Sustainable shopping isnt a trend; it's a lifestyle. We have all heard this so many times, and I have said it myself so many more. But what are we talking about when we say sustainable shopping? More importantly, where does sustainable shopping end and greenwashing start? And is sustainable shopping even possible today, when excessive consumerism is rampant and balancing our needs and wants with the planet's capacity is seemingly unobtainable? Where does greenwashing start and real conscious planet care and awareness end?
My personal life story ranges from the corporate shipping industry to a wannabe green-saving happy hippie to middle