“Little Green Lies” – and Bigger Brown Ones

Society abhors greenwashing. So why do we shrug off false “brown” claims?

On April 26, 2024, Resolute Forest Products (now owned by Paper Excellence) and global mega-ENGO Greenpeace quietly announced a truce on their decade-long media and court battle. The site https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/resolutelawsuits/ was taken down, and Greenpeace publicly walked back its claim that Resolute was illegally harvesting in off-limits areas.

For anyone unfamiliar with the case, here’s a brief recap: In 2012-13, Greenpeace’s campaign “Resolute: Forest Destroyer” made a range of sweeping accusations against Resolute, including the false claim that the company was operating in an area out-of-bounds to logging. As part of the campaign, Greenpeace approached several of Resolute’s customers, encouraging them to switch suppliers.

Resolute took Greenpeace to court, and in a series of decisions over several years, lost. Essentially, although Greenpeace admitted to stretching the truth (making statements that were “non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole”), the judge found that the campaign "constituted the expression of opinion, or different viewpoints that are a vital part of our democracy." Further, Resolute could not categorically prove that Greenpeace had been malicious in its claims.

Given the previous court decisions, last month’s announcement represents a notable change in direction for this case. I found it interesting, then, that the story received almost no traction in the media. It’s as if society is saying, “an ENGO is making outrageous comments, and a forestry company is complaining about it? That’s old news.” And maybe it is.

Green vs. Brown: A Double Standard

ENGOs campaign on environmental issues; that’s their job. Sweeping claims like “boreal logging is bad for the climate” and “logging hurts caribou,” while misleading overall, still contain a grain of truth. The public generally expects and accepts this.

A different standard exists for corporate environmental claims. Outright lies are of course unacceptable, but so too are vague or unverifiable statements and broad generalizations. Companies can also be called out for “greenwashing”¹ if their products are exactly what they seem, but their corporate actions are a mismatch for their “green” image – for example, if the companies lobby the government on environmental regulations.

The double standard extends to naming conventions. If the practice of making misleadingly positive environmental claims is “greenwashing,” what do we call the practice of making misleadingly negative claims? It turns out, we don’t really have a name for it – as if it didn’t exist in the public consciousness.

Googling “brownwashing” brings up a completely different definition: “undue modesty in corporate sustainability disclosure.” In other words, if “greenwashing” refers to companies that overstate their environmental performance, “brownwashing” refers to companies that understate their performance. (“Brownwashing” and “blackwashing” are also commonly used to describe marketing that makes misleading claims about a company’s support for people of colour.)

Shining a Light on “Little Brown Lies”

Greenwashing is said to be harmful because it not only misleads consumers, but lulls society into a false sense of confidence that enough action is being taken to counter critical environmental issues such as climate change.

“Little brown lies” can harm society too. While greenwashing has the potential to inspire false confidence, false brown claims can erode vital trust.

For example, a recent report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) claimed the BC government was secretly rejecting proposed old growth deferral² areas and replacing them with less ecologically valuable areas. As the government is currently in talks with First Nations (Indigenous communities) over the deferrals, the topic is a sensitive one.

Had the CCPA contacted the government about the “leaked” digital map from which they reached their conclusions, they would have found that the “supported old growth harvest deferrals” referred to areas that had been agreed to by local First Nations, while the areas not shown as “supported” were still under discussion.

When seeing the supposedly confidential maps published (along with the CCPA re-interpretations), First Nations were left wondering whether they could trust the government to respect their decisions. Speaking to the Tyee newspaper, consultant and Old Growth Technical Advisory Team member Gary Merkel (himself a member of the Tahltan Nation in northwestern BC) stated that the CCPA report set the consultation process back.

It's Time to Talk About “Brownstaining”

False green claims are harmful, and so are false brown claims. We pay attention to the former; it’s time we started talking about the latter. Here are my suggestions:

1. First, we need a name for it. Since brownwashing has been taken, I propose we call it brownstaining, because misleading bad-news claims stain an organization’s reputation. Really egregious, intentional examples, like Greenpeace’s “illegal harvesting” assertion, could even be called brown-smearing.

2. Speak up. As science writer Bob Lalasz points out, misleading information can be repeated so often it just feels true to many people. Therefore, it’s important to say something (kindly, of course) and break the chain of misinformation.

3. Redefine the narrative. For example, in the “old growth on the map” situation, Gary Merkel was clear that the “supported” designations represented the progress of important discussions with First Nations (thus steering the discussion away from the “ENGOs vs. industry” debate).

Instead of ignoring false environmental claims and hoping they go away, we can choose to take action. But “action” doesn’t necessarily mean court cases or media interviews. The Resolute/Greenpeace joint media statement concludes, “Resolute and Greenpeace agree… to raise concerns with each other in an attempt to resolve factual disagreements.” That sounds like a good place to start.

1. The practice of making misleadingly positive environmental claims about a product or service

2. Old growth areas that will be at least temporarily removed from the land base available for logging