What is and Isn’t Greenwashing?

Many of us are familiar with the term “green-washing”. It means that companies are making sustainable claims over their products or production processes while that does not hold true. In doing so, companies are lying to their customers in their efforts to purchasing more sustainable. This tends to be done through marketing, for example by using slogans and product lables that make consumers feel more concious about their purchasing impacts. When these claims do not hold true, consumers are lied at and that is referred to as “green-washing.”

If a shoebrand x does not resell their products, because consumers do not want them, can you call it greenwashing for recycling them into new products?

What does green-washing really mean? Can you think of something? When you google “examples for green-washing” you find products that amongst other use recycled packaging. Here the green-washing claim can be that recycled packaging has little to do with the content of lets say shampoo in a recycled plastic bottle. We don’t know how shampoo is produced, but one may end up buying that shampoo, because the packaging is produced with a lower environmetal footprint. Argumentatively, consumers can have the perception that this refers to the entire product and the shampoo brand might later be associated as a “green-washer.”

In contray to how this company can be called as “green-washer”, the company is also not because it reduces its environmental footprint by using recycled materials to create new shampoo bottles. Therefore, the company is not a green-washer, because its claims hold true. This applies to other companies too that are referred to as “green-washer”. Such an example are certain textile brands that use recycled materials made of plastic waste. While indeed, microplastics can enter the environment during wash of these textiles, these companies are not greenwashing because they utilize waste instead of new production resources for the same or similiar output.

When can it be called greenwashing? Greenwashing in the law context actively refers to companies misleading their consumers into buying something, while what they claim to be does not hold true. Legally speaking this is called fraud and may also be referred to it as such. On contray, companies putting in an effort into reducing their environmental footprint is not fraud and therefore also not green-washing. It is not fraud, because it is something that they are actively doing; even a company that uses marketing which is effective in terms of consumer keeping their products longer, without necessarily changing the product itself, likely does not qualify as green-washing. It is not, because it is real, meaning marketing is used rather directional as oppose to fictional.

Companies less likely engage into greenwashing because of pleasure, but because of fear. Understanding greenwashing, means understanding fear too.

Of course, some companies could do a bit more. Are there better ways then referring to greenwashing right away and why? Overusing the term greenwashing is less likely beneficial because it undermines the efforts companies put into better production processes. In addition to that, efforts can look different and by setting an ideal to how something should be, it becomes difficult to differentiate between efforts and their effectiveness too. Instead of using the term green-washing it could be pointed out what efforts the company is implementing and where it currently runs short on. Contrarily green-washing may be particular used for companies that comit fraud “doing nothing, claiming a lot ” .

If not as many companies actually engage in green-washing, why are so many referred to engaging in it? Often sustainable production processes are compared to extreme ideals. It means that production and consumption practices should not cause environmental and social damage. In addition, the origin of the term “sustainability” comes from forest ecology, in which natural cycles, cycle naturally and hint to why we have such high ideals. When we talk about business logics and all components that go into business practices, including those of consumers, these ideals are difficul to live up to, because business logics tend to operate on different ideals. Also, they do not tend to cylce, like we can see in forest ecology. As a result it becomes difficult for companies to change everything, meaning some companies start with small, but incremental changes, similiar to consumers. Baby steps, also for the big ones ;).

References

*I decided not to use references for this blog, but experience from my former job as research associate in sustainability business and law terminology from my studies.

Are you currently looking into making your company more sustainable and don’t know where to start? Let me know. I offer sustainability analysis and freelance writing services in the field; making sure that your ideals can be met and remain feasible to yourself and your consumers.

Get in touch

Don’t hesitate to reach out with the contact information below, or send a message using the form.

acjoest@gmail.com

What does lost in translation mean?


Lost in Translation means that the meaning given to a word or phrase is lost in translation. This can lead to misunderstandings. Let’s take the question “Do you like the Big Apple?”. If you translate the question word to word, in another language, the most basic assumption would be, whether you like to eat the fruit apple and conclusively apples in larger size. You want to answer of course and may think “Hmm. Yes, I like big apples and I’ll settle for small ones too.” The answer is being translated and you say “Yes, most often.” , or “Not much” because you don’t like apples, for example.

What is meant with the question “Do you like the big apple?”. In the example, “The Big Apple” is used as a reference point or in other words as a nickname for the metropolis “New York” in the United States. It is known as “The Big Apple”. Now you could wonder, why would someone not directly ask you whether you like New York instead of asking you if you like “The Big Apple”. This can have different reasons, for example having a different cultural backgrounds, where the term is commonly used or in other examples having different interests, or different meanings attached to what is being said. Does it matter that much? you may wonder.

