterclaims Between Plaintiff Plaintiff Hilex Poly Company, LLC
Source: EPA. "Only one percent of plastic b
Source: EPA. and Defendant ChicoEco, Inc., Hilex Poly Co. v. ChicoEco, Inc., Case
No. 11 -cv-00116-JFA (D.S.C. 28 September 2011 ).
- "Somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags are
consumed worldwide each year." Source: National Geographic. 32 See Press Release, Bag Wars: Plastic Bag Giants Superbag and
- "The world's largest landfill can be found floating between Ha Advance Poly Split from Hilex Poly, Drop Out of Lawsuit Against
waii and San Francisco. Wind and sea currents carry marine de ChicoBag, 13 September 2011, available on the Internet at <http://
bris from all over the world to what is now known as the Great www.chicobag.com/settlement-press-release> (last accessed on
Pacific Garbage Patch. This 'landfill' is estimated to be twice the 31 October 2012).

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 586 I Reports EjRR 4|20i2

Hilex will include statements on a website that III. Lessons for Green Marketers
discuss ways to prevent windblown litter.
ChicoBag had already made updates to its website By now most green brand owners and advertisers are
in response to Hilex Poly's early communications,cognizant of the greenwashing pitfall and take care to
and will keep these in place. {ChicoBag agrees not ensure the accuracy of marketing claims touting the
to cite any archived EPA websites, link to the fullenvironmental benefits of their products or services.
NOAA report if utilized in advertising, will informHowever, green marketers may give less thought and
visitors to chicobag.com that reusable bags should attention to claims of competitors' products' envi
be washed when dirty and inform visitors to its ronmental detriment. As the ChicoBag and Superfos
Learn the Facts Page that plastic retail carryout cases demonstrate, such oversight can be risky and
bags are only a subset of plastic bags in ocean de lead to legal action for reverse greenwashing.
bris reports.} Accordingly, green marketers making negative
statements about a competitor's product need to
use at least the same, if not higher, level of care in
2. Empac v. RPC Superfos verifying those statements as they would in making
claims about their own products. On this score, the
In an interesting twist on the ChicoBag case, in aChicoBag and Superfos cases are instructive. First,
Danish lawsuit it was a plastic packaging manufacany and all statements and their sources should be
turer accused of reverse greenwashing. In a dispute meticulously checked and documented and, if pos
dating back to 2008, Empac, a European metal pack sible, the sources should be displayed prominently in
aging industry group, sued RPC Superfos in the Dan
ish Maritime Court, accusing the Danish plastic pack
aging company of making false or misleading claims
in its brochures and on its web site.33 In particular,
33 5ee Rory Harrington, "Empac denounces greenwashing after legal
Empac alleged that certain statements about the sup victory over Superfos", Foodproductiondaily.com, 25 January 2012,
available on the Internet at <http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/
posed environmental benefits of plastic versus the
Packaging/Empac-denounces-greenwashing-after-legal-victory
negative environmental impact of metal packaging over-Superfos> (last accessed on 31 October 2012) ("The row start
ed in 2008 after metal packaging industry players spotted what they
were misleading and unsubstantiated.34 Some of the believed were inaccurate environmental claims made in literature
statements at issue related to life cycle analysis claims from Superfos circulating at a trade show in Fhris. As a result of the
unrest, Empac launched legal action which, three years later, re
for metal packaging.35
sulted in the Danish ruling highlighting the inaccurate and unsup
In late December 2011, the court ruled for Empac ported claims...").
and found the statements to be inaccurate and un 34 See id. ("The European metal packaging trade body hailed its legal
supported.36 The court also held that Superfos had victory over the Denmark-based firm, now called Superfos RPC, in
the wake of a recent decision handed down by the Danish Mari
breached certain advertising guidelines.37 Although time Court that statements made in its brochures and on its web
the court did not order Superfos to pay any dam site about the supposed green benefits of plastic versus metal were
misleading and unsubstantiated.").
ages, the company is prohibited from making certain
35 See id. ("[Jim] Hansen [secretary general for the Danish Aluminum
claims and using certain images detrimental to metal Association, which represented Empac in the court case] stressed
packaging producers.38 that organisations should take great care when making life cycle
analysis claims.").
The court decision stressed the importance of the
36 See id. ("The European metal packaging trade body hailed its legal
accuracy of environmental claims in advertising and victory over the Denmark-based firm, now called Superfos RPC, in
the need for substantiation: the wake of a recent decision handed down by the Danish Mari
time Court that statements made in its brochures and on its web
To prevent unfair competition strict requirements site about the supposed green benefits of plastic versus metal were
for accuracy of such environmental claims must misleading and unsubstantiated.").

