Please outline your support or disagreement to this statement. Firms are rewarded by stakeholders for reportedly beneficial actions whose credibility cannot assessed. In other words, stakeholders reward firms for stuff that may be greenwash. Do you think this is true? Why?
Wordcount 2200 Environmental schemes when perceived immoral/unethical in nature are deemed as corporate greenwash. Disclosure of negative information creates an excessively positive corporate image and simply deception. (Kim H-E and Lyon P T 2010) This may be because the underlying motive is profit or advantage, such a schemes higher advertising than operative cost. It may be considered alternatively in other schemes, whereby changing for a small duration of time, then resuming business as usual, such as a recycling scheme in an office, over simplistically consider decoupling from material use; it still can be done better. Many examples like this are not necessary to understand the benefits of greenwash and bad practice as examples themselves are far too narrow. A holistic approach is needed to view greenwash as it covers a broad, interdependent list of criteria. Stakeholders in modern society prefer ethical businesses, thus a safeguarded or well thought meaningful CSR strategy is vital, as not doing so may cause stakeholders to dissociate. Environmental Justice is greenwash as; it is considered a utopia ideal, and suggests if followed to promote environmental benefits to the worst affected areas first. Thus the worst emitting factories in the world should be combated first; and logical but these may have little financial capability, such as poor households, should other corporations pay for fixing others problems, is this fair for individuals or consumers to pay for the mitigation for climate change ideals, trends suggest so, thus corporations by committing greenwash are not viewed as harmful to society directly but may influence other businesses to adopt better practice. (Zaman U A et al 2010) Greenwash concepts have came into fame since the 1980's environmental movement for business's environmental performance to reduce costs arising from their unloved activities. Since the 2000's namely the term environmental sustainability is business lead and profitable since the dynamics of the stakeholder have changed from profit to social, ethical and moral considerations. (Gamerschlag R et al 2010 ) Eco marketing, fabrication and operation were lasting criteria, and increasingly supply and value chain promoting competition and innovation, namely green contributes to long-term profits. Marketing was traditionally based on the demand side, thus business woud fulfil demand and that the whole value chain would create best sustainable practice. (Sharma A, et al 2010) The social and environmental aspects must be outlined first for a worldwide understanding. Corporate value must be understood first in order to derive balanced conclusions. Firstly trustfulness is imperative in a globalising era; we see examples of perceived connotations on many corporate sites with hyperlinks on company websites to NGO's et al. simply other qualities such as reliability and qualitative products or services leads to credibility. Greenwash directly questions business credibility. Businesses do not like this. Businesses promote credibility through public relations and CSR, displaying openly their brand characteristics, direction, and legitimacy, these should be analysed into justified criteria on a holistic risk assessment, and be transparent to stakeholders, and appear in CSR reporting. Then the measurable criteria of such 'policy' come into question. This is what is done, namely are they committed and consistent with their hard work, this is best analysed in real time, as what business have previously done wrong should not affect the future green perceptions and how they are combating future targets. Society and business change constantly and sustainability needs an optimistic view. (Jahdi S K, Acikdilli G, 2009) CSR exposure is undoubtedly associated with higher business visibility, industry membership and larger firm size, and dispersed share ownership structures leaving potential for more stakeholders. High polluting deemed firms tend to disclose more information and more likely to commit greenwash as it is only of benefit to display positive information. CSR reporting is great to promote competition among corporations for investment Even if CSR is deemed as greenwash in premise CSR reporting sets a competition guideline and additionally provides information for cost-effective greenhouse mitigation. (Kim H-E and Lyon P T 2010) Even if the reports are ambitious, they must display certainty as who would invest heavily in a uncertain company. They can demonstrate impact through analysis or research and development. Attempting action provides potential value, however erroneously; ambition improves one's state of mind, and societies. (Patt A, Zeckhauser R 2000) Whilst a great deal of active research relies upon secondary data, such as share prices, external news releases, corporate disclosures, Greenwash if used to manipulate the markets is good for society and climate change mitigation, for profit is deemed as unethical . (Deegan C, 2004) Greenwash may also be good for the social order as morals conflict in theory, scientifically, to promote one's self discovery. If endowments are less dispersed, this increases the marginal return to effort and it's easier to go beyond others. If businesses rewards become less dispersed, then there is a decrease in the marginal return on effort as rewards. The more similar rewards, efforts increase, thus if businesses help other businesses increases in competition are inevitable. While the lower and Business may lose from rearrangement and competitive edge. In an unequal society, business competition means they will work less and receive fewer rewards. Dispersed rewards increase efforts at all levels. Inequality of rewards, not of endowments, that is a likely cause of concern that is why rewarding for greenwash is counterproductive to the sustainable transition as equality and equilibrium makes people works too hard, thus collaboration is to be used to divide efforts in such transition. That business which we see not collaborating will undoubtedly have to work very hard. And be overly ambitious, tempting the fate of greenwash. (Collicott J B 1994) An example of perceived greenwash should not only be looked at close minded; but a holistic view of the company must be perceived. The technological sector will be viewed to display a hidden positives of globalisation to promote competition. The current analysis in the technological industry shows that cooperation has a sequential logic. If Industrialised countries promote international trade or globalisation which require regulatory overhaul, they may enforce their conditions on developing countries, thus difficult regulations could become acceptable over time, thus is a company is greenwashing, look at the wider concepts of how they help society, through their own policy or practice standards. (Urpelainen