It does matter, because by giving words different meanings, the expected result runs risk of being different then what was expected or hoped for. So imagine you set up a meeting with a counterpartner and that partner wants to set up a business in the United States. When they approach you and ask how you like the Big Apple (their primary choice of business location) and hear back that this is something you really don’t like, maybe never liked, that person might go on to look for another business partner. Worse, both of you might even be outraged, since it was clear to both of you why you met; “Lost in Translation”.

Sure, that’s quite the example. However, it can happen quite quickly. In my language teaching, I pay attention to what you mean and therefore, the message you want to convey. I listen and offer word alternatives to reduce”lost in translation”. Most of the time I succeed by using simple expressions. Why simple? Too often we get tangled up in long sentences and the longer the sentences, the more risk for “Lost in Translation”, or in other words “miscommunication”. Second, many words do not exist in the other languages.

Want to get to know your way of communicating better or have me help you become better in English? I offer language classes to German native speakers and non German native speakers. The benefit? If you can explain it to me, you can explain it to someone else too. Real-life learning.

Thank you to my readers, and what is next

Thank you for everyone who has been subscribing to my blogs and of who I have received comments and e-mails. This blog has initially started very unsuccessfully with transportation in Cambodia, followed by how I travelled with my first cat and evolved as I began developing an interest for bamboo. The interest developed after interning at INBAR in China and then later on into more critical writing, when I realized that the moment we are supportive or advocating for one thing, we tend to disregard another, leaving a blind stop to ourselves and presenting others with such too. I am thanking my MSc thesis course on innovation because it was through “Social Practice Theory” and my comperative analysis of bamboo and timber that I realized bamboo isn’t the thing for everyone, but for specific markets and consumers. Apparently, many people want the wood, because it simply feels romantic, and that is so okay.

Now, why do I write this? My job as research associate in Sustainability Sciences has ended on December 2022. To date, I have dedicated many hours in my profession, education and free time towards “it”. It is sustainability and I came to realize that just like with bamboo, if you become too advocating for “it” you develop a blind spot for what it is not. I now came to like Hegels theory in which a thesis co-exists with an antithesis to form a new synthesis (mainly a new theory). Today it made me think of “if something is sustainable, something is not and if something is not sustainable, something is.” If mathemathics is not sustainable, the antithesis is that it is, so the question is what is sustainable mathematics? You may find it is sustainable depending on its use case and maybe not if it is taught with such irrelevance that it comes little to use. After all it is what we use to programm, even the wordpress I am using to write and publish my blogs with.

What does this mean for me and for you? I will no longer write about one thing or the other, one field or the other , be supportive or not supportive of one thing or the other, but instead I want to rather dive into its depth. “What does this actually mean that we talk and fair about? Does this make sense?”. In other means, I have no clue what I will be writing about in particular,but certainly what comes to mind and I hope you can continue to be part of it, or also not if that is what you want.

All the best and I thank you very much,

Ann-Cathrin

P.S. If public policy can be supportive of one thing, it can also mean it can be not. If more sustainable housing lead to displacement of people who can no longer afford it, then it also is not more sustainable housing. So what is sustainable housing? [I guess what comes next will be much like this] 😉

Cover Image Source: https://www.furche.at/images/content/3566046-1280x658c-Hegel.jpg

[If you use cover image sources, always! cite them, thanks to my neighbour, because you can get fines if you don’t and following Hegel’s theory, also not. The guy on the cover image is Hegel. Heres a link towards his philosophy . ]

Should we stop using the letter of motivation?

According to author Harrington J. chapter in “Total Innovative Excellence” for an employee whose salary is US $60,000it will cost the company anywhere from US $30,000 to US $45,000 to hire and train a replacement. So why not starting it of with the right motivation? And why, with the right motivation, when it is the motivation that is right to begin with? I argue differently and believe that the motivation is often rather imaginary and targeted towards what is wanted as desired motivation. This makes applying and the review of applications more time-consuming for both employees and applicants. To reduce that I suggest to deviate from the letter of motivation and reduce it to a 6-7 sentences e-mail with what “realy does motivate or not”. Following you can find my arguments, with backgrounds drawing from psychoanalytical theory, which is much about what happens “unconciously”;

Unless your bills are paid by themselves, the primary motivation to apply for a paid job is very likely to get paid. Even if it is our dream job, we’d still want it to pay. Now we could mention it in letter(s) of motivation, but somehow it appear(s) unpolite to have a salary as prime motivator. Why? After all we want motivated employees and it seems that salary should not be the key factor for motivation, because the motivation should come from “within”. Ironically, it is also not neither nor. Because the salary is important, does not mean the rest or the motivation is not. Maybe there is no other motivation then the salary, and that may be okay too, if it is what sustains or has one grow in the company. After all, we don’t know.