37 See id. ("Empac has condemned the practice of greenwashing af

apply. These have to be clear, true, specific and not
ter a Danish court ruled that Superfos had breached advertising
misleading...39 guidelines in claims that plastic packaging was more eco-friendly
than metal.").

Jim Hansen, secretary general for the Danish Alu 38
minum Association, which represented Empac in the
case, hailed the ruling and said it was important to was
39 Id.
"have on record that Superfos acted in contravention
of the advertising guidelines."40
See id. ("Superfos has been banned from making a series of claims
and using images detrimental to metal packaging which were origi
nally included in its website and brochures...The plastics company
not ordered to pay damages...").
40 Id.

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EJRR 4]20i2 Reports | 587

close proximity some

to casesthe
the Guides require
statements.
the claims be backed
plastic bag makers, the
up by "competent sources
and reliable scientific evidence."45iden
Bag for some of Though
itsfocusedstatements
on claims of environmental ben did
statements.41 The
efits made bysources
a green marketer about itsshould
own prod
periodically to confirm they
uct,46 some of the general are
principles "apply to all en stil
date. As part of vironmental
the marketing claims."47 Thus, the Green
settlement agre
agreed not to Guides should
cite inform the process ofweb
archived formulating site
vironmental claims of environmentalAgency,
Protection detriment about a competi pre
making claims based on outdated in
tor's product or industry.
In general it is critical for green adv
to be substantiated,
As a practical preferably
matter, a brand owner is much moreby a
third party. The Danish
likely Maritime
to have readily available information about its C
that own products
environmental than data about a"have
claims competitor's prodto b
cific and not ucts. This was one of the and
misleading problems that Superfos
have to
by an impartial expert."42
faced when it made claims about the As noted
life cycle of its
tary general for the
competitors' Danish
metal Alumin
packaging and contributed to its
obtaining third party validation
legal liability, as pointed out by Hansen: of l
ology and calculations
Life cycle analyseswas
(LCA) usuallyessential
centre on some
case, and was something
one's own material. But if
the
you do makecompan
statements
about another industry's material you should be
In the United careful.48
States, the Federal Tra
Guides for the Use of Environme
Claims, Green or Guides,
If green brand owners or marketers also
lack the informastress
of tion necessary
substantiating to substantiate environmental detri
environmental ma
In the section about
ment claims aboutgeneral
competitors' products or lack
environ
the
claims, the Greenmeans Guides
to obtain it, they should state
think twice about that:
[E]very express and
making material
such claims and should probably "focus implied
on
general assertion conveys
their own material,"49 as Hansen suggests, andto
stick reas
ers about objective an quality,
to promoting the benefits of their own products. featu
of a product or services must be su

The Green IV. Reverse sections

Guides' Greenwashing and Consumer
about
Protection
radability, compostability, recyclabil
content all refer to the need for subst
While green brand owners and marketers need to
protect themselves, green consumers are the ones
targeted by environmental detriment claims. While
41 Id. it is still early in the advent of reverse greenwashing,
42 Id. an initial assessment of the ChicoBag and Superfos
43 Id. cases demonstrates that the initial results are good
44 Guides for the for
Use ofgreen consumers.
Environmental
Mark
ter "FTC Green Guides") atCompany-ChicoBag
The Hilex Poly § 260.7(a), settlement, inavailable
<http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides98042
particular, contains some detailed actions and for
on 31 October 2012).

