What things do you usually buy: whose packaging does not harm the environment, whose composition on the 39; label is true, safe and effective? The manufacturer of such products must also be environmentally friendly and pay their employees decent wages? & Nbsp;
Companies whose products comply with these principles and a number of others establish their business in an ESG coordinate system. However, there are brands in the Russian market that until now only make strong statements about the ethics and environmental friendliness of their products, but in reality they do not. properly implement these practices. & Nbsp;
These companies (intentionally or unknowingly) resort to greenwashing & mdash; environmental marketing, when a company presents its products in a favorable light while misleading the consumer.
League of green brands & mdash; development institute, created on the initiative of Unilever and clean line cosmetics brand, & mdash; Since 2019, he has been working on the systematic implementation of “ green '' principles. responsible, checking to what extent Russian companies adhere to it throughout the life cycle of goods and services. One of the league's key tasks & mdash; fight against greenwashing. & nbsp;
At the beginning of December, a final league conference was held, during which its participants and partners discussed their already implemented projects and shared their plans for 2022. AiF editorial staff attended the conference and invites you to familiarize yourself with the theses of the speech of Evgenia Sedova, Director of Research and Development, Unilever Personal Care Products in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. What are the 'sins' Do the manufacturers have?
1. Hidden sin of compromise & mdash; claiming a product as green on the basis of individual characteristics without taking into account other components of its ecological footprint.
Example. When talking about doypack packaging, the companies that own brands point out that in the production of such containers and the transport of products reduce the volume of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. However, due to the complex composite composition and the lack of a large-scale infrastructure for collection and sorting, doypacks are hardly recycled, so it is incorrect to speak of their compliance with environment.
2. The sin of lack of evidence & mdash; sustainability claims that cannot be verified by public information or independent assurance.
Example. The manufacturer claims recycled content in the product packaging, but cannot validate this claim any officially accepted source of information.
3. Sin of vagueness & mdash; too broad and long statement referring to the environmental friendliness of the product, but does not have a clear content and meaning for the consumer.
Example. Use of the words 'natural' , 'Organic', 'eco' on the product label without any special meaning.
4. Sin of irrelevance & mdash; using truthful but irrelevant claims about product specifications.
Example. Without an alcohol mention on baby food or non-GMO packaging on the salt packaging, where such a designation is not relevant.
5. Sin of the lesser of two evils & mdash; the statement used may be true within a product category, but may distract the user from larger or negative environmental impacts.
Example. Legend of organic cigarette; on the packaging, while the composition of cigarettes in relation to the harms of smoking does not really matter.
6. The sin of false marking & mdash; indirectly position a product as having an independent eco-label that doesn't really exist.
Example. Use your own logos that resemble the official eco-certification logos in design, font, or name.
7. Sin of lies & mdash; outright deception concerning the characteristics of the product.
Example. False attribution of a real eco-label to a product which has not actually been certified.