Totally Greenwashed: The Body Shop

I love The Body Shop. Their products always smell good and my skin feels good when I use them. They claim that their products are all “natural”. Through their website, icons and slogans of world- protection can be found such as “support community trading”, “against animal testing”, “protect our planet”, “defend human rights” and “activate self-esteem”.

The website is currently promoting a kind of body lotion called 100% biodegradable shower gel. They emphasize that it meets the eco-conscious standard. Its ingredients are not only non-toxic to aquatic organisms, but also able to minimize packaging waste. In other words, this product is to help protecting our environment.

However, a media controversy about The Body Shop was held after being taken over by L’Oreal in 2006. It was disclosed that L’Oreal often tests their products on animal before selling to the public. This goes against the core value of The Body Shop – “against animal testing”. Although L’Oreal tried to address the problem through the media, boycotts by customers still emerge around the globe. (wikipedia)

In 2009, Guardian.co.uk wrote an article to criticize The Body Shop. It states,

“Daabon Organics, a Colombian firm that provides the British chain with 90% of all its palm oil, was part of a consortium that asked the courts to remove farmers from a sprawling ranch 320km north of the capital Bogotá with a plan to grow African palm. Police in riot gear evicted the farmers in July.” “Some locals had lived and worked on the land for more than 10 years and had already applied for the right to own it under Colombian law before the consortium bought it.”

This actually confounds The Body Shop because it has a strong commercial relationship with Daabon: 7.5 million bars of soap made from Daabon’s oil are produced every year. It once again violates the core values of The Body Shop – “support community trading” and “defend human rights”. By 2010, The Body Shop wrote on its website that they attempt to use wood from responsibly managed sources, certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) if it is possible. Is The Body Shop really taking action on this claim? At this point, I could not see any action being taken yet.

Although there are many “green” information appeared on its website, The Body Shop does not clarify how green their products really are. By labeling as “Natural”, “Organic”, or “Eco-conscious”, it gives the impression to consumers that their products are made from natural ingredients. But in fact, these labels are meaningless without elaboration. Besides, The Body Shop has its own eco-conscious standard symbol which looks more trustworthy at first glance. With this symbol, their products are urged to meet non-toxic, strict biodegradability standard, and limit packaging waste. The truth is that this eco-conscious standard does not comply with the international standard, and it is not supporting by any certification. It is just the standard of The Body Shop itself. This symbol is misleading people who desire to save the planet. Therefore, I consider that The Body Shop has been practicing greenwashing.

To be a smart consumer, you may want to read “Seven Sins of Greenwashing”.

What is Greenwashing?

In the past few years, the Green Movement has become evermore pervasive in our society. More and more people have changed their purchasing habits that they are more willing to accept green products.

Unfortunately, as consumers become more conscious of the decisions on choosing products, corporations and government have started to realize the marketing power behind selling “green” products. They do not only spend lots of money to promote themselves as environmental friendly or green in public eyes, but also attempt to cloak the negative impact of their products by using all forms of advertising and public imaging such as printing environmental friendly logo onto their products. This act of misleading consumer regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service is GREENWASHING.

"The term greenwashing was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld in a 1986 essay regarding the hotel industry's practice of placing placards in each room promoting reuse of towels ostensibly to "save the environment". Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by these institutions, due in part to the lack of cost-cutting affected by such practice. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this "green campaign" on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, increased profit. Westerveld hence monitored this and other outwardly environmentally conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as greenwashing."

TerraChoice first published the "Sins of Greenwashing" study in 2007. It measured the incidence of false and misleading environmental claims. The objective was to encourage legitimate “green” claims by disclosing those that are not. The 2007 report identified six such sins, and 2010 edition adds the seventh. According to the study, the following are the seven sins of greenwashing committed by retailers and manufacturers:

· Sin of the Hidden Trade-off
· Sin of No Proof
· Sin of Vagueness
· Sin of Irrelevance
· Sin of Lesser of Two Evils
· Sin of Fibbing
· Sin of Worshipping False Labels

The basic of greenwashing explained through cartoon:

Tom Fishburne's explaination on the inspiration of this piece:

"This cartoon idea sprang fully formed from a New York Times piece on the ridiculous lengths that some brands are going to be considered for the Home Depot Eco Options promotion (including, yes, a brand of electric chainsaw). It's a good example of some of the outlandish greenwashing we're all starting to see. And, how the issue is not as white and black as the old treehugger/lumberjack dynamic."