Green Talk thinks Clorox ’s role in trying to reduce water bottle usage is an oxymoron. I think it is green wash.

I meant to write about this a couple of weeks ago, but new (good) habits are hard to start, which is why I am willing to cut some companies some slack. But Clorox is not one of those companies in this case.

Here is the deal as I understand it. Clorox, along with Nalgene, is sponsoring Filter for Good the purpose of which is to get people to, you guessed it, use filtered water instead of bottled water. Clorox is the North America parent of Brita. So far so good. Americans have an unhealthy love affair with bottled water, much of which is just plain old municipal water in a wasteful package. So what is wrong with this picture?

It seems that in Europe Brita filters are recycled, but they aren’t here in the United States! That to me is greenwash. If the same product is recyclalbe and already is recycled in another country the company should be working at top speed to get it recycled in every other. Green Talk has a link to a video and lots more information on what you can do to convince Clorox to start recycling Brita water filters here in the United States.

This recycling conundrum points up a problem that we in the US face. In Europe there seems to be a better system for retailers to get products back to the manufacturer. If we really want to close the loop on products we need to improve the system for getting products back to their point of origin. But until there is an easy way for retailers to reverse the supply chain (storage of the return for recycling product is the big problem) it is going to be an up hill battle. Hmmm, maybe there is a business opportunity there — a store in every major mall that accepts recyclables.

BusinessGreen reports on an article in The Sun about Starbucks’ use of water in it stores.

Starbucks has been accused of greenwashing today after it was claimed that the company wastes 23.4 million litres of water – enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool every 83 minutes – by leaving taps on in its branches all day.

Pun intended, but using that much water is not washing in a green manner.  I also don’t think that it is green washing.  Green washing to me is when a company makes a green claim about its products or services that is less than accurate either factually or morally.  No where in the article does it say that Starbucks is claiming that it uses less water than its competitors or that it is a water efficient company.

By all means Starbucks should be taken to task for not being more efficient in its use of water.  They should also be ashamed of their response to the accusations.

A representative for Starbucks said: “Dipper wells use a stream of continuous cold fresh-running water to rinse away food residue, help keep utensils clean and prevent bacterial growth. This technique is common and well-accepted in the industry.”

They added that the company’s policies were in line with World Health Organisation (WHO), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union (EU) directives for in-store water supply standards, but conceded, that ” the opportunity exists to reduce our total water usage”.

The proper response to something like this is “Thank you for pointing out an opportunity to improve. We will certainly look into it.  This may require be a longer term solution as we have to follow local health codes.” 

A company can’t change everything over night, but by this time next year Starbucks should certianly be able to point to dramatic changes.  I hope The Sun follows up on this topic.

Saab Plants Trees To Placate Australian Ad Board.

A year after Saab was accused of Greenwashing, Saab Australia’s parent company, GM Holden, has been successfully sued by Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for misleading buyers into believing their vehicles would be carbon-neutral during thier lifetimes, Autoblog reports.

The result of the suit, GM Holden (Saab Austrailia’s parent company)is planting 12,500 trees and retraining its staff in relation to making green claims.

Wonder if the training will be how to more effectively greenwash or about how to create meaningful initiatives?

When will we see the first big greenwashing suits here in the United States?