Greenwishing

Hosted by Jakob Muus, Director of the Sustainability Tribe at Transporeon, and joined by Anthony Miller, Logistics Marketing Consultant, the Anti-Greenwashing Masterclass covered the topics of greenwishing, greenwashing and how to make informed decisions and implement green initiatives to avoid misleading environmental claims and foster a truly sustainable supply chain. Based on a lot of data and opinionated examples, the key takeaways make for tough reading for the transport sector.

Takeaway 1: One step forward, nine steps back

The vast majority of carbon offsets are phantom – 90% are not having an impact and, according to one Cambridge University study, 94% of projects should not have been approved in the first place. Quoting other sources, between 52-98% of offsetting projects are less successful than what was claimed for them. In short: while we might be doing our best to comply with the requirements of the green agenda, measurements are like the Wild West.

Official reports back up this view. As many as six years ago, an Australian Government report raised similar concerns, as did a more recent EU study.

Conclusion: if you’re offsetting against that backdrop and accepting the numbers without further scrutiny, you’re greenwashing without knowing it.

Takeaway 3: Common sense in carbon

Why are we so good at making bad products and decisions? Simple – we look for the path of least resistance, we favour compliance over common sense, and we always have a keen eye, for obvious reasons, on ROI.

We are very good at over-engineering the common sense out of situations – for instance, there are now Carbon offsetting NFTs available, which might be eye-catching, but which divert from the real issue. It is reduction that is required and that creative minds need to address.

If we focus on reducing emissions, rather than trying to game the system, we’ll make progress. Real options do exist, such as direct CO2 removal, renewable energy, energy efficiency, and carbon sequestration, but because they all come with a significant ‘but’ attached we take the much easier offsetting route.

Conclusion: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Takeaway 4: No need to read the label

The label ‘Greenwashing’ was coined in 1986, when hotels began to push their guests towards using fewer towels and less frequent washing of bed linen. It sounded eco-friendly and it struck home with guests, but ultimately it was about a clever cost-saving measure for the hotel. Hence ‘greenwashing’.

Today, many companies and organisations don’t even realise they are greenwashing, because they have started out with the best intentions – ‘greenwishing’ best describes it – but because they are not achieving concrete results, they are what we might call ‘accidental greenwashers’.

Labels abound. Try ‘0.1 greenwashing’, in which a company makes a lot of noise about a sustainability-related project, while (maybe) aware that the true impact of the project will be dramatically less than promised. It is not dissimilar to ‘active greenwashing’, by which companies announce large investments in green-related projects but, because they have not at the same time sought the necessary certifications, their true intentions are unwittingly revealed.

The over-engineering curse reveals itself in an entire new lexicon. Examples include:

Greencrowding – seeking refuge via safety in industry numbers

Greenlighting – placing too much focus on a small, largely ineffective green feature

Greenshifting – blaming the end consumer for poor green habits

Greenlabelling – referring to a project as ‘green’, when it is no such thing

Greenrinsing – moving the goalposts on a previously-announced target, to justify why it has not been or will not be achieved

Greenhushing – under-reporting or hiding green credentials to avoid scrutiny

Conclusion: Forget labels, do the right thing. Concentrate on real efforts that will make a real difference.

Takeaway 5: No more ‘pledge and hedge’

The logistics industry is a big part of the problem, being responsible for nearly 75% of global carbon emissions. Too many sustainability projects are either inaccurately measured, have poor parameters or are simply ineffective. Now is the time to stop gaming and fix it.

Countries do this too, particularly post-pandemic. It is the ‘Pledge and Hedge’ approach. They make firm commitments, they set deadlines, but meanwhile, their fast economic growth is nurtured by enthusiastic exploitation of fossil fuels. What will they do to correct this imbalance when their often self-imposed Net Zero deadline approaches, and how will they find a balance?

Conclusion: it all boils down to accountability.

Takeaway 6: Regulators need to grow a backbone

We need to stop applauding mindlessly every time a carrier talks about a sustainability initiative without digging into the specifics.

We are seeing short-term interests prioritised over long-term goals. An Accenture study revealed that 49% of CEOs say they are grappling with supply chain interruptions due to extreme climate events. But the fact is, these events are not as unpredictable as claimed. They are becoming predictable. Yet fewer than half of those same CEOs have actively started implementing changes.

And the profits remain huge from fossil fuels. If you earned $40k a day, every day since the day Jesus Christ was born, you’d still be $3 billion short of the profits made last year alone by just one of the largest fossil-fuel energy companies. With those numbers, we need to do better.

Conclusion: It’s the last hurrah for fossil fuels – the enormous profits must be invested in the right priorities.