J, 2010) Equality will now be viewed from a business perspective as greenwash is difficult in deciding which scheme and where. Equality is difficult from a business perspective and we must acknowledge that. Perhaps a business social investment in children is considered, do we give money to the disabled or smart? Additionally a wealthy or a very poor person? Ethically and morally arguments would conflict, yet a business must make a decision and weather it benefits them directly or indirectly it should not be the case, it is good will. (Bradley B 2006) Human beings have duties to others, animals and surroundings in which we elicit sympathy, it is whereby other factors such as wild animals, plants and organisms (biotic community) that we do not elicit our sympathy in the same way. It is in today's society where it is socially correct to become integrated with the environment and diverge from a king of the castle perspective to an integral member. Business must have sympathy for everything as an integral member of society. Sympathy provided a base for corporate social responsibilities duties and obligations on a range of moral sentiments. This is ever difficult whereby the environmental cost- benefit analysis is difficult for companies as the number of beneficiaries and qualitative aspects must be considered both regionally and local environmental schemes (Hanley N, et al 2003). They must be then involved in their communities and society. Citizenship in a larger biotic community allows us to have sympathy with oil companies whose life relies on mining resources, to temporary preserve human life, and perhaps they are heroes. The bigger picture is not seen as our duties have typically been with those of are in a local community therefore have place attachment. Direct moral considerations will differ on human beings areas nations, areas, soils, animals, water, energy needs, biosphere, ecosystem, and the preference or attachment to those or similar criteria. If inevitable resource scarcity present, their livelihood is ultimately doomed. Analyses of the relationship between disclosure and performance in social and environmental accounting have focused on the environment in view of the fact that measurement is somewhat less problematic than for social issues are difficult to analyse, environmental factors on the other hand can to some degree be measured scientifically, and social measures or the perceived success of environmental measure must be displayed and be transparent for a full understanding. Environmental policy statements are simple promoting greenwash capabilities and stakeholders want policies, controlling implementation is difficult, commitment is difficult to perceive without regulation and understanding business rationale for scheme. Full sustainability is amusing at this stage as there are barriers in the way. If viewing the global climate change policies and strategies negotiations have lasted long, environmental change is a slow process both politically and intrinsically in a value sense to business and society, which are often shown low carbon lighting, washing powders and the like but refuse to for example wash our clothing by hand or in the bath tub. Alternatives and policies are a constant form of greenwashing holistically. Greenwash undoubtedly occurs where we do not expect it. There is a lack of traceability and transparency in the current green labelling schemes which do not help the consumer gain confidence in the products they buy. Fair trade schemes promote, holistically good practice farming. Does the company have one fair trade product or many, and for those whom are not fair trade how do we distinguish between acceptable and bad practice without full transparency? Additionally who is going to pay for additional transparency management, ultimately the customer? (Zaman U A et al 2010)Money is the most likely motivator and sustainable implementations must be considered for the long term. Greenwash should view long term business strategies and not short term implementations, as ultimately business will provide what society needs. The Economic benefit is the most feasible motivator for a company to execute exact environmental policy. A stakeholder should be sceptical if a business commits to a policy where potential profit does not exist, either long or short term; greenwashing is everywhere, and not a bad thing. Increasing efforts to alleviate sceptics or pessimists from CSR is to allow Third-party audits and confirmation may to assure the stakeholders that environmental policy promises lead to policy execution. In the respect of value added, inherent value are things we must respect such as a corporations profit, living beings, while intrinsic value is had by the "realization of its good, such as emotional feelings. good will makes the world a better place no matter what it effects or accomplishes? Besides promoting or respecting it, love, preserving, want, think we need this is what corporations are ultimately trying to express and is good. (Bradley B 2006 ) It is suggested sustainable implementations can benefit well-being and financial gain/incentives. By educating decision makers on marketing, and stakeholders a return on investment may lead to benefit societies or business longevity, effectiveness and sustainability and resource use. (Kula E, Evans D, 2010) Business always benefits with ads, no matter the impact of such greenwash the customer is always knowledgeable. Anything unknown to a community, then known is a form of education. Consumers want information about what markets offer. Ads especially detrimental increase the green movement which is good. By preaching, suggesting a feeling of guilt, and promoting excessive consumerist behaviour, prolonged repetition can promote change thus; identifying corporate greenwash is a good strategy to promote value, from tangible goods to quality or intangible change in society. On the other side business executives some 87 percent suggested environmental considerations were critical to sustain and drive profit. We here words like green and eco friendly, which are beginning to be ineffectual. If consumers question all green claims and do not, see positive companies, they will lose faith and not care about businesses operations but profits much like traditional investors. If a successful company integrates the market other will try to mimic its aspects. Marketing of green is ahead of existence or what consumers can buy which is fantastic to promote innovation. Green campaigns and marketing can drive innovation and climate change mitigation but greenwash harms societies faith in business, It is believed that consumers will in the future care more about business knowledge, but want successful, tangible and measurable examples of green goods before they are marketed. (Uechi L, Morgan E, 2010) Greenwash is found out may detriment business but has many benefits if not found out, and few negatives, apart from dishonesty is seen to actually benefit society both in mind, and competition incentives for others promoting in the long term a perhaps more ambitious world.