In 2002, Bangladesh became the first country in the world to ban thin plastic bags after they noticed that the bags were primarily responsible for clogging drainage systems during flooding. This action has been replicated in many other states globally ever since, and the past decade, in particular, has been incredibly amazing for environmentalists.

There is more awareness and action towards environmental issues and solutions, and the public is influencing businesses to employ green practices.

So, to understand how customers respond to businesses or companies that support social or environmental issues, Cone Communications conducted a study in 2017. These were the main findings:

• 87% of consumers will have a more positive image of a business that supports environmental or social issues.
• 88% of consumers will be more loyal to a business that supports environmental or social issues.
• If given an opportunity, 87% of buyers will buy a product with an environmental and social benefit.
• 92% of consumers are more likely to trust businesses that support environmental or social issues.
• 63% of consumers hope that businesses will take the lead in driving social and environmental change, even in the absence of government regulation.
• 76% of consumers will refuse to purchase a business’s products or services if they learned that the business supports issues contrary to the consumers’ beliefs.

This study revealed that consumers have redefined Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by raising the stakes.

Consequently, we are experiencing increased environmental awareness and a global effort to go green. The Covid-19 pandemic has further improved awareness levels, as shown by a BCG survey. 70% of the 3000 survey participants said that they were more aware of the negative impact human activities have on the environment.

This is good news.

Unfortunately, we are now dealing with a serious and unfortunate social issue -green shaming.

Table of Contents

What is Green Shaming?

      Mean Comments That Are Condescending and Hateful

      Comments That Advocate The End of Greenshaming

      There’s Some Level Of Apathy Too

Don’t Be Indifferent: Going Green Is A Collective Effort

Legitimate Reasons For Not Being “Perfectly” Green

It’s The Little Things

What is Green Shaming?

Green shaming is a big problem noticed on social media posts recently, especially in the comments section. Also known as sustainability shaming, green shaming is the act of shaming other people because you perceive them to be less green than you are, implying that there are hierarchies as to how green someone or a business is.

Usually, the attacks are directed towards people making an effort to be green but aren’t “perfect” in doing so. For example, criticizing people who are still taking dairy products when you’ve switched to plant-based options, or shaming green businesses for not doing “enough”. In the green business situation, you’ll often see critics shaming the business on whether a particular action they took was “ecofriendly”, forgetting the 99% other positive actions.

That said, there's also a thin line between green shaming and calling out a company for unsustainable practices, such as excessive packaging.

Green shaming could also be defined as the act of irresponsibly throwing around the word ‘greenwashing’, to shame companies that aren’t perfect in their green journey.

Greenwashing, however, exists, where businesses deliberately pretend to be ecofriendly, with the sole intention of making a profit off society’s good intentions. Case in point, a company focusing on marketing a product as eco-friendly when only the packaging is ecofriendly, and the product itself isn’t! For instance, a soap with toxic ingredients, packaged in a reusable/refillable glass bottle, yet the soap is marketed as ecofriendly.

It is commendable for such a company to begin the sustainability journey, but it should clearly inform consumers that their product is the same, only switched to ecofriendly packaging.

Other companies give a product a name that will lead the public into believing that the product is biodegradable when it’s not. For example, calling a plate bioplate when it’s 20% bio-based and 80% fossil fuel-based, or the product is plant-based, but the result isn’t biodegradable.

On the flip side, some people may be unknowingly greenwashing, due to misinformation or half-information.

Greenshaming is quite rampant on social media and sample comments from an Instagram reel we saw a few months ago give a glimpse into the issue.

The reel was based on a carbon footprint quiz in the New York Times that asked how many years of avoiding plastic-packaged food would equate to 1 year of going vegetarian. We have no problem with the question as it sought to educate people on how to calculate the expected impact their actions would have on the environment.

The issue was at the comments section, where the conversation turned into a vegan vs non-vegan attack. We’ve sampled a few below:

Mean Comments That Are Condescending and Hateful

Fortunately, some people thought we ought to appreciate everyone’s effort and stop the hate.

