Showing posts with label Greenwashing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greenwashing. Show all posts

SourceWatch on Greenwashing: Definitions, Allure and Detection

This January 10th 2013 article offers a great summary of greenwashing as well as an explanation of why greenwashing occurs and rough rules of thumb to detect it.

Greenwashing is the unjustified appropriation of environmental virtue by a company, an industry, a government, a politician or even a non-government organization to create a pro-environmental image, sell a product or a policy, or to try and rehabilitate their standing with the public and decision makers after being embroiled in controversy.

The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwash as "the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment." This definition was shaped by by the group's focus on corporate behavior and the rise of corporate green advertising at the time. However, governments, political candidates, trade associations and non-government organizations have also been accused of greenwashing.

The 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defined greenwash as "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image. Derivatives greenwashing (n). Origin from green on the pattern of whitewash."

In 2008 the environmental group Greenpeace launched a website Stop Greenwash to "confront deceptive greenwashing campaigns, engage companies in debate, and give consumers and activists and lawmakers the information and tools they need to ... hold corporations accountable for the impacts their core business decisions and investments are having on our planet."

The allure of greenwashing

TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company, conducted a study which found that almost all of the environmental claims made for consumer products are false or misleading. Organizations are attracted to engage in greenwashing for a wide range of reasons including:

1. attempting to divert the attention of regulators and deflating pressure for regulatory change;
2. seeking to persuade critics, such as non-government organisations, that they are both well-intentioned and have changed their ways;
3. seeking to expand market share at the expense of those rivals not involved in greenwashing;
4. this is especially attractive if little or no additional expenditure is required to change performance;
5. alternatively, a company can engage in greenwashing in an attempt to narrow the perceived 'green' advantage of a rival;
6.. reducing staff turnover and making it easier to attract staff in the first place;
7. making the company seem attractive for potential investors, especially those interested in ethical investment or socially responsive investment.

It is worth mentioning that the Terrachoice study is possibly also a case of 'greenwashing.'

Rough Rules of Thumb for Detecting Greenwash 

Big budget greenwash campaigns are designed to defuse skepticism of journalists, politicians and activists. Some rough rules of thumb for testing whether the claims made by a company, government or NGO stack up are:

Follow the Money Trail: many companies are donors to political parties, think tanks and other groups in the community. Few companies actually disclose in their annual reports exactly whom they are donating to, even though it is shareholders money. Ask about all their donations, not just those they boast about in glossy documents such as the corporate social responsibility reports.

Follow the membership trail: Many companies boast about the virtues of their environmental policy and performance but hide their anti-environmental activism behind the banner of an industry association to which they belong. Find out what industry association companies are members of and check and see what their policies are. Assume that all individual companies support the trade associations policy positions until such time as they publicly state that they don't agree with them or they resign. (See the article on the third party technique, a central plank in most PR campaigns). Follow the paper trail: Most companies, or their trade associations, will make submissions to government and other inquiries on a wide range of issues. Often these submissions will be posted to a website. They will also send lots of letters to politicians and government agencies, which can be accessed by Freedom of Information Act searches. Ask about submissions made by the company and their lobbying on issues you are interested in. You will probably discover that instead of lobbying for tougher environmental standards, they are busy trying to weaken the ones that exist.

Look for skeletons in the company's closet: Every company has major problems that it doesn't want the public and regulators to know about. Some companies include information in the annual reports about problems that have been in the news in the last year. More often, there will have been problems, occasionally reported in the media, which they don't want to tell shareholders about. Check for information on the company with watchdog groups and in the media and compare that with what they disclose.

Test for access to information: Many companies will make lofty claims about their commitment to transparency and providing information to 'stakeholders'. Don't just take them at their word. In their reports they will probably refer to environmental impact statements, reviews, audits, monitoring data and other information. If it relates to an issue you are interested in, ask to see it. And remember that 'commercially confidential' is just corporate speak for 'no'. Test for international consistency: Most companies will operate to different standards in other countries. Check and see whether their operating standards and procedures are consistent or whether they opt for lower standards where they think they can get away with it.

Check how they handle their critics: Some companies go to extraordinary lengths to try and silence their critics. This can involve everything from legal threats (see the article on SLAPPs) to funding and collaborating with police and military forces.

Test for consistency over time: It is common for a company to launch a policy or initiative and then starve it of funds. Or a company will make promises when they are under public pressure but never implement them when the spotlight fades.

