Which is the most dangerous kind of greenwashing, and what can we do to diffuse it?

Alice Kalro
5 min readMay 7, 2024

--

Have you ever thought of the systemic aspects of greenwashing? Or, what kind of law would we actually need, in order for it to help secure a liveable future?

The EU — a supposed leader in green regulation — introduced anti-greenwashing legislation this year, and previous weeks have seen some of the first court rulings and action against greenwashing.

But, aren’t we yet again holding the wrong end of the stick?

Our current notion of greenwashing has a widespread misunderstanding of sustainability baked into it.

We think about claims about products and offerings and their relatively reduced harms, or lack of certain harms, or degrees of harm, or about statements on organizational action towards reducing its harms. In B2C context alone.

Once again: [status quo] + [no harm] will not lead to a future sustainable state on the planet that could host liveable conditions for humanity, or to business continuity. It is unsustainable.

Our focus when weeding out greenwashing is misplaced.

To reiterate, our outer context is one of transgressed planetary boundaries, aka ecological overshoot:

  • One where financial returns and margins of many mainstream offerings and sectors are produced precisely by monetising actions that preempt the prospects of a liveable future on the planet for humanity and actively erode wellbeing for all…
  • One where we prioritise activities that deliver short-term returns, and preempt long-term returns, erode the prospects of future conditions conducive to big business, and de facto breach our fiduciary duty.
  • One where our best chance to secure a “less bad” future hinges on the negative impacts of the global economy shrinking to a fraction of their size, and some to zero, within years.
Alice Kalro’s presentation at the 8th Annual S-HUB Summit on April 24, 2024, Plenary 1: Framing Necessary Sustainability Action: 7 Key Points. PhotoCredit: Thought Leader Global Media

In this context, not asking and not assessing whether a business has the potential to become sustainable leads to the crudest form of greenwashing.

In turn, not disclosing that a business is unsustainable is a scam on stakeholders and shareholders alike.

This is greenwashing on a systemic level.

Pretending that certain futures are still possible. Pretending that a collapse of the global economy and financial system in their current shape is one among multiple possible future scenarios. Pretending that sustainability-as-usual has relevance.

The supposedly most progressive EU legislators indeed participate in perpetuating this illusion — as we can see.

The United Nations is stuck with its context-defying, green growth assuming SDGs.

National governments in the Global North show little leadership in this regard.

The wannabe progressive end of Sustainability Inc (large mainstream consultancies and sustainability practitioners who uncritically follow their gospel) have begun shifting their thought leadership focus from reporting and treating sustainability as an add-on (a business case anyone?) to contemplate necessary business model innovations. Yes, holding still the wrong end of the stick.

We need to take 2 steps further back and question what we are in the business of in the first place.

The good news is that we’re not obliged to participate in this charade.

Directors, investors, CXOs, strategy and risk officers and managers, sustainability champions — and all of us really — can choose to get off this merry-go-round, and get real.

I see more and more signs that the tide is turning. The momentum for honesty and integrity and some serious coarse-tuning has been growing. (Something to write about next, as we all could do with some encouraging news…).

What can you do?

  • Point out the ridiculous state where your organisation’s sustainability strategy or sustainability and annual reports do not ask and answer whether your business has the potential to become sustainable.
  • If you’re on a Board, demand this assessment be done — it is your duty to do so. If you’re an investor, demand the same — because duh.
  • If you’re not on Board or in the C-Suite, use systemic interventions to sensitise and mobilise your leaders.
  • For some of us, this means educating ourselves first — getting out the climate change tunnel vision, and getting a systemic grasp of the outer context — what it would take to create conditions for a future sustainable state on the planet, how fast it needs to happen, and what futures are no longer possible. arkH3 offers a fast growing body of resources for this purpose.
  • This is taxing work, and you’d do well not to underestimate the inner, emotional part of this awareness and acceptance process — seek out peers or communities of exchange, or guidance that can help you through, faster.
  • For those of us already aware, we need to ramp up your ability to translate between the lack of real-world sustainability and business imperatives, and looking at and working across different system levels, how they interact, and how we need to be influencing all. (That’s the crux of the SWoN Approach, by the way).
  • Repeat and let sink: compliance with even the most advanced among existing sustainability regulations will not result in a future liveable state on the planet, in future conditions conducive to business, in business continuity.

Where can you learn more?

--

--

Alice Kalro
Alice Kalro

Written by Alice Kalro

Top Voice in Corporate Sustainability (LinkedIn), Thought Leader; Empowering an upgrade Sustainability-as-the-World-Needs (SWoN) and Business-as-the-World-Needs

No responses yet