3. If the world’s more than
7 billion people were to design,
produce, consume, and dispose
of paper and print as North
Americans do, we would require
FOUR times the resources available
on our planet and would still
not be able to achieve
sustainable economic growth.
Print Design and Environmental Responsibility, page 7, AIGA
4. one hundred million toothpicks = trees cut annually in u.s. for junk mail
chrisjordan
5. 30,000 reams of office paper = amount of paper used in the u.s. every 5 minutes
chrisjordan
6. 9,960 mail order catalogs = avg number of junk mail that are
printed, shipped, delivered, and disposed of in the u.s. every three seconds
chrisjordan
9. ...new research with over 6,000
consumers across six countries
provides evidence that a
new marketplace is rising.
That attitudes and behaviors are
shifting. And that a new cadre of
enterprising brands is seizing the
moment to innovate smarter, safer,
cleaner and greener solutions.
11. Key FINDINGS
CONSUMING LESS, CONSUMING BETTER
...to improve the environment for
future generations
SHIFTING PERCEPTIONS
...PRICE, PERFORMANCE, CREDIBILITY
and a better understanding
COLLABORATION AND PARTICIPATION
...67% INTERESTED IN SHARING IDEAS
and OPINIONS WITH COMPANIES
13. eco-messaging:
the problem and
the solution
legitimate green standards help
fight greenwashing
false eco-labeling is increasing
false labels are a dime a dozen
14. A report on environmentAl clAims mAde
in the north AmericAn consumer mArket
2010
The SinS of GreenwaShinG
home and family ediTion
http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/index35c6.pdf
15. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
16. 1. sin of the
hidden trade-off
i.e. suggesting a
product is green
based solely on an
unreasonably
narrow set of
attributes without
attention to other
important factors
Example: fsc + carbon neutral
Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
17. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2. sin of no proof
i.e. an environmental
claim that cannot
be substantiated by
easily accessible
information or by a
reliable third-party
certification
Example: claiming a % of post
consumer recycled content
without providing any evidence
18. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3. sin of vagueness
i.e. any claim that
is so poorly defined
or so broad that
its real meaning
is likely to be
misunderstood
“100% or all natural” is a great
example: arsenic, uranium, mercury
and formaldehyde are all
naturally occurring, and
poisonous.
19. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4. sin of irrelevance
i.e. any claim that
may be truthful
but is unimportant
or unhelpful for
consumers
CFC-free is an example:
it is a frequent claim despite the
fact that cfcs are banned by law.
(The Montreal protocol in 1987)
20. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5. sin of the lesser
of two evils
i.e. any claim that
may be truthful
within its product
category, when the
entire category is a
risk
Organic cigarettes
are an example
21. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6. sin of fibbing
i.e. least frequent,
any claim that
is simply false
for example, products claiming
to be energy star certified
but are not.
22. Sin of the hidden trade-off: committed by suggesting a product
is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without
attention to other important environmental issues. paper, for example,
is not necessarily environmentally-preferable just because it comes from
a sustainably-harvested forest. other important environmental issues in
the paper-making process, including energy, greenhouse gas emissions,
and water and air pollution, may be equally or more significant.
Sin of no proof: committed by an environmental claim that cannot be
substantiated by easily accessible supporting information or by a reliable
third-party certification. Common examples are tissue products that claim
various percentages of post-consumer recycled content without providing
any evidence.
Sin of vagueneSS: committed by every claim that is so poorly defined or
broad that its real meaning is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer.
“all-natural” is an example. arsenic, uranium, mercury, and formaldehyde are
all naturally occurring, and poisonous. “all natural” isn’t necessarily “green”.
Sin of irrelevanCe: committed by making an environmental claim that
may be truthful but is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers seeking
environmentally preferable products. “CfC-free” is a common example,
since it is a frequent claim despite the fact that CfCs are banned by law.
Sin of leSSer of two evilS: committed by claims that may be true within
the product category, but that risk distracting the consumer from the greater
environmental impacts of the category as a whole. organic cigarettes might
be an example of this category, as might be fuel-efficient sport-utility vehicles.
Sin of fibbing: the least frequent Sin, is committeed by making environmental
claims that are simply false. the most common examples were products
falsely claiming to be energy Star certified or registered.
Sin of worShiping falSe labelS: the Sin of worshiping false labels
is committed by a product that, through either words or images, gives the
impression of third-party endorsement where no such endorsement
actually exists; fake labels, in other words.
THe7SinSof
GReen-
WASHinG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7. sin of worshipping
false labels
i.e. any product that
gives the impression
of a third-party
endorsement where
no such endorse-
ment even exists
downright fake labels
23. terrachoice | the sins of greenwashing | 2
conSUmer elecTronicS
Consumer electronics are new to green, and it shows.
in some circles – policymakers and professional purchasers,
notably – attention to the environmental consequences of
electronic products has been growing for several decades.
(this is particularly true in relation to energy efficiency and end-
of-life management, but electronics have also been associated with
issues manufacturing, toxicity, resource extraction and depletion,
landfill contamination, and packaging waste.) For consumers,
however, “greener” electronics is a relatively new concept.
As interest and scrutiny spills over from B2B to B2c markets,
consumer electronics are poised for rapid “greening”.
We examined a total of 85 consumer electronic products,
which made a total of 204 “green” claims. All of these products
were found at general product retailers, rather than electronic
specialty retailers. their claims related to toxicity of components,
energy efficiency, packaging-related benefits such as recycled
content and biodegradability, as well as frequent use of very
vague environmental jargon.
24. 100
50
0
HIDDEN
TRADE-OFF
VAGUENESS FIBBING
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
PERCENTAGE OF PRODUCTS COMMITTING EACH SIN.