Comments That Advocate For The End of Greenshaming

There’s Some Level Of Apathy Too

A good number of comments also showed some level of apathy, stating that individual effort didn’t matter as 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.

An example:

Don’t Be Indifferent: Going Green Is A Collective Effort

While it’s true that only 100 corporations are to blame for 71% of global emissions, you still have a role to play, especially now that the IPCC report on the climate crisis sounds code red for humanity.

Going green needs both systemic and individual effort.

In America, for example, one household is responsible for 8.1 metric tons of carbon emissions annually. Food production accounts for 83% of these emissions, meats and dairy accounting for 74.9% of these emissions, by food type.

Individuals are therefore advised to reduce their carbon footprint by reducing meat intake and food wastage, carpool, walk, use a bike, use water and energy sustainably, switch to energy-efficient appliances, and buy products with a low carbon footprint.

You also have the power to control the market. The same way consumers have changed CSR as companies used to know it, by supporting businesses with a cause, we can also reduce demand for products that have a high negative environmental impact. For example, refusing single-use plastics.

They won’t manufacture/sell it if you won’t buy it.

There are societal challenges to going green, however.

Let’s briefly look at a few legitimate reasons for not being fully or “perfectly” green.

Legitimate Reasons For Not Being “Perfectly” Green

1. Information fatigue, leading to green fatigue- Also known as information overload, information fatigue is the difficulty of understanding an issue and making effective decisions due to mental exhaustion.

A 2011 study showed that people usually feel frustrated when they feel overloaded with information, possibly leading to mental exhaustion and apathy.

Honestly, we sometimes feel the same way when trying to add a product to our shop or advise a client. You have to think up to the very last detail and wonder if you’ll have to buy a Tesla for long-distance deliveries or walk to deliver the product, for instance.

Another dilemma is on fabrics. Organic cotton is better because it’s grown without pesticides,  herbicides, and other chemicals. That’s good. On the other hand, however, there’s debate on how much water is used when growing this cotton, and the associated soil depletion and degradation. Some are even arguing that plastic is better than cotton!

Well, we still try our best, although we aren’t perfect.

2. Eco-anxiety- Eco-anxiety is a mental state of being depressed, stressed, or anxious about the environment. The worst bit is that this is also overwhelming kids, who are now reported to be depressed, anxious, and terrified.

Adults are tired too. Some of the respondents to a Shelton Group study reported being tired of the green label slapped on everything and being guilted to being green.

We can’t allow going green to negatively affect our population’s mental health. Do your best, and don’t get stressed. Don’t beat yourself up because you drank cow’s milk in the morning, had beef for lunch, and drove to your friend’s dinner party. Focus on the straw you avoided at the party, and the biogas you use, for example. It’s all about the little you do.

3. Technological constraints/ barriers- In South Africa, for example, sustainable farming systems and organic farming are gaining traction. Unfortunately, these businesses can’t be perfectly green because of water usage.

Water usage is a hot topic in the green community and in South Africa alone, agriculture consumes more than two-thirds of the country’s water.

The main hurdle is technological barriers such as water-efficient technologies, in addition to financial constraints.

Moreover, 90% of the energy generated in South Africa is coal-powered. Renewable energy such as solar and wind account for a meager 5% and 6%, respectively. So, green businesses wouldn’t be “perfectly” green because of the source of their power, but they should be applauded and supported for driving the green agenda.

4. Some green products don’t work as well as the non-green alternatives- Millennials aged 18-30 were asked what they thought about green cleaning brands, and they said that green cleaners smelled bad, didn’t satisfy their needs and weren’t as effective as other alternative brands.

Although these consumers appreciated the health and environmental benefits the cleaning products had, they didn’t find them good enough for the job.

This should be a challenge for green companies, to not only sell the environmental agenda but also make sure that their products work as well, to effectively compete in the market.

5. Cost- Consumers perceive green products as being too pricey. A 2015 survey showed that 80% of consumers think that green products are too expensive, 61% would only buy green products if they cost less or the same as non-eco-friendly products, and 60% would buy green if savings were involved.