Source: SourceWatch

Related Posts
Video - Greenwash Coverage from TerraChoice: The Seven Sins (CBC Newsworld)
New FTC Green Guidelines for Marketers
Profiting From the New Rules of Marketing
The 8 C's of Sustainability
Using Trees to Generate Electricity is Not Green Energy
Earth Day Marketing Mayhem ROI
Profiting from the New Rules of Green Marketing by Jacquie Ottman
2012 Review of Forests and Trees

New FTC Green Guidelines for Marketers

In October 2012 the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) updated its Green Guides for marketers. The original draft of the updated guidelines were released in 2010. The changes that should be noted pertains to the FTC's interpretation of general environmental benefits, more specifically claims that a product is “eco friendly” or “green,”

There are at least two salient points to be made here. The first is that the FTC now requires proof of any stated environmental benefit and the second is what it calls “environmental tradeoffs.” The replacement employed in the greener offering must indeed be green. The net effect is that companies will have to work harder to prove the claims they make. The FTC also has new powers to act against those who contravene these guidelines.

These Green Guides will be used by the National Advertising Division (NAD), the advertising industry’s self-regulatory body, to settle disputes. NAD is charged with monitoring and evaluating truth and accuracy in national advertising. The new guidelines also give competitors more ammunition to take action to confront deceptive claims.

At the end of the day these guidelines fight greenwash and make it easier for consumers to get the truth from marketers. While this does entail more effort to prove green claims it should cleanup the marketing space and  enhance consumer trust.

To see the FTC's new Green Guides click here (pdf).



Related Posts
Profiting From the New Rules of Marketing
Profiting from the New Rules of Green Marketing a Book by Jacquie Ottman
Video - Greenwash Coverage from TerraChoice: The Seven Sins (CBC Newsworld)
The 8 C's of Sustainability
Using Trees to Generate Electricity is Not Green Energy
Earth Day Marketing Mayhem ROI
2012 Review of Forests and Trees

How the Hell did Enbridge get on the 2012 -2013 DJSI Leaders List?

The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) is ostensibly for companies who have a smaller impact on the environment, but some of the companies in the index are not even remotely green. One prominent example on the DJSI includes a Canadian oil gas company called Enbridge Inc. Enbridge is a company that is helping Canada to expand its role as a dirty energy superpower, they have proposed new tar sands pipelines.

Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway heavy crude pipeline would run between the Edmonton area in Alberta and Kitimat, British Columbia. The Pipeline would serve as a key export link to Asia that would see massive oil tankers navigating narrow coastal waterways.

The safety of Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway project has been challenged by a report from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Pembina Institute and Living Oceans Society.

Enbridge clearly has the ear of the ruling Conservatives. In 2011 Enbridge was one of the sponsors of the pro-oil federal provincial Energy Conference. Participation in the Enbridge pipeline hearings have been stymied by a Conservative national government more interested in tar sands oil than it is in Canada's environment. The federal Tories have also slashed environmental oversight including those responsible for the supervision of Enbridge's proposed pipeline.

While Enbridge tries to portray itself as a sustainability leader it has withdrawn from their carbon capture and storage efforts, opting to pay the penalties for emissions rather than cutting them.

People throughout the country are protesting Enbridge's activities. On 350.org's Climate Impacts Day earlier this year, First Nations people and their supporters traveled on a Freedom Train to challenge the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. The pipeline giant can expect another protest on October 22nd, when Canadians from coast to coast will be gathering to voice their opposition to Northern Gateway.

As reviewed in a recent Green.biz article, the inclusion of Enbridge on the DJSI makes one question whether sustainability rankings really matter.

In the US most will recall Enbridge for spilling 20,000 barrels of oil into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River. This spill ended up being the most costly onshore spill in U.S. history. What makes matters worse is the fact that the spill was deemed to be attributable to a failure to enforce adequate safety standards. This past summer Enbridge spilled more oil from a pipeline in Wisconsin.

Despite the company's environmentally destructive impacts, Enbridge is actively trying to associate itself with sustainability and renewable energy. One example is their sponsorship of the "Optimizing Wind Power O&M Conference Expo" event.