WORSHIPING
FALSE LABELS
LESSER OF
TWO EVILS
IRRELEVANCENO PROOF
key leSSonS foR GReAT GReen clAiMS
on conSuMeR elecTRonicS
don’t heSitate. “Green” growth in consumer electronics was
relatively slow between 2009 and 2010, but - judging by the
experience of other sectors - business and institutional demand
will soon and suddenly spill over into consumer markets. Brands
that are first to build reputation as genuine “green” leaders will
win important first mover advantage in this category.
emphaSize proof. With such a high rate of greenwashing
(not a single “sin-free” product), and rampant false labeling,
this category will be well-served by consumer-facing claim
endorsements. multi-attribute standards such as ieee 1680,
and single-attribute verifications such as ul environment’s
environmental claim validation, will both be valuable to
serious green marketers in this category.
1.
2.
terrachoice | the sins of greenwashing | 2
WHAT We found
Still relatively Slow green growth. Whereas the overall
number of “greener” products increased by 73% between 2009 and
2010, in consumer electronics we found an increase of only 13%.
high rate of greenwaShing. not a single “green” electronic
product was found to be free of greenwashing. (the only other
category in which this is true is toys, another relative newcomer
to “green”).
falSe labelS a partiCular problem. more than half (51.8%)
of the “green” products in this category committed the “sin of
Worshiping False labels”. in all product categories, the rate of false
labels was only 31%. Almost all of these “false labels” appeared to
be self-generated and intended to create the appearance of third-
party endorsement. most (34 of 45) were simply seal-like icons
with variations of “eco”, “environment”, “environmentally-friendly”,
and so on.
•
•
•
29. Environment
Actions and issues that affect
natural systems, including
climate change, preservation,
carbon footprint and restoration
of natural resources.
People
Actions and issues that affect
all aspects of society, including
poverty, violence, injustice,
education, healthcare, safe
housing, labor and human rights.
Economy
Actions and issues that affect
how people and organizations
meet their basic needs, evolve
and define economic success
and growth.
Culture
Actions and issues that affect how
communities manifest identity,
preserve and cultivate traditions,
and develop belief systems and
commonly accepted values.
Four Streams of Integrated Sustainability¹ 1
Definitions adapted from Adam Werbach, Strategy for Sustainability
Join us at livingprinciples.org
business
planet
individuals
society
prosperity
Culture
People
Economy
Environment
designer
sustainable
design
aspirations
habits
choices
1
Adapted from Adam Werbach, Strategy for Sustainability
Designer’sRoadmap
artifacts
messages
services
Originally conceived through AIGA, and presented by Mohawk Fine Papers,
The Living Principles are endorsed by many global organizations, including
http://www.livingprinciples.org/framework/introduction/
32. the designers accord
code Of conduct
- do no harm
- communicate and collaborate
- keep learning, keep teaching
- instigate meaningful change
- make theory action
http://www.designdirectory.com/DesignersAccord/
33. the designers accord
guidelines for designer adopters
- Initiate a dialogue about environmental and social impact and
sustainable alternatives with each and every client. Provide strategic
and material alternatives for sustainable design.
- Undertake a program to educate your teams about sustainability
and sustainable design.
- Consider your ethical footprint. Understand any negative impact of
your firm and firm’s work, and work to measure, manage, and reduce
it on an annual basis.
- Advance the understanding of environmental and social issues from
a design perspective by actively contributing to the communal
knowledge base for sustainable design.
http://www.designdirectory.com/DesignersAccord/
34. Sustainable graphic design
considers the environmental
impacts of design solutions
throughout a project’s life cycle:
• raw materials
• transformation
• manufacturing
• transportation
• use and disposal
35. consider these 11 questions:
1) Do we need it? Can we live without it?
2) Is this project designed to minimize waste?
3) Can it be smaller, lighter, or made from fewer materials?
4) Is it designed to be durable or multi-functional?
5) Does it use renewable resources?
6) Is reuse practical and encouraged?
7) Are the products and packaging refillable, recyclable
or repairable?
8) Is it made with the highest percentage of post-consumer
recycled or reclaimed materials?
9) Are the materials available in a less toxic form?
10) Is it available from a socially and environmentally
responsible company?
11) Is it made locally?
42. sustainable project calculator
give this project
calculator a whirl
to rethink and
redesign a print
project to reduce
environmental impact,
and save money by
saving paper.
http://re-nourish.com/?l=tools _ projectcalculator
43. Specify Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) chain of custody
paper stocks with the highest
percentage of post-consumer
waste and when possible.
ALso look for paper that is
carbon neutral and made with
green-e certified wind power.
https://us.fsc.org/
46. sustainable and green ink selection
specify vegetable-based inks
(over soy-based) which contain
no crude oil and therefore reduce
contaminants such as VOCs and
hazardous waste, and are more
biodegradable.
soy = deforestation
soy = gmo mono cropping
Soy Ink: Myth vs. Reality, triple pundit
47. Volatile Organic Compound
(VOCs) emissions reduced
Petroleum-based inks emit
approximately 25% to 40% of VOCs
when they dry, while rates for soy
and vegetable inks can be as low
as 2% to 4%, with some brands of
ink releasing none at all.
http://www.sustainablebusinesstoolkit.
com/benefits-of-eco-solventinks/
49. designers of three layers
designer of positive change:
effecting change at the core
50. designers of three layers
designer of positive change:
effecting change at the core
designer of messages:
meaty layer of brand/solutions
51. celery design collaborative
designers of three layers
designer of positive change:
effecting change at the core
designer of messages:
meaty layer of brand/solutions
designer of stuff:
outer layer of design/paper/printing
52. 320,000 light bulbs = number of kilowatt hours of electricity wasted
in the U.s. every minute from inefficient residential electricity usage
chrisjordan
