The issue of washing - whether green, tree, ethical or carbon neutral - has been much talked about, resulting in more vigilant, well-informed consumers. Better able to read between the lines, which are often green, conscious and committed. And that's already a victory.
But what about #SMEs? Are they always aware that they are applying #washing methods, or are they sometimes naive, ill-informed or badly advised? It's very tempting to ride this green, ethical and responsible wave. But what risks does a company run by "embellishing" its CSR actions for the general public? One of the major risks is to be confronted by more informed consumers who feel they have been misled. And ultimately, provoke an anti #washing campaign. Boycotts and C2C word-of-mouth, often publicized in 2.0 mode, are the worst fears of all managers and communicators. It can escalate so quickly and out of control.
1. Combine Priority + Proportionality
Depending on the nature of its industry, each company will face greater environmental and social risks in certain areas of impact. It is therefore essential to tackle the most likely negative externalities that represent a significant environmental or social hazard first. A materiality matrix willtake this into account, enabling the company to prioritize its actions according to the major risks associated with its sector of activity and its CSR strategy.
If we take the example of the textile industry, a ready-to-wear brand will have three areas of high environmental risk: 1. the sourcing of its raw materials,
2. the environmental impact of its production chain,
3. the use of chemicals or harmful substances in its products. These are the priority areas to be considered first.
Furthermore, the resources committed must be proportional to the priorities set out above. In the case of our ready-to-wear brand, the development of an "eco-responsible" capsule collection, widely publicized but representing 5% of its production volume, cannot be considered proportional to the risks identified as priorities.
2. Assuming quantified transparency
Making figures available to the public on the progress of your commitments is a way of putting your money where your mouth is. Be careful, however, to provide absolute, verified and verifiable data. Indeed, if we take the case of GHGs (greenhouse gases) for example, these often tend to be communicated in relative terms, which distorts the result.
3. Act first, compensate later
It is sometimes difficult for SMEs to act directly on their GHG production at all levels of their business. One solution that is becoming increasingly common is carbon offsetting, whether in the private or public sector, or on an individual scale. Whether through the purchase of carbon credits to support projects linked to the promotion of renewable energies or the planting/preservation of forests, the offer is manifold. Unfortunately, the impact varies.
When communicating, associate the actions taken to directly reduce your carbon footprint with the carbon offset projects you support to compensate for the remaining minority.
4. Proceed with caution
Measuring impact, implementing an action plan, analyzing initial results. This process will take several months before concrete positive impact targets are reached. Should we keep quiet until then? The answer is no. This period of transformation is an integral part of the path towards a more virtuous company. Encountering difficulties, having doubts, being vulnerable makes business human. So yes, announce your commitments with discernment, and put this journey into words and images with humility and caution.
The fear of #washing should not be paralyzing. On the contrary, it should encourage companies to measure their communications against their actions. No more. No less.
SOURCES
- Bilan, Word of mouth, the marketing left-behind, 14.03.2019
- SASB, Materiality Map
- Le Monde, Is the principle of carbon offsetting effective?, 06.03.2019
READ MORE
https://pour-un-reveil-ecologique.org/fr/les-entreprises-nous-répondent/#guide-anti-greenwashing
