Demand for eco-friendly products is on the rise. Is Australia’s meat and seafood industry using greenwashing to exploit environmentally conscious consumers?
Although the term “greenwashing” has been around for decades, discussions about it have gained momentum in recent years. Greenwashing occurs when the positive environmental impacts of products are exaggerated or even falsely claimed without substantial evidence. Companies use greenwashing to appeal to environmentally conscious consumers and exploit their good intentions for profit.
This article explores greenwashing in the context of Australia’s meat and seafood industry, which often makes vague and misleading claims about the environmental impact of raising animals for food.
Consumer trust and vulnerability
Misinformation around environmental impact and the greenwashing of products create a distrusting relationship between consumers and industries. When consumers are unable to access clear information about the sustainability of a product, industries can exploit those who trust the eco-friendly claims made. Without adequate resources to verify these claims, consumer beliefs and the actual impact of their purchase vary. Companies use this information gap to exaggerate claims or mislead consumers with vague and unsubstantiated claims. This allows them to falsely maintain consumer trust, meeting the demand for sustainable products without genuinely adopting sustainable practices.
Taking advantage of consumer support for animal welfare
The meat and seafood industry identifies the evolving priorities of consumers and tailors its marketing strategies to create the illusion of environmental responsibility. However, this widens the trust gap further and leads to consumer vulnerability and confusion.
Take “sow stall free” labels, for example. These labels focus on a single animal welfare issue, namely freeing mother pigs (sows) from stalls, while ignoring the broader concerns for animal welfare and the environment in the pork industry. This oversimplifies the product and presents it positively, encouraging consumers to believe that the entire process is “green.” However, freeing sows from stalls doesn’t ensure their welfare or environmental protection. The author describes this as the industry’s “co-optation of animal activism” — selectively using animal welfare claims allows companies to appear progressive and prevents them from being held to account for other ethical and environmental issues.
The role of third-party certification
To avoid greenwashing, third-party certification schemes promise to “fact-check” claims and ensure transparency. However, these are not standardized. Without strict standards and measures, certification schemes can be manipulated by the meat and seafood industry to mislead consumers.
The Australian Animal Welfare Certification System is one such example. This is used by supermarkets like Aldi. They claim that their animal products are sourced in compliance with animal welfare standards, but the certification system itself is influenced by the farmed animal industry. Without independence from the industry, the certification system faces conflicts of interest.
A similar example can be found in the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which is responsible for certifying sustainable seafood companies. Nevertheless, the Council approved environmental exemptions for salmon farms in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbor, allowing auditors to overlook the smolt pens stage of the farming process. Yet, the end products could still be marketed as “responsibly sourced.”
Current legislation not tough enough
The author explores current legal frameworks in Australia, namely the Australian Consumer Law and Corporations Act 2001, that address greenwashing. These frameworks, among many others, are accused of being too lenient. While companies may be penalized for greenwashing their products, they tend to factor this into “the cost of doing business.” Therefore, the author argues, stricter enforcement is required to address consumer deception.
Likewise, the article critiques the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the leading regulatory bodies responsible for sanctioning organizations for misleading and deceptive conduct. These Commissions are usually under-resourced and overworked, which prevents them from tackling greenwashing more effectively, especially within larger companies. The author thus urges the government to adequately resource its regulatory bodies.
Ultimately, better protections are needed to prevent the exploitation of environmentally conscious consumers. For animal advocates, raising awareness around greenwashing could be a good place to start — for instance, running public campaigns that call for increased accountability and transparency for the meat and seafood industry. In Australia specifically, advocates can push for funding for regulatory bodies and increased enforcement of existing greenwashing legislation, as this article recommends.
Original source: https://faunalytics.org
https://www.animalagricultureclimatechange.org/is-this-just-another-case-of-corporate-greenwashing/