Now, according to the World Bank, 43.6% of the global population lived on less than $5.50 per day in 2017. This will get worse with climate change, as new research estimates that 68-132 million people will be driven into poverty by 2030, courtesy of climate change.

These people might be aware of the current environmental challenges, but buying a solar panel, going vegan, installing a biodigester or biogas system, taking notes electronically, and collecting enough rainwater (due to lack of sufficient storage tanks) is a luxury to them.

For those who can afford to go green, 37% of them are willing to pay more for eco-friendly products. Eco-friendly products cost more to manufacture compared to traditional products. For example, plastic products are fossil fuel-based and very cheap to produce. So cheap is the production, that companies even opt to manufacture new plastic products than recycle!

So, if you’re in a position to do something, do the much you can and appreciate those that are financially-limited, for the tree they’ve planted, the miles they walk (even if it’s not out of choice), and the organic food they plant (even if for subsistence use). Let them know that they matter.

6. Societal prejudice- Prejudice is an incorrect attitude, which is normally negative, towards a person, based on that person’s membership towards a social group. The kind of prejudice that’s regularly seen in the green movement is the vegan- non-vegan standoff, also seen in the comments we sampled above.

Some people may, therefore, fear to reduce or stop altogether, their animal protein intake. Others are fearful of mean comments they may subject themselves to when taking a break. A chill Saturday with friends could turn nasty when a vegan orders fried chicken, and his friends talk him down, “we thought you are vegan! Take a stand!”

7. Cultural beliefs- Meat has been a symbol of strength and wealth across different cultures for centuries. The English language even adopted some idiomatic expressions from this culture.

Lazy people are called couch potatoes, and you become a vegetable when incapacitated. Conversely, you go to the gym to beef up, and you’re a beefcake when attractive and strong.

In Kenya, meat, milk, and blood constitute a huge chunk of the Maasai food culture. The Maasai keep a large herd of livestock which is a sign of wealth and a source of food.  They also have a once-in-a-decade meat-eating ceremony to initiate their warriors into elders. 2020’s ceremony had 15,000 men where 3,000 bulls and 30,000 goats and sheep were slaughtered.

Additionally, anyone who doesn’t eat meat isn’t considered a pure Maasai in the Maasai culture, and the fully vegetarian Maasai we publicly know about is meat intolerant!

So, will you shame them? Will you shame your urban Maasai friend for eating meat and other dairy products? No! You can’t and shouldn’t.

8. Misconceptions and misinformation- Ecofriendly is a buzz word that has been quite popular in the recent past. According to Google Trends, there’s been considerable global interest in the search term ‘ecofriendly’, from May 2021 to August 2021, and Kenya leads in Africa, followed by South Africa.
   

Unfortunately, as people try to understand what it means to go green, they are faced with some misinformation and misconceptions.

Let’s briefly discuss a few:

• • Going green is expensive- The initial investment could sometimes be expensive, but the results show that going green is cheaper in the long run. On 22 September 2020, we attended a seminar hosted by the Kenya Green Building Society titled, Incentivized Finance for Sustainable Development, to mark World Green Building Week.
    

One of the speakers, Jane Waiyaki, head sustainability and responsible business partnerships at Absa Bank Kenya, attested to the cost-effectiveness of going green. She reported that the bank spent Ksh. 35 million to retrofit its 80+ facilities by installing energy-efficient lights, consequently saving Ksh. 20 million annually in operational costs.

• • Recycling is the first step- Recycling is the last resort, as seen in the circular economy butterfly diagram by the Ellen McArthur Foundation. Reducing waste, using waste as a resource, and reusing are the first steps.

• • Electric cars are impractical- Although electric cars might be more expensive than gasoline-powered cars, they are cheaper in the long run. In terms of fuel efficiency, a 2018 study by the University of Michigan showed that the average cost to operate an electric vehicle in the United States was $485 annually, compared to $1,117 for gasoline-powered vehicles.
    

Although electric cars might seem impractical in Kenya due to insufficient support such as charging stations, an electric vehicle in Nairobi is practical, courtesy of Nopea Ride. Nopea Ride is a fully electric taxi-hailing firm with charging stations at Thika Road Mall along Thika Superhighway, The Hub Mall in Karen, and Two Rivers Mall along Limuru Road.