Now what’s a letter of motivation? It describes the applicants motivation. However, motivation(s) tend to be different and successfull letter(s) of motivation tend to not cater towards that, but towards the motivation that one could imagine as an ideal motivation to land the job. If we were real about this, we would understand that we don’t know what type of motivation a company is expecting, other then what our motivation is so that we find a good match that is as real as it can be.

Even though we slightly know about it, we tend to ignore it and enter the I call it “double-folded application trap”. We know what motivates us most likely and what does not. And something similiar might apply to the employer. Both know, there is no such thing as the super ideal candidate. As applicants we pretend for it to be not like that, because we want to get the job and as employers and recuriters we hope the ideal candidate with the ideal motivation is out there too. Now it starts; the ideal letter of motivation begins being targeted as well as waited for to be recieved.

Hours may be spend perfectionising it, because of how little it should lead to rejection. If the letter of motivation was most real, it would probably reject some ideals and illustrate a different motivation to none. It may even lead to self-rejection, because less criteria and a different motivation would be present. While self-rejection could be suitable, it also is less favorable for economic and competative reasons. It means at this point a letter of motivation is submitted, which can run risk to be rather imaginary. What is left is the question of what is real for those who wrote and for those who read it (even worse with story-telling). Are you really okay with working over hours or is this something you want to do out of a heart-break, which means you won’t sustain in that position?

This makes applying as well as recuriting tyring, because one has to first fish through what is real and what is less likely and that for multiple job applications and their reviews. Now, should we end the letter of motivation? I would say yes and reduce it to an e-mail introduction of required 5-7 sentences instead. After all the job appliction has already been read so that when someone is applying it can be assumed that there is “a motivation” and the five liner might illustrate which one it is or not. Maybe someone even has a different motivation that can be suitable too. And what even is ideal, when in the lack of it, new ideals or candidates with different skills and motivations might be found too? Maybe someones real motivation even suprises “I am going to be a mom in a month and want to secure a job before giving birth. I am a quick learner and would like to grow with you. It is only possible if my child can be a part of this. See my CV attached.”

Hope you enjoyed this. Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Image Source: What it means to be “real” according to psychology by Steven Handel.

What holds us back to love? On love and bias.

For a while, something preoccupied me. Love. When had we failed in love, when had we succeeded? Why did love feel so great, why did love scare? Why are we afraight to love? Why had love created problems? Where was <the> love?

I thought about the many stereotypes we internalize over years as a child, teen an adult. We think there is only one real type of love, the one we see in Hollywood, the one in which couples kiss, the one were couples hold hands. Yet, they were symbols for a certain type of love but these symbols might hold us back from realizing love; holding onto an extreme version of idealized romanticizing.


Love transcends and passes through a series of relationships in which people bond. Bonding as a connection, a form of love, outside of a stereotyped version of only one type of love and the symbols we associate to loving and being loved. As a result, love scares. In movies or social media; love in its “enactment” is sexualized, perceived as (too) unprofessional, a symbol for infidelity, something bad that must be kept secret, even punishable within the LGBTQ community.


But love is not wrong, threatening or bad. It is a feeling. A beautiful feeling. There are only interpretations of love or loving (a neutral emotion) in which, for example, specific enactments are portrayed as a sequence of the feeling of love. Yet, love is not a box. Love is not enactment. Love is not predescribed behavior. Love is merely a feeling. A feeling that sets free, creates warmth, closeness, forms and maintains connection.

Yet we tend to bend so much against this feeling, because love so often seems to be one particular “thing” associated or equated to stereotypes and how to be and not to. How to love and not to. Who to love and who not to. As a result we give little space to love. We reduce the possibility to love, to be loved, for love to surface, to be lived. We may decline and forbid one of the feelings most precious, not only to others, bust most of all ourselves. A feeling worth so living for.

Why would this matter for sustainability?

We talk, we laugh, we cry, we challange, we grow together, we might start to love. We realize its love. We change. We feel bad. We stop. We end relationships. Yet what brings most joy, brings most saddness. We begin isolating, maybe hating, we might consume too much, drink too much, move away. We are sad. Not because of love, but the perceived consequences loving holds, although there are none to loving.

I can love you and you can love me in any way you want to, we want to, within the boundaries of the enactment we set to it or open up. Love enables. Love does never restrict.

[Cover picture by @Juni.ka on Instagram]