Enbridge is also making token investments in renewable energy, its current holdings include eight wind farms (1,017 MW capacity), four solar energy operations (150 MW capacity) and a geothermal project (23 MW capacity). However these activities are little more than clever PR when understood in light of the fact that Enbridge is Canada’s largest gas distribution utility and largest transporter of crude oil.

Enbridge owns approximately 24,738 kilometres (15,372 miles) of crude pipeline, delivering on average more than 2.2 million barrels per day of crude oil and liquids. They are the leading pipeline operator in both Canada’s oil sands region, the second largest resource play in the world.

Most destructively Enbridge is behind efforts to extract 170 billion barrels of proven recoverable reserves from Alberta's tar sands. As one climate scientist put it, burning all this dirty oil will mean game over for efforts to manage climate change.

How then did Enbridge end up on the DJSI?  The reason is that they are the best performer in their industry category not because they are actually a company that practices sustainability. This speaks volumes to just how dirty the oil industry is.

Sustainability rankings like the DJSI are important benchmarking tools and they offer helpful guidance for investors and other stakeholders. However, they are counterproductive when companies like Enbridge end up on the list.

It is not enough that we invest in companies that advance the green economy we must also divest from companies that directly contribute to activities that have massive footprints. At the very least they should not be masquerading as a sustainability leader.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Canadian Conservative's Support for Dirty Energy
Canada is a Dirty Energy Superpower
Action to Defend Canada's West Coast from Big Oil
Enbridge withdraws from Canada's Carbon Capture Farce
Canadian Conservatives Slash Environmental Assessment
Canadian Prime Minister Dismisses Resistance to the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Federal Provincial Energy Conference Sponsored by Big Oil
Tar Sands Day of Action in Washington DC
President Obama and the Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline
NRDC November 6 Protest Against the Keystone XL in Washington DC
Nebraska's Special Session to Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills from the Keystone XL Pipeline
Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Rejected by Environmentalists in Nebraska
State Department Hearings for the Keystone XL Pipeline
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Protest
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Keystone XL Protest Ends in Washington
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
Nobel Prize Laureates Oppose Keystone XL Pipeline
Religious Leaders Join the Protest Against Keystone XL Pipeline
US Protests Against the Tar Sands Oil
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Bill McKibben and other Protestors Jailed for their Opposition to the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
Video: NASA's Leading Climatologist Addresses Crowd Before he was Arrested at the Keystone XL Tar Sands Protest in Washington
Bill McGibben: The Planet Wreckers
The World “Connects the Dots”
Kodak Sustainability Journey: Fear of Corporate Death
Ruling Canadian Conservative Pass Budget Which Guts the Environment
Video: The Koch Brothers are Oil Billionaires
Cry Wolf: An Unethical Oil Story
Reigning in Irresponsible Oil Giants

The Best Global Green Brands of 2011 (Top 50)

The "Best Global Green Brands" is published by the marketing and research company Interbrand. Over the last 10 years, Interbrand has built its corporate citizenship practice. They believe that corporate citizenship isn’t just “good practice” but “smart practice,” with its benefits greatly outweighing its risks.

Because of the potential for misalignment between brand performance and perception, Interbrand decided to measure leading brands’ green efforts (environmental sustainability performance) and to acknowledge that those brands excelling in this area receive credit for their initiatives.

Interbrand’s Best Global Green Brands is based on analysis of publicly available data, and data from Thomson Reuter’s ASSET4 (which includes environmental sustainability performance data for over 3,000 companies). This analysis was then paired with Interbrand’s understanding of how brands create brand value.

The Best Global Green Brands report combines public perception of environmental sustainability (“green”) performance with demonstration of that performance based on publicly available information and data.

Interbrand’s years of experience in brand valuation have shown that efforts to grow brand value must include a focus on internal and external elements of brand strength. For this ranking, green includes both actual environmental sustainability performance and the degree of external reporting. This included an evaluation of the performance components of green brand strength (clarity, commitment, protection, and responsiveness) in the context of company’s efforts to act in environmentally responsible ways and an evaluation of the perception components of green brand strength (authenticity, relevance, differentiation, consistency, presence, and understanding) in the context of consumer awareness of company’s green activities, while also weighing environmental performance.

Deloitte was engaged to develop a corporate environmental performance methodology based on publicly available data as an input to Interbrand’s overall scoring methodology. The Green Performance Score was composed of 82 metrics on which each company was ranked. The metrics evaluate companies’ disclosure and environmental performance across six “pillars”:

Governance
Policies and mechanisms put in place by the company to manage environmental impacts and successfully set and execute environmental programs.

Stakeholder Engagement
The degree to which the company recognizes and engages with the various relevant stakeholder groups associated with the company.

Operations
The company’s performance across operations as measured in energy efficiency, GHG emissions, water management, waste management, and toxic emissions management.

Supply Chain
The company’s performance in measuring, reporting, and mitigating the environmental performance of their supply chain.

Transportation and Logistics
The company’s performance in measuring, reporting, and mitigating the environmental performance of their transportation and logistics, business travel and commuting.

Products and Services
The product portfolio of the company and an evaluation of the green attributes of its products, including product efficiency, sustainable production, and use of life cycle assessment.

The Green Performance Score is designed to be applicable across industry sectors and therefore includes metrics designed to make the evaluations meaningful and relevant across industries and adjusts for outsourcing and multi-sector operations. Because public disclosure of environmental performance is a leading practice among sustainable or “green” companies, the Green Performance Scores are based on publicly available data as well as data from Thomson Reuter ASSET4 (which includes performance data for over 3,000 companies).

The evaluation of each company’s consumer perceptions (external components) was conducted by Interbrand. To begin, Interbrand asked consumers in the 10 largest global markets to answer questions related to their perception of each company’s green activities along the six dimensions of brand strength. Interbrand spoke to 10,000 consumers worldwide and each brand was rated by at least 1,250 consumers. For the initial stage of analysis, Interbrand aggregated data on each dimension within each market. The six external dimensions of brand strength assessed were:

Perception elements

Interbrand then aggregated the scores across markets. The data was ranked by the size of each country and each country’s contribution to the global economy was also considered. This permitted a view of which brands consistently differentiate themselves in terms of environmental performance across markets, and which do the best job engaging in green activities that consumers find relevant. The analysis also discounted cases where positive perceptions of the brand outweighed a company’s actual green performance.

Overall, the “strongest” green brands appear to reside at the intersection of performance and perception. The final ranking table is a detailed illustration of which brands lead when it comes to the environment.

Here are the top 50 green brands according to Interbrand's analysis:

1. Toyota

2. 3M

3. Siemens

4. Johnson and Johnson

5. Hewlett-Packard (HP)

6. Volkswagen

7. Honda

8. Dell

9. Cisco

10. Panasonic

11. Hyundai

12. BMW

13. Apple

14. Danone

15. L'Oreal

16. Mercedes

17. Nike

18. Sony

19. IBM

20. Ford

21. Allianz

22. Nokia

23. Addidas

24. General Electric (GE)

25. Samsung

26. Intel

27. Coca-Cola

28. Canon

29. Pepsi Co

30. Microsoft

31. Xerox

32. Philips

33. Shell

34. Caterpillar

35. Cambells

36. Kellogg's

37. AVON

38. SAP

39. IKEA

40. Santander

41. American Airlines

42. Starbucks

43. Nintendo

44. Credit Suisse

45. McDonalds

46. Citi Bank

47. Barclays

48. HSBC

49. UPS

50. Accenture

For more information click here.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Global 800 Carbon Ranking 2011: Top 20
North America 300 Carbon Ranking 2011
Global Carbon Rankings 2011 from the EIO
The World's Greenest Companies 2011
Top Eco-News Stories of 2011: Resources
Top Eco-News Stories of 2011: Business
Top Eco-News Stories of 2011: Government
Top Eco-News Stores of 2011: Schools, EVs etc.
Top Eco-News Stories of 2011: People Power
Top Energy Management Stories of 2011
The Top 10 Green Cars of 2011
Top Four Climate Studies of 2011

Volkswagen's Dirty Automotive Brands

Volkswagen may be receiving awards for their greener cars, but other automotive brands belonging to the company have large environmental footprints.

Volkswagen owns three of the world's most exotic brands, Porsche, Lamborghini and Bentley, yet even these gas guzzling car companies are striving to increase fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.

The Porsche 918 Spyder, was first unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2010. With its three electric motors, Porsche claims that in the "Eco" mode (one of the car's four settings), the Spyder gets an astounding 94.1 mpg and emits just 70g carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometer. However in this mode the battery has a range of only 16 miles.

In "Race" mode, the car's power plant is supplemented by two electric motors giving it an extra 218 horsepower. The electric motors also redirect energy lost in braking back to the wheels. Despite the car's dynamic use of mobile electricity, the 918 is primarily powered by a 500-horsepower V8 internal combustion engine. The car is a marvelous feat of engineering, it can get from 0-62 mph in just 3.2 seconds and has a top speed of 198 mph, but at these speeds, it is also devours fossil fuels and emits high levels of emissions.

Although Bentley claims it will cut CO2 emissions and fuel consumption 15 per cent by 2012, the Bentley Brooklands emits CO2 at a rate of 465g of CO2 per kilometer. According to the EPA, the company currently makes some of the least fuel efficient cars on the US market. The Bentley Continental GTC, with a 12 cyl, 6 L engine gets only 10 mpg (17 hwy). The Bentley Azure, 8 cyl, 6.8 L and the Bentley Brooklands, 8 cyl, 6.8 L get only 9 mpg (15 hwy). According to the EPA, the only cars with worse fuel economy are manufactured by Volkswagen's other brand Lamborghini.

Despite dropping CO2 emission 20.5 percent in 2010 compared to the previous model, The Lamborghini Murcielago still emits CO2 at a rate of 539g of CO2 per kilometer. The EPA lists Lamborghini as the manufacturer of the least fuel efficient car in the US. The Lamborghini Murcielago, 12 cyl, 6.5 L and the Lamborghini Murcielago Roadster, 12 cyl, 6.5 L, get only 8 mpg (13 hwy).

Volkswagen is advancing greener car technologies, including cars powered by methane from human waste, but there is nothing green about the vehicles produced by some of the company's other brands. Owning companies that manufacture some of the most environmentally destructive cars on the planet obscures Volkswagen's new brand.
_______________________________________________

Related Posts
Volkswagen's Greener Vehicles
Volkswagen Wins Green Car of the Year for 2010
Porsche and Audi`s Greener Vehicles
Germany and the Global Competition for EV Supremacy
Competition in the Green Vehicle Market
Toyota and Tesla Making Electric Sedan
Toyota's Greener Vehicles
Honda's CR-Z and Second Generation Hybrids
Honda's Greener Vehicles
European Greener Cars
GM Breakthrough Reduces Emissions
GM's Greener Vehicles
Ford's Greener Vehicles
Korean (Hyundai & Kia) Greener Cars
Nissan's Greener Vehicles
Greener Commercial Transport Vehicles
Greening Vehicle Fleets
Electric Vehicle Bill Passes Energy Committee
Governments and the Growth of EVs
Government Investment Fuels Greener Vehicles
American Electric Vehicle Strategy
Private Public Cooperation Behind SA Joule
Jaguar XJ: A Greener Luxury Car
The FIAT 500 is Coming to America
E-Range: World's First Fully Electric 4x4
Toyota and Tesla Making Electric Sedan
Electric Vehicles Combat Global Warming
Electric Vehicles Combat Smog

Cannon`s Green Efforts Under Fire

Canon has been focused on making eco-friendly products for 30 years. In July of 2010, the electronics manufacturer launched an ambitious green marketing program in Asia.

Cannon`s GreenNation program touts the eco-friendliness and the energy efficiency of its products. The GreenNation campaign also has a program that recycles the Canon Selphy and PIXMA ink cartridges. Cannon has also produced Malaysia’s first “green” scientific calculator.

Despite these efforts, Cannon is under fire from environmentalists. Influential environmental media outlets like Triple Pundit and ENN are criticizing Cannon for what is seen as contradictions in its marketing message.

Canon claims that a new line of printers have components that are made with recycled materials, but its company’s literature indicates that the exterior is actually made from biomass plastic.
Canon`s new printers also use electricity more efficiently. Canon states that the devices use only 1 watt of power when at rest, or a 90% reduction. But this is now a common feature employed by many electronic manufacturers.

Although not as good as paperless offices, Canon`s line of “eco-image” paper, is sourced from eucalyptus trees which can be harvested quickly and replenished easily. While paper from post-consumer content is preferable, plant fiber is a better option than tree fiber.

Scrutiny encourages accurate sustainability claims and vigilance encourages ongoing environmental improvements. However, it is important to acknowledge progress and give credit where credit is due. Canon may be less than perfect, but we need to be very careful about unfounded allegations of greenwashing.
_______________________________

Related Posts

Canadian Guidelines on Environmental Claims

The Competition Bureau of Canada and the Canadian Standards Association have developed guidelines based on ISO 14021 detailing the appropriate use of environmental terms. Their guide reflects the most current, internationally accepted, best practice information on the use of environmental claims. The guide is designed to help level playing field; reduce the risk of communicating misleading environmental claims; provide an incentive to improve environmental performance; and meet the growing consumer demand for products and packaging to have a reduced environmental impact.

The second edition of the guideline titled Environmental Claims: A Guide for Industry and Advertisers, was published in June 2008 by Canadian Standards Association, a not-for-profit private sector organization. It supersedes the previous edition published in 2000, entitled The CAN/CSA-ISO 14021 Essentials.

The first objective of this guide is to provide the users of ISO 14021, with a best practice guide to the application of the standard and some practical examples of how the standard could be applied to environmental claims in the Canadian marketplace.

The second objective is to provide assistance to industry and advertisers in complying with certain provisions of the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act, and the Textile Labelling Act.

This guide provides examples of preferred approaches and discouraged approaches to illustrate commonly used environmental claims; shows how to avoid misleading or deceptive claims relating to an implied or expressed environmental benefit; establishes the guidelines for Mobius loop markings; and suggests methodologies for tests that can be used to clarify claims.

The guide offers best practices for complying with the provisions that prohibit false or misleading representations. Download the entire document (PDF, 589 KB, 72 Pages) .

Related Posts
ISO 14020 Series: 3 Types of Environmental Labels and Declarations
ISO Principles for Environmental Labels and Claims
The History and Value of Environmental Labeling
Standards to Combat Eco-label and Eco-Certification Confusion
Organic Standards and Certified Labels
ISO 50001 Energy Management Standard
The Implications of ISO 50001 for Your Business
ISO Standards and Greener Vehicles
ISO 14001 Certification in the Solar Sector
Cititec ISO Environmental Management
G3 Guidelines and GRI Sustainability Reporting
Best Practices for Sustainable Businesses
Canon Reaffirms Green Procurement Program for Earth Day
Organic Standards and Certified Labels
The Green Job Market
Environmental Revolution: Technology Certification
IT Sector Should Leverage Their Supply Chains
Sustainable Supply Chains
Puma's Sustainable Supply Chain
Walmart and HP's Sustainable Supply Chains
America's New Fuel Efficiency Standards
The EPA Proposes Cleaner Air
Growing US Corporate Investments are Driving Cleantech in 2010
Best Practices for Communicating Sustainability
Green Marketing Legislation

Silencing Earth Day Critics

Earth Day is an important day for business, collectively companies are spending tens of millions on Green marketing. But others have expressed their concerns that Earth Day constitutes little more than another over-commercialized marketing event. As Natalie Zmuda writes in an AdAge.com article, "It's Earth Day: Time to consume more to save the planet."

Others are even more cynical, "My concern is that some companies just view [Earth Day] as a marketing event, like Thanksgiving or Christmas," said Larry Light, chairman-CEO of Arcature, a management consulting firm. "Then they've fulfilled their obligation for the rest of the year. The whole issue of sustainability means that a commitment also has to be sustainable. If it's only for one day, then it's a marketing event."

Some are resolute in their dismissal of Earth Day. "Earth Day's usefulness has passed," said Alex Steffen, executive editor of World Changing, a sustainability blog. "The idea that we're going to direct our attention to the planet for a day or a week ... is not a sufficient response anymore. An awful lot of people view Earth Day as the time to express the idea that they are sympathetic to change. We need to move from being sympathetic to change to actually changing things."

For years Grist has derided Earth Day, two years ago David Roberts was complaining about it, noting that it wasn't enough, saying “The time for "small steps" is long past. It's time for people to wake the hell up.” This year Grist unveiled an appropriately titled Screw Earth Day campaign. The purists behind Screw the Earth think that we do not do enough to get the message across. They feel we need to do more to protect the environment. As they expain, “It’s not about a single day, dude, it’s about living green every day.”

Grist's David Roberts points out, "Green is all the hype everywhere. So you might think that the public would be engaged in this push....polls find public interest as low as ever, and opinion about climate and energy policy is as inchoate and incoherent as ever. There are no rallies. There are no emails and letters and phone calls streaming into Congressional offices. There is no real social movement behind energy/climate action. There’s nothing to push a recalcitrant member of Congress in the right direction."

Although Mr Roberts may be correct about the hype surrounding Earth Day, he is wrong on just about every other count. Earlier this year, one Billion people around the world turned out their lights to vote for climate change action during Earth Hour and today another billion are expected to get involved with Earth Day events. The social momentum of environmental interest is obvious and irrefutable. This is an important period of transition, and although the mediums by which this interest will express itself are not yet fully formed, the mechanisms of change are coalescing.

Contrary to Mr Robert's assertions, public interest in the environment is not low, studies are finding that despite the recession the interest in Green continues. Earlier this month Joel Makower pointed this out as the one constant from the polling data on consumer environmental attitudes, "Vast majorities of consumers say they have adopted greener habits in their daily lives, and shop for at least some products with a keen eye on their environmental provenance and energy and climate impacts. In other words: the marketplace is getting greener -- way greener."

At least one criticism is well founded. As more companies and marketers jump on the Earth Day bandwagon it is evident that some are guilty of masking environmentally destructive practices under the guise of environmental sensitivity. This practice, commonly referred to as greenwashing, dilutes the integrity of Green branding efforts. And this prompts concerns that consumers will stop paying attention to Green altogether.

Earth Day is not only an opportunity to move product, such events also exert pressure on companies to improve their environmental record. All companies who promote sales in conjunction with Earth Day open themselves to scrutiny. Unsubstantiated Green claims or associations will be exposed and this could prove detrimental to a company's reputation. Although some companies are guilty of greenwashing they will be punished by consumers and legislators.

The business community is an important contributor to the environmental crises we are confronting and they are an equally important part of the solution. Forward looking companies understand that greenwashing is simply counterproductive, these companies know that the best and most enduring way to position themselves is through earnest environmental initiatives that have integrity. That is why many companies are already looking well beyond events like Earth Day and emboldening their commitment to sustainable business practices.

For business, Earth Day is a marketing opportunity, and as such an opportunity to grow profits and increase market share, but businesses are also using Earth Day to fund environmental projects and raise awareness about the environment. If the world is to change, people's attitudes must change and public events like Earth Day are an important part of the transition to a Greener world. Earth Day engages people and helps to transform the wider culture.

Although it is easy to respect the dedication of many Green activists, it is sometimes difficult to understand the approach of certain eco-purists. The anger they vent as they rail against popular movements like Earth-day seems at times incomprehensible. It is easy to appreciate the purists' roles as watchdogs and stalwart activists, even their impatience has its place, but at times their comments detract from the urgency of the Green message.

As a force within the broader efforts eco-purists serve a valuable purpose, but when they hijack the mainstream discussion, they foster anger, apathy and cynicism. Environmental extremists may attract a core of misanthropes, but they alienate the general public and send businesses looking for loopholes instead of contributing to the discussion. Thankfully many corporate leaders are participating in finding solutions, and many more appear ready to follow.

Are eco-purists trying to help the planet or as it sometimes appears, do they prefer distancing people with unproductive vitriol? Some purists go so far as to call for a revolution that does away with capitalism and the whole free market system. However, it is clear to almost everyone that these nihilistic reveries do not serve people or the planet.

More reasonable approaches envision ways of bringing about change without bloodying our streets. It seems obvious that the most expedient change will occur by working within our system. For example, proposed climate change legislation in the US would put a price on carbon emissions and unleash the power of free markets expediting an efficient transition to a carbon restricted world. Perhaps the most reasonable approach involves sending a loud message to our elected representatives.

As purists rue the popularity of Earth Day, Green businesses are taking advantage of the opportunity to highlight their Green initiatives and eco-entrepreneurs are hopeful that events like Earth Day will expedite the task of bringing their innovations to market. Earth Day is effectively turning the wheels of our free market economy.

Sadly some green-purists appear confused, they fail to understand that sustainable consumerism is not the enemy it is the goal. Their cynical rants further serve to illustrate that their approach does not engage the public nor influence politicians.

Admittedly, Earth Day is a highly commercialized event, but those who criticize should remember that commerce is the language of action. If we are to see a Greener world, businesses must not only be amongst those who contribute solutions, they must lead.

For businesses and consumers, Earth Day is about more than a point on a calendar. The Earth Day event has amplified a message that will reverberate throughout the year.