• • Going green takes too much time and effort- Going green is as simple as using energy-efficient appliances, using reusables- if you must use disposables they should be ecofriendly, composting, switching off lights and closing taps when not in use, practicing chemical-free and conservation agriculture, avoiding single-use plastics, and going paperless.
  • Assuming that energy conservation= energy efficiency- Energy conservation is the act of using less energy, for instance, unplugging appliances and turning off lights when not in use.
    

Energy efficiency is the act of using technology that requires less energy to perform the same action. For example, incandescent lights waste energy while LED bulbs use less energy.

So, both the person who switches off an incandescent light when not in use and the other who switches off an LED light when not in use conserve energy, but only the LED user is energy-efficient.

• • Reusing is better than buying new- This is dependent on the situation. If a manufacturer produces a smarter and more efficient gadget that works best for your needs, you should buy the new one.
    

In a circular economy, the old appliance or gadget is not discarded, but traded-in with the manufacturer. Samsung Kenya  launched a trade-in system in  March 2021, where mobile devices that meet certain criteria can be traded-in by the customer, valued, then the customer pays the difference to acquire a new mobile device.

This will also help ease the e-waste management crisis. Kudos Samsung Kenya!

• • Ecofriendly products have no negative impact- The truth is even eco-friendly products have a negative environmental impact! The difference is that they are much less negative than non-green products, and have a far greater positive impact. Everything has a carbon footprint.

Carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) released into the environment by a particular human activity. You naturally have a carbon footprint, because you release carbon(IV) oxide when you breathe out and when you die, the decomposition process releases methane, another greenhouse gas.

A metal straw, for example, has a carbon footprint too. The mining and manufacture of stainless steel produces GHGs, and water is used too.

On the other hand, plastic comes from fossil fuels which are responsible for over 70% of GHGs, the production process also uses water. The plastic straw is used once, discarded, and because it’s not recycled and doesn’t degrade, litters our environment and kills marine life.

A metal straw is better because it is reusable and recyclable. Due to these properties, you’ll also buy much fewer straws in your lifetime compared to the plastic straws you’d have used. Reportedly, one reusable metal straw will replace 540 disposable plastic straws in a year.

Although zero carbon footprint doesn’t exist, we now hear terms such as “net-zero” carbon emissions or carbon neutrality, where we are striving to balance our emissions by absorbing an equivalent of what we release.

• • Going green/ sustainability is all about the environment- Going green is a social, environmental, health, spiritual, cultural, and economic issue. Paul Hawken, an environmentalist, and Californian civil rights activist said, “ we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it GDP (Gross Domestic Product.”
    

Using our resources quickly without a chance to replenish and generating too much waste means that future generations will live in an environment that won’t meet their needs.

Conserving our forests means that future generations among the Mijikenda will have the Kaya Forests for their spiritual and cultural needs. Reducing waste that goes into the oceans and fishing sustainably means that future generations are food secure.

Preventing illegal wildlife trade means a healthy future free of zoonotic diseases hence a healthy workforce that can run the economy.

Protecting our wildlife and the natural environment means that future generations also get to enjoy the benefits of a healthy environment such as nutrient cycling, flood control, water purification, carbon storage, pollination that enhances food security, earning foreign income through tourism, the serenity that wildlife areas offer, as well as predictable weather patterns and climate regulation for food security and economic gain.

Manufacturing toxin-free products ensures that we have a healthy workforce to run the economy. Fact is, there's no need for amassing wealth, then take it to the hospital, because we are all killing each other via unscupulous business practices. A sick workforce is a sick economy.

It’s The Little Things

Don’t make green the color of antagonism, intolerance, and hate.

Stop green shaming others because you think that your efforts are better than theirs. At least they’re doing something for the environment. In case someone is misinformed, please educate them with love and appreciate their effort to go green.

Wangari Maathai said, “it’s the little things the citizens do. That’s what will make the difference. My little thing is planting trees.”

Now we ask, what’s your little thing?