Another Greenscam organization is the Northwesterners for More Fish, which had a budget of $2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminium companies, and the timber industry in the region, and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the Information Council on the Environment funded by the coal industry are also greenscamming organizations. In Germany, for example, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the so-called "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which mistakenly suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.Michael Brüggemann: Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Eds.): „Lügenpresse“: Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150. In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a lobby organization that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.See Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. C. H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, , p. 85. Psychological effects Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology and there is little consensus between studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences. Greenwashing's effect on consumer perception Researches found that products that are truly environmentally-friendly are perceived significantly more favorably than their greenwashed counterparts. Consumers are more likely to perceive the price of an item marketed as green as a sacrifice when evaluating greenwashed products. Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to. Other research suggests that few consumers actually notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed. Consumers are not aware of greenwashing in advertising, and trust green advertisements even when they are deceptive. Still other research suggests that consumers with higher green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the higher the green concern, the stronger the intention will be for not purchasing from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing. Research suggests that consumers distrust companies who greenwash because they view the act as deceptive. If consumers perceive that a company would realistically benefit from a green marketing claim, then it is more likely that the claim and the company will be seen as genuine. Attributions of greenwashing Consumer perception of green advertisements and greenwashing alike is impacted by where consumers attribute the green messaging. Eco-labels can be given to a product both from an external organization and by the company itself, which has raised concerns considering that companies are able to label a product green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing negative environmental impacts. Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling. Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers will often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire and is perceived negatively especially when the advertisement or environmental claim does not match a company's actual environmental engagement. Implications for green business The majority of researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that in order for companies to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing, companies should ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to green advertising and green behavior. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising is found to be most effective when it matches a company's actual environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they are unable to factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product. Significant exposure to greenwashing can make a consumer indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. This causes an issue for green businesses as they will have to differentiate themselves from the false claims. It is hypothesised that consumers may also react negatively to true sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing. Limits of greenwashing on consumer perception Research suggests that consumers’ willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as "gentle", can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option. Examples of greenwashing The Airbus A380 described as "A better environment inside and out." Common examples present in the marketing of food products (i.e. by making them appear to be healthier just because they have only natural ingredients, whereas even sugars and fat contents can affect healthiness of a product), alternative medicine and natural medicine. "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel coal, natural gas is only 50\% as dirty. Fracking issues exist when producing the gas. Despite this, it is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse and is in practice used to balance the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy. That said, it can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use. First-generation biofuels are mentioned as being more environmental to fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) contribute to deforestation (which contributes to global warming due to release of CO2). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these particular issues, but have contributed significantly to deforestation and habitat destruction in Canada due to rising corn prices, making it worthwhile to clear cut existing forests in agricultural areas. Landfill proponents' claims are often a good example of greenwashing. The proponents, the Taggart Group of Ottawa, Canada, of the Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre claim the centre would be primarily for recycling, but their plans are for about 86\% of waste they collect to be landfilled. crrrc.ca Environmentalists have argued that the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative actually weakens air pollution laws. Similar laws and critics were issued under macron as "simplifying ecology rules" while still being referred to by French Macron's government as "ecology laws", it being put among the law draft "law project for simplification of public action" Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally friendly imagery even though there has been no attempt made at lowering the environmental impact of its production. In 2009, European McDonald's changed the colour of their logos from yellow and red to yellow and green; a spokesman for the company explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources." Existing published consumption figures tend to underestimate the consumption seen in practice by 20 to 30\%.Real-world emissions as well as the fuel consumption under the MCC (Milan City Cycle) were much higher - almost double - those obtained under the European type approval test cycle, Ref: JRC>IES>>13202 The reason is partly that the official fuel consumption tests are not sufficiently representative of real-world usage. Automakers optimise their fuel consumption strategies in order to reduce the apparent cost of ownership of the cars and to improve their green image. Some environmental conservation groups have criticized the Annenberg Foundation for their attempt to construct domestic pet adoption and care facilities in the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve by repackaging them as part of an "urban ecology center" - a name chosen because it "accommodated the animal adoption process" according to a former spokesperson for the Foundation. The Los Angeles Times called the proposed domestic pet adoption facilities a "bad fit" for the ecological reserve. An article in Wired magazine alleges that slogans are used to suggest environmentally benign business activity: the Comcast Ecobill has the slogan "PaperLESSisMORE", but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring (from the American city of Poland) ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good", although 80\% of beverage containers go to landfills. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high negative environment cost. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK upheld several complaints against major car manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota and Lexus who made fake claims about their vehicles. Volkswagen were found out to have fitted their cars with a "defeat device". This device activated when a car was being tested and reduced the pollutants that the vehicle was recorded to have been emitting. In reality, the cars were emitting 40 times the allowed rate of nitrogen oxide. Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen $ 35.4 billion. Kimberly Clark's claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside but keeps the same petrochemical gel on the inside. Pampers also claims that "Dry Max" diapers reduce landfill waste by reducing the amount of paper fluff in the diaper, which really is a way for Pampers to save money. Advising hotel guests to reuse towels have an environmental impact with little cost, due to less energy and detergent used. A 2010 advertising campaign by Chevron was described by the Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch and The Yes Men as greenwash. A spoof campaign was launched to pre-empt Chevron's greenwashing. "Clean Coal", an initiative adopted by several platforms for the 2008 U.S presidential elections is an example of political greenwashing. The policy cited carbon capture  as a means of reducing carbon emissions by capturing and injecting carbon dioxide produced by coal power plants into layers of porous rock below the ground. According to Fred Pearce's Greenwash column in The Guardian, "clean coal " is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron "—" pure and utter greenwash" he says. The conversion of the term "Tar Sands" to "Oil Sands", (Alberta, Canada) in corporate and political language reflects an ongoing debate between the project's adherents and opponents. This semantic shift can be seen as a case of greenwashing in an attempt at countering growing public concern as to the environmental and health impacts of the industry. While advocates claim that the shift is scientifically derived to better reflect the usage of the sands as a precursor to oil, environmental groups are claiming that this is simply a means of cloaking the issue behind friendlier terminology. Over the past years Walmart has proclaimed to "go green" with a sustainability campaign. However, according to the Institute For Local Reliance (ILRS ), "Walmart’s sustainability campaign has done more to improve the company’s image than the environment . " Walmart still only generates 2 percent of U.S. electricity from wind and solar resources. According to the ILRS, Walmart routinely donates money to political candidates who vote against the environment . The retail giant responded to these accusations by stating "that it is serious about its commitment to reduce 20 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015." Environmental accounting can easily be used to pretend that the environmental impacts of a company are reduced while actual impacts increase. In 2018, in response to increased calls for banning plastic straws, Starbucks introduced a new straw-less lid that actually contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid combination. However it is recyclable unlike the older version. The term "bioplastics" refers to a plastic product that has been using materials based on biomass or manufactured with organisms. Bioplastics are often conflated with biodegradable plastics however the terms are not synonymous. For example, drop-in bioplastics are still considered bioplastics although the plastic produced has an identical chemical compound to that of its petroleum counterpart . Environmental awards given to fossil fuel companies such as Saudi Aramco by groups such as "The Green Organization" which charge entry and membership fees. In January 2020 the Fur Free Alliance (FFA) pointed that the "WelFur" label is run by the fur industry itself and is aimed at European fur farms.Four Paws and Fur Free Alliance warn against "Welfur" animal welfare label, retrieved January 29, 2020 in Four-paws.org. In November 2020, Aston Martin, Bosch and other brands were discovered to have funded a report which mislead consumers about the CO2 emissions produced during the manufacture of electric vehicles, in response to the UK announcing that it would ban the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles from 2030. The greenwashing scandal became known as Astongate given the relationship between the British automotive manufacturer and Clarendon Communications, a shell company posing as a PR agency which was set up to promote the report, and which was registered to James Michael Stephens – the Director Global Government & Corporate Affairs at Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.
Another Greenscam organization is the Northwesterners for More Fish, which had a budget of $2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminium companies, and the timber industry in the region, and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the Information Council on the Environment funded by the coal industry are also greenscamming organizations. In Germany, for example, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the so-called "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which mistakenly suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.Michael Brüggemann: Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Eds.): „Lügenpresse“: Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150. In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a lobby organization that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.See Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. C. H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, , p. 85. Psychological effects Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology and there is little consensus between studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences. Greenwashing's effect on consumer perception Researches found that products that are truly environmentally-friendly are perceived significantly more favorably than their greenwashed counterparts. Consumers are more likely to perceive the price of an item marketed as green as a sacrifice when evaluating greenwashed products. Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to. Other research suggests that few consumers actually notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed. Consumers are not aware of greenwashing in advertising, and trust green advertisements even when they are deceptive. Still other research suggests that consumers with higher green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the higher the green concern, the stronger the intention will be for not purchasing from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing. Research suggests that consumers distrust companies who greenwash because they view the act as deceptive. If consumers perceive that a company would realistically benefit from a green marketing claim, then it is more likely that the claim and the company will be seen as genuine. Attributions of greenwashing Consumer perception of green advertisements and greenwashing alike is impacted by where consumers attribute the green messaging. Eco-labels can be given to a product both from an external organization and by the company itself, which has raised concerns considering that companies are able to label a product green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing negative environmental impacts. Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling. Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers will often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire and is perceived negatively especially when the advertisement or environmental claim does not match a company's actual environmental engagement. Implications for green business The majority of researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that in order for companies to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing, companies should ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to green advertising and green behavior. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising is found to be most effective when it matches a company's actual environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they are unable to factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product. Significant exposure to greenwashing can make a consumer indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. This causes an issue for green businesses as they will have to differentiate themselves from the false claims. It is hypothesised that consumers may also react negatively to true sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing. Limits of greenwashing on consumer perception Research suggests that consumers’ willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as "gentle", can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option. Examples of greenwashing The Airbus A380 described as "A better environment inside and out." Common examples present in the marketing of food products (i.e. by making them appear to be healthier just because they have only natural ingredients, whereas even sugars and fat contents can affect healthiness of a product), alternative medicine and natural medicine. "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel coal, natural gas is only 50\% as dirty. Fracking issues exist when producing the gas. Despite this, it is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse and is in practice used to balance the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy. That said, it can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use. First-generation biofuels are mentioned as being more environmental to fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) contribute to deforestation (which contributes to global warming due to release of CO2). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these particular issues, but have contributed significantly to deforestation and habitat destruction in Canada due to rising corn prices, making it worthwhile to clear cut existing forests in agricultural areas. Landfill proponents' claims are often a good example of greenwashing. The proponents, the Taggart Group of Ottawa, Canada, of the Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre claim the centre would be primarily for recycling, but their plans are for about 86\% of waste they collect to be landfilled. crrrc.ca Environmentalists have argued that the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative actually weakens air pollution laws. Similar laws and critics were issued under macron as "simplifying ecology rules" while still being referred to by French Macron's government as "ecology laws", it being put among the law draft "law project for simplification of public action" Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally-friendly image even though there has been no attempt to lower the environmental impact of their production. In 2009, McDonald's changed the colour of its European logos from yellow-and-red to yellow-and-green; a spokesman explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources". Published consumption figures tend to underestimate the consumption seen in practice by 20\% to 30\%.Real-world emissions as well as the fuel consumption under the MCC (Milan City Cycle) were much higher - almost double - those obtained under the European type approval test cycle, Ref: JRC>IES>>13202 The reason is partly that official fuel consumption tests are not sufficiently representative of real-world usage. Automakers optimise their fuel consumption strategies to reduce the apparent cost of ownership of the cars and to improve their green image. Some environmental conservation groups have criticized the Annenberg Foundation for its attempt to construct domestic pet adoption and care facilities in the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve by repackaging them as part of an "urban ecology center" - a name chosen because it "accommodated the animal adoption process" according to a former spokesperson. The Los Angeles Times called the proposed facilities a "bad fit" for the ecological reserve. An article in Wired magazine alleged that slogans are used to suggest environmentally-benign business activity: the Comcast Ecobill has the slogan "PaperLESSisMORE", but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring (from the American city of Poland) ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good", although 80\% of beverage containers go to landfills. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high environmental cost. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK upheld several complaints against major vehicle manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota and Lexus who made false claims about their vehicles. Volkswagen fitted their cars with a "defeat device" which activated when a car was being tested and reduced the pollutants that the vehicle was emitting. In reality, the cars were emitting 40 times the allowed rate of nitrogen oxide. Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen $ 35.4 billion. Kimberly Clark's claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside but keeps the same petrochemical gel inside. Pampers also claims that "Dry Max" diapers reduce landfill by reducing the amount of paper fluff in the diaper, which really is a way for Pampers to save money. A 2010 advertising campaign by Chevron was described by the Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch and The Yes Men as greenwash. A spoof campaign was launched to pre-empt Chevron's greenwashing. "Clean Coal", an initiative adopted by several platforms for the 2008 U.S . presidential election, cited carbon capture and storage as a means of reducing carbon emissions by capturing and injecting carbon dioxide produced by coal power plants into layers of porous rock below the ground. According to Fred Pearce's Greenwash column in The Guardian, clean coal is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron ... pure and utter greenwash" . The renaming of "Tar Sands" to "Oil Sands", (Alberta, Canada) in corporate and political language reflects an ongoing debate between the project's adherents and opponents. This semantic shift can be seen as a case of greenwashing in an attempt at countering growing public concern about the environmental and health impacts of the industry. While advocates claim that the shift is scientifically derived to better reflect the use of the sands as a precursor to oil, environmental groups claim that it is simply a means of cloaking the issue behind friendlier terminology. Over the past years Walmart has claimed to "go green" with a sustainability campaign. However, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR ), "Walmart’s sustainability campaign has done more to improve the company’s image than the environment " . Walmart still generates only 2 \% of U.S. electricity from wind and solar resources. According to the ILRS, Walmart routinely donates money to political candidates who vote against environmentally-friendly measures . The retail giant responded to these accusations by stating "that it is serious about its commitment to reduce 20 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015." Environmental accounting can be used to pretend that the environmental impacts of a company are reduced while actual impacts increase. In 2018, in response to increased calls to ban plastic straws, Starbucks introduced a new straw-less lid that actually contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid combination. (But it can be recycled, unlike its predecessor.<)ref></ref> The term "bioplastics" refers to plastic products that have been using materials based on biomass or manufactured with organisms. Bioplastics are often conflated with biodegradable plastics but the terms are not synonymous. For example, drop-in bioplastics are still considered bioplastics although they have identical chemical structures to those of their oil-based counterparts . Environmental awards given to fossil fuel companies such as Saudi Aramco by groups such as "The Green Organization" which charge entry and membership fees. In January 2020 the Fur Free Alliance (FFA) pointed that the "WelFur" label is run by the fur industry itself and is aimed at European fur farms.Four Paws and Fur Free Alliance warn against "Welfur" animal welfare label, retrieved January 29, 2020 in Four-paws.org. In November 2020, Aston Martin, Bosch and other brands were discovered to have funded a report which misled consumers about the CO2 emissions produced during the manufacture of electric vehicles, in response to the UK announcing that it would ban the sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines from 2030. The greenwashing scandal became known as Astongate given the relationship between the British automotive manufacturer and Clarendon Communications, a shell company posing as a PR agency which was set up to promote the report, and which was registered to James Michael Stephens – the Director Global Government & Corporate Affairs at Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.
R
$2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminium companies, and the timber industry in the region, and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the Information Council on the Environment funded by the coal industry are also greenscamming organizations. In Germany, for example, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the so-called "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which mistakenly suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.Michael Brüggemann: Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Eds.): „Lügenpresse“: Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150. In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a lobby organization that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.See Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. C. H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, , p. 85. Psychological effects Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology and there is little consensus between studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences. Greenwashing's effect on consumer perception Researches found that products that are truly environmentally-friendly are perceived significantly more favorably than their greenwashed counterparts. Consumers are more likely to perceive the price of an item marketed as green as a sacrifice when evaluating greenwashed products. Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to. Other research suggests that few consumers actually notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed. Consumers are not aware of greenwashing in advertising, and trust green advertisements even when they are deceptive. Still other research suggests that consumers with higher green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the higher the green concern, the stronger the intention will be for not purchasing from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing. Research suggests that consumers distrust companies who greenwash because they view the act as deceptive. If consumers perceive that a company would realistically benefit from a green marketing claim, then it is more likely that the claim and the company will be seen as genuine. Attributions of greenwashing Consumer perception of green advertisements and greenwashing alike is impacted by where consumers attribute the green messaging. Eco-labels can be given to a product both from an external organization and by the company itself, which has raised concerns considering that companies are able to label a product green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing negative environmental impacts. Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling. Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers will often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire and is perceived negatively especially when the advertisement or environmental claim does not match a company's actual environmental engagement. Implications for green business The majority of researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that in order for companies to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing, companies should ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to green advertising and green behavior. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising is found to be most effective when it matches a company's actual environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they are unable to factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product. Significant exposure to greenwashing can make a consumer indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. This causes an issue for green businesses as they will have to differentiate themselves from the false claims. It is hypothesised that consumers may also react negatively to true sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing. Limits of greenwashing on consumer perception Research suggests that consumers’ willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as "gentle", can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option. Examples of greenwashing The Airbus A380 described as "A better environment inside and out." Common examples present in the marketing of food products (i.e. by making them appear to be healthier just because they have only natural ingredients, whereas even sugars and fat contents can affect healthiness of a product), alternative medicine and natural medicine. "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel coal, natural gas is only 50\% as dirty. Fracking issues exist when producing the gas. Despite this, it is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse and is in practice used to balance the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy. That said, it can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use. First-generation biofuels are mentioned as being more environmental to fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) contribute to deforestation (which contributes to global warming due to release of CO2). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these particular issues, but have contributed significantly to deforestation and habitat destruction in Canada due to rising corn prices, making it worthwhile to clear cut existing forests in agricultural areas. Landfill proponents' claims are often a good example of greenwashing. The proponents, the Taggart Group of Ottawa, Canada, of the Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre claim the centre would be primarily for recycling, but their plans are for about 86\% of waste they collect to be landfilled. crrrc.ca Environmentalists have argued that the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative actually weakens air pollution laws. Similar laws and critics were issued under macron as "simplifying ecology rules" while still being referred to by French Macron's government as "ecology laws", it being put among the law draft "law project for simplification of public action" Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally friendly imagery even though there has been no attempt made at lowering the environmental impact of its production. In 2009, European McDonald's changed the colour of their logos from yellow and red to yellow and green; a spokesman for the company explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources." Existing published consumption figures tend to underestimate the consumption seen in practice by 20 to 30\%.Real-world emissions as well as the fuel consumption under the MCC (Milan City Cycle) were much higher - almost double - those obtained under the European type approval test cycle, Ref: JRC>IES>>13202 The reason is partly that the official fuel consumption tests are not sufficiently representative of real-world usage. Automakers optimise their fuel consumption strategies in order to reduce the apparent cost of ownership of the cars and to improve their green image. Some environmental conservation groups have criticized the Annenberg Foundation for their attempt to construct domestic pet adoption and care facilities in the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve by repackaging them as part of an "urban ecology center" - a name chosen because it "accommodated the animal adoption process" according to a former spokesperson for the Foundation. The Los Angeles Times called the proposed domestic pet adoption facilities a "bad fit" for the ecological reserve. An article in Wired magazine alleges that slogans are used to suggest environmentally benign business activity: the Comcast Ecobill has the slogan "PaperLESSisMORE", but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring (from the American city of Poland) ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good", although 80\% of beverage containers go to landfills. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high negative environment cost. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK upheld several complaints against major car manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota and Lexus who made fake claims about their vehicles. Volkswagen were found out to have fitted their cars with a "defeat device". This device activated when a car was being tested and reduced the pollutants that the vehicle was recorded to have been emitting. In reality, the cars were emitting 40 times the allowed rate of nitrogen oxide. Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen $
$2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminium companies, and the timber industry in the region, and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the Information Council on the Environment funded by the coal industry are also greenscamming organizations. In Germany, for example, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the so-called "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which mistakenly suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.Michael Brüggemann: Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Eds.): „Lügenpresse“: Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150. In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a lobby organization that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.See Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. C. H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, , p. 85. Psychological effects Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology and there is little consensus between studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences. Greenwashing's effect on consumer perception Researches found that products that are truly environmentally-friendly are perceived significantly more favorably than their greenwashed counterparts. Consumers are more likely to perceive the price of an item marketed as green as a sacrifice when evaluating greenwashed products. Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to. Other research suggests that few consumers actually notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed. Consumers are not aware of greenwashing in advertising, and trust green advertisements even when they are deceptive. Still other research suggests that consumers with higher green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the higher the green concern, the stronger the intention will be for not purchasing from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing. Research suggests that consumers distrust companies who greenwash because they view the act as deceptive. If consumers perceive that a company would realistically benefit from a green marketing claim, then it is more likely that the claim and the company will be seen as genuine. Attributions of greenwashing Consumer perception of green advertisements and greenwashing alike is impacted by where consumers attribute the green messaging. Eco-labels can be given to a product both from an external organization and by the company itself, which has raised concerns considering that companies are able to label a product green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing negative environmental impacts. Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling. Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers will often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire and is perceived negatively especially when the advertisement or environmental claim does not match a company's actual environmental engagement. Implications for green business The majority of researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that in order for companies to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing, companies should ‘walk the walk’ when it comes to green advertising and green behavior. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising is found to be most effective when it matches a company's actual environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they are unable to factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product. Significant exposure to greenwashing can make a consumer indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. This causes an issue for green businesses as they will have to differentiate themselves from the false claims. It is hypothesised that consumers may also react negatively to true sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing. Limits of greenwashing on consumer perception Research suggests that consumers’ willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as "gentle", can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option. Examples of greenwashing The Airbus A380 described as "A better environment inside and out." Common examples present in the marketing of food products (i.e. by making them appear to be healthier just because they have only natural ingredients, whereas even sugars and fat contents can affect healthiness of a product), alternative medicine and natural medicine. "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel coal, natural gas is only 50\% as dirty. Fracking issues exist when producing the gas. Despite this, it is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse and is in practice used to balance the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy. That said, it can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use. First-generation biofuels are mentioned as being more environmental to fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) contribute to deforestation (which contributes to global warming due to release of CO2). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these particular issues, but have contributed significantly to deforestation and habitat destruction in Canada due to rising corn prices, making it worthwhile to clear cut existing forests in agricultural areas. Landfill proponents' claims are often a good example of greenwashing. The proponents, the Taggart Group of Ottawa, Canada, of the Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre claim the centre would be primarily for recycling, but their plans are for about 86\% of waste they collect to be landfilled. crrrc.ca Environmentalists have argued that the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Initiative actually weakens air pollution laws. Similar laws and critics were issued under macron as "simplifying ecology rules" while still being referred to by French Macron's government as "ecology laws", it being put among the law draft "law project for simplification of public action" Many food products have packaging that evokes an environmentally-friendly image even though there has been no attempt to lower the environmental impact of their production. In 2009, McDonald's changed the colour of its European logos from yellow-and-red to yellow-and-green; a spokesman explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources". Published consumption figures tend to underestimate the consumption seen in practice by 20\% to 30\%.Real-world emissions as well as the fuel consumption under the MCC (Milan City Cycle) were much higher - almost double - those obtained under the European type approval test cycle, Ref: JRC>IES>>13202 The reason is partly that official fuel consumption tests are not sufficiently representative of real-world usage. Automakers optimise their fuel consumption strategies to reduce the apparent cost of ownership of the cars and to improve their green image. Some environmental conservation groups have criticized the Annenberg Foundation for its attempt to construct domestic pet adoption and care facilities in the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve by repackaging them as part of an "urban ecology center" - a name chosen because it "accommodated the animal adoption process" according to a former spokesperson. The Los Angeles Times called the proposed facilities a "bad fit" for the ecological reserve. An article in Wired magazine alleged that slogans are used to suggest environmentally-benign business activity: the Comcast Ecobill has the slogan "PaperLESSisMORE", but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing. The Poland Spring (from the American city of Poland) ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good", although 80\% of beverage containers go to landfills. The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high environmental cost. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK upheld several complaints against major vehicle manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota and Lexus who made false claims about their vehicles. Volkswagen fitted their cars with a "defeat device" which activated when a car was being tested and reduced the pollutants that the vehicle was emitting. In reality, the cars were emitting 40 times the allowed rate of nitrogen oxide. Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen $
D
on the
D
waste
D
Advising hotel guests to reuse towels have an environmental impact with little cost, due to less energy and detergent used.
R
presidential elections is an example of political greenwashing. The policy
. presidential election,
A
and storage
R
"clean coal "
clean coal
R
"—"
...
D
he says.
R
The conversion of the term
. The renaming of
R
as to
about
R
usage
use
R
are claiming that this
claim that it
R
proclaimed
claimed
R
For Local Reliance (ILRS
for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR
D
.
R
Walmart still only generates
. Walmart still generates only
R
percent
\%
R
the environment
environmentally-friendly measures
D
easily
R
for banning
to ban
R
However it is recyclable unlike the older version.
(But it can be recycled, unlike its predecessor.<)ref></ref>
R
a plastic product that has
plastic products that have
R
however
but
R
the plastic produced has an identical chemical compound to that of its petroleum counterpart
they have identical chemical structures to those of their oil-based counterparts
R
mislead
misled
R
internal combustion engine vehicles
vehicles with internal combustion engines