45 See id. at §§ bearance

260.7(b) measures
- (e). that are beneficial to green con
46 5ee id. at §260.2 sumers. First,guides
("The anythe heightened transparency
apply of clear to
ronmental attributesand current
of citations and dates for facts and statistics
a product, package o
tion with the sale, offering for sale, or market
about thepersonal,
package or service for environmental impact of the products at
family or ho
issue, as wellor
commercial, institutional as linksindustrial
to full detailed sources, pro
use.").

47 Id. at §260.6. vides accurate information green consumers can use

48 Supra, note 43. in their purchasing decisions. Green consumers can
49 Id. also implement some of the other instructions the

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 588 I Reports EJRR 4|20i2

plastic bag manufacturer will provi

to prevent
Lifestyle Risks
windblown litter and how
This section discusses the regulation of "lifestyle risks",
dispose of
plastic bags by tying them
a term that can apply to both substances and behav
The Superfos decision was a small p
iours. Lifestyle risks take place along the line of "ab
green consumers as it provided a fix
stinence - consumption - abuse - addiction". This can
deception caused by the company's
concern substances such as food, alcohol or drugs, as
ronmental detriment claims about m
well as behaviours such as gambling or sports. The
However, it remains to be seen whe
section also addresses the question of the appropriate
opinion will serve as a guide for gre
point of equilibrium between free choice and state in
prevent reverse greenwashing in the
tervention (regulation), as well as the question of when
risks can be considered to be acceptable or tolerable.
In line with the interdisciplinary scope of the journal,
V. Conclusion
the section aims at updating readers on both the regu
latory and the scientific developments in the field. It
As green marketers struggle
analyses legislative initiatives and judicialto
decisionsstan
growing cacophony of
and at the same time advertisemen
it provides insight into recent
ronmental benefits, a new
empirical studies form of cla
on lifestyle risks.
statements of environmental detrime
in addition to, touting the positive e
What
tributes of their we Knowproducts,
own About the Impact of gre
and marketers are calling out the
Advertising on Disordered Gambling n
mental impacts of their competitors
these environmental detriment claims are false or Simon Planzer and Heather Wardle*

misleading, they may be called reverse greenwash -

the reverse of greenwashing, which means makingTowards the end 0/2011, the (then) Responsible Gam
bling Fund published a report which, inter alia, offers
false or misleading claims of purported environmen
tal benefits. an overview of the research gaps in relation to the
Two recent cases highlight allegations of reverseimpact of advertising on disordered gambling. In this
greenwashing and provide some lessons for green
article, the authors of the report summarise their main
marketers engaging in environmental detriment findings. They conclude that evaluating the impact of
claims. Green brand owners and advertisers need gambling advertising is highly complex. Nonetheless,
to substantiate claims of environmental detriment, advertising forms an important component of the
broader environment in which behaviour and attitudes
and if the requisite information about a competitor's
products are not available, should refrain from mak
are shaped. The empirical evidence base is weak and
ing such claims. therefore conclusions about whether gambling adver
These reverse greenwashing cases also providetising is associated with increased levels of disordered
gambling cannot be drawn. However, there is some evi
some hope to green consumers that they will benefit
from clear and accurate information about the nega
dence that advertising alters perceptions and attitudes
tive environmental impact of products from which towards gambling. Yet, evidence demonstrating trans
to make better purchasing decisions. Both green mar
lation of this into behavioural change is weak. Particu
keters and green consumers should pay close atten lar attention should be given to vulnerable population
tion as there are likely to be increasing allegationsgroups such as adolescents and disordered gamblers.
of reverse greenwashing as the market for green
In view of further research, a set of recommendations
products and services becomes more crowded andis provided.
companies try to differentiate themselves from their
competitors to sell their wares.

Simon Planzer, Lecturer in Law (University of St. Gallen HSG) and

Attorney at Law (Zurich); Heather Wardle, NatCen Social Research
(London) and University of Glasgow. The authors can be contacted
at <planzer@planzer-law.com> and <heather.wardle@natcen.
ac.uk>.

This content downloaded from

3.6.55.203 on Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:15:28 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms