Kristin Jones and Andrew Ginzel’s Climate Clock launched in 2015 reflected the growing concern about the climate crisis. The clock is displayed in many major cities such as Berlin, New York, Glasgow, and Rome, counting down the time we have left to make changes before climate change is irreversible. As of right now, we have approximately seven years before global temperatures become irreversible. As a result, more people began to wonder what are the best methods to limit their impact upon the climate.

Consumers explored their spending habits and looked for more sustainable products. Whether it is through buying more recycled products, or supporting companies that pledge their products are environmentally friendly, up to 76% of the customers surveyed in a study done by BusinessWire were willing to spend more money on sustainable goods. 

To keep up with these demands, companies started to label more products as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable.” However, these changes were often without substance. 

Emma Afful ’22 said, “As people realize the impact of unsustainable business practices, they are less likely to support certain corporations. In order to keep these consumers, corporations will attempt to resolve the issues that repelled them.” Afful is the president of the Bronx Science League of Environmental and Animal Protection (LEAP) club that centers around environmental consciousness and the issues surrounding the current climate crisis. 

Coined by Jay Westerveld in the 1980s, this form of marketing is known as greenwashing — the process of companies publicizing their “sustainability” in order to avoid responsibility for their impact on the environment. 

Mr. Matthew Sarker, a physics teacher at Bronx Science, said, “Greenwashing takes away public pressure from the companies, so it’s important to address them to force companies to make actual change.”

For instance, fast fashion brands have been under fire due to their promotion of overconsumption of clothes to keep up with the latest fashion trends. Oftentimes, fast fashion brands prioritize mass production of clothes with disregard for the waste produced to maximize their profit. 

Companies such as H&M, created new lines of clothing made from eco-friendly materials while remaining one of the top contributors to clothing waste. The H&M Conscious line claimed to use recycled polyester and organic cotton but did nothing to reduce the amount of clothing produced. Even after almost ten years of the creation of the initiative, H&M  produces over 3 billion pieces of clothing every year and any clothing that is not sold can be found in landfills. H&M’s conscious line was nothing but a marketing tactic to garner brownie points without making any change in their business practices. 

Around the same time, H&M also introduced a garment collection program, claiming it was a way to incentivize customers to recycle their clothing. For the program, customers could bring in old clothing items in order to earn a 15% off coupon that they could put toward buying new clothes. Despite their motto being “Closing the Loop” in the fashion industry, all the initiative does is encourage consumers to get rid of clothing that may be only a few months old and buy new clothing, ultimately promoting overconsumption. While this may increase profits for H&M, it also increases carbon emissions from factories and creates more fabric waste from the production of new clothing. 

Furthermore, there has been a drastic increase in greenwashing. Companies will often publicize eco-friendly plans as a way to downplay their negative impact upon the environment. Sometimes companies will even lie about their carbon footprint and how much waste they produce. For instance, in 2019, a Ryanair Advertisement claimed they were the airline with the lowest carbon emissions per passenger, a blatant lie about the company to make them look better. Eventually, the advertisement was banned, and Raynair was forced to redact their statement.

Another key sign of greenwashing is when companies use vague platitudes without clearly defining their meanings. Sometimes companies may call something natural or organic but provide no information about their supply chain and where they receive those products. After taking a closer look at the supply chain, the material used, or the amount of waste produced, many of their claims are unwarranted.  

Additionally, companies may market carbon offsetting. 

In April 2020, the multinational oil company Shell introduced its Net-Zero initiative to offset its carbon emissions and reach a net-zero greenhouse gas emission by 2050. This plan was used to create an incentive for consumers to use Shell so consumers could offset their use of fossil fuels. However, this is nothing but a façade to avoid accountability. After a complaint from university students in the Netherlands, Netherlands’ Advertising Code Committee ruled Shell to be greenwashing because it is unlikely Shell would be offsetting all carbon emissions. 

The carbon offsetting program allows Shell to maintain its usual business without making any substantial changes; it is only a way for Shell to expand its business. This pretense is unsustainable and only does more harm in the long term. If companies continue as they are doing right now, not only does this undermine the ongoing efforts to reduce climate change, but it also poses the potential for exacerbating the issue. 

To address this issue, during the COP26 meeting in Glasgow from October 31st to November 13th, 2021, thousands of protestors rallied outside of the conference hall to call on governments to take stricter action for holding companies accountable for their impact on the climate. Protests held up various signs with sayings like “Planet above profit” asking companies to prioritize reducing their carbon footprint. 

Ms. Rachel Wax, physics teacher and the Green Team advisor at Bronx Science, said, “I know a lot of people are opposed to this [government regulation] and there is a lot of stigma, but I think regulation is the most important thing. We tried incentivizing companies to reduce their carbon footprint, and it hasn’t worked. And given the issue and how critical the problem is, we need to start regulating and taxing. Making it the law to not use these chemicals is the way to solve it.”

On the other hand, Mr. Sarker, said, “For fossil fuel companies, the most effective people for addressing greenwashing are people in the companies. For governments, as outsiders, it’s tough to make changes. I think the best thing the government can do is bring together different company leaders and incentivize them to make changes.” 

As climate change worsens, it’s crucial to address these murky business tactics and hold the companies accountable for their impact on the environment. One thing’s for sure: actions must be taken before the damage done to the planet is irreversible.

Ms. Rachel Wax, physics teacher and the Green Team advisor at Bronx Science, said, “I know a lot of people are opposed to this [government regulation] and there is a lot of stigma, but I think regulation is the most important thing. We tried incentivizing companies to reduce their carbon footprint, and it hasn’t worked. And given the issue and how critical the problem is, we need to start regulating and taxing. Making it the law to not use these chemicals is the way to solve it.”