Criticism on Green Washing

Question: Discuss about the Criticism on Green Washing. Answer: Introduction: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is a concern of the company towards the social responsibility. It is more of a movement that promotes companies to be aware of the influence, which are created around the society. In another word, CSR is a business approach, which contributes to sustainable growth by delivering social, economic and environmental profits of all the stakeholders. This broad concept is practiced with several definitions and deals with various topics, such as, corporate governance, environmental effects, health and safety, working conditions and input to economic growth (Schuetze and Chelleri 2015). However, the major purpose of CSR is to change towards sustainability. On the other hand, Green-washing is a concept, which states that the companies try to be more compassionate towards the environment than they actually are. It also includes misleading the consumers about the environmental benefits of a certain product, with the help of ambiguous advertisements and unpr oven claims (Bosun, Teodorescu and Teodorescu 2014). Social Security uses several strategies, which includes the implementation of the business policies without damaging the environment and the economy, while the companys reputation stays as it is and the healthy competition remains in the market. If an organization is seen to be damaging the environment, it is to be seen as a socially irresponsible one, and it would risk the partnership with all the stakeholders. The loyalty between the consumer and the brand entirely depends on the relation between the consumer and the product. The social security strategies make new business policies to come up with new products using the natural resources in a cost-effective way (Blome, Foerstl and Schleper 2016) On the contrary, green washing has several sins. The most common one is the sin of Hidden Trade Off, which says the product is green and is made of recycled plastic or paper. Originally, the product might be harming the environment, but this single feature makes the product accessible in the market. The second most common sin of green washing is the sin of no proof, where the company claims the product to be green, or made from recycled goods, but they do not provide any proof of that. Mostly toilet tissues or the facial tissue companies claim their products to be made from recycled goods without providing any evidence. Another sin of green washing is that, when another company with limited workforce reviews the products. The goods come in a mass volume, maybe with a single feature of CSR, but it gets through only because of the disregard by the third company (Onkila 2015). Another form of sin is, the exact percentage of the recycled products are not mentioned, but stated in a vague manner. The toxicity level might be high during the recycling process, but only some amount of the percentage is declared on the label or sometimes at the back of the product. The other sin is called fibbing, where the company uses false posters or already marketed ones on the product, but the consumers have no clue about it. They are not even aware of the fact that the brand has tricked them and making them use a product, which is harmful to the environment. The other two sins include lesser of two evils and the sin of irrelevance, where in the former one, the company claims to true to the product type, but it distracts the consumer from the bigger harm to the society. Most of the organic cigarette companies do this trick with the customers. The other one includes the environmental declaration that might be truthful but insignificant for the consumers seeking green products. The companies commit these sins very often and the products are very much accessible in the open market (Fla mmer 2013). Conventionally, the Corporate Social Security refers to the responsibility of the company to act fairly and ethically and their consideration of the impacts on the society at a large, but does not include sustainability essentially. Sustainability, on the contrary, is concerned with the preservation of the resources and dealing in a manner that is conductive to long term business. But the underlying arguments of sustainability are often hidden and the corporate houses indulge in the practice, which causes long term harm to the environment (Walker and Wan 2012). The basic truth is, companies do not portray the exact truth about the products to the consumers. They claim to be green but they do not act green at all, because most of the corporate organizations have some amount of evil impact on the environment, depending on the state of the company (McMichael 2012). In the current scenario, Green washing is being used by most of the companies, against their rivals in the market. Most of the corporate houses do not reveal their secret of green washing in the severe competitive market; they try to put eyewash in front of the consumers in order to be labelled as a socially responsible company. If the companies do not keep their green schemes to themselves, they might be accused of being green washed by their rivals without difficulty (Tsagas 2012). However, (Tsagas 2012) stated that in recent times, several companies are going for the green business, and the numbers are rising day by day. When the annual report of any company gets published, they keep a section, which mentions the CSR activities, taken on account. As the socially responsible companies and the green consumptions are increasing, green advertising has increased in last 20 years (Crane, Matten and Spence 2013). The scenario demands a little transparency about the green business from the corporate houses. If there were any doubt about the fact, that whether CSR is a little more than the green washing, it would be a false claim. The corporate houses do not declare their secrets about the CSR activities or the green business openly, as they are very much cautious about their rivals, pointing out the mistakes about the CSR activities. However, transparency and the well establishment within the financial scheme is the key to maintain the CSR activities. Most of the times, companies make mistakes on this account intentionally or maybe unintentionally. If a corporate house is dealing with the green washing, some actions should be taken on the company. Reference List Blome, C., Foerstl, K. and Schleper, M.C., 2016. Antecedents of green supplier championing and greenwashing: an empirical study on leadership and ethical incentives. Bosun, P., Teodorescu, M. and Teodorescu, B., 2014. Corporate Social ResponsibilityCollaborating for the Future.International Journal of Education and Research,2(3). Crane, A., Matten, D. and Spence, L.J., 2013. Corporate social responsibility in a global context.Chapter in: Crane, A., Matten, D., and Spence, LJ,'Corporate Social Responsibility: Readings and Cases in a Global Context,2, pp.3-26. Flammer, C., 2013. Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reaction: The environmental awareness of investors.Academy of Management Journal,56(3), pp.758-781. McMichael, P., 2012. The land grab and corporate food regime restructuring.Journal of Peasant Studies,39(3-4), pp.681-701. Onkila, T., 2015. Pride or embarrassment? Employees emotions and corporate social responsibility.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,22(4), pp.222-236. Schuetze, T. and Chelleri, L., 2015. Urban Sustainability Versus Green-WashingFallacy and Reality of Urban Regeneration in Downtown Seoul.Sustainability,8(1), p.33. Tsagas, G., 2012. Reflecting on the value of socially responsible practices post takeover of Cadburys PLC by Kraft foods inc: implications for the revision of the EU takeover directive.European Company Law, Kluwer Law International, Special Issue on CSR and SRI,9(2), pp.70-80. Walker, K. and Wan, F., 2012. The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications.Journal of business ethics,109(2), pp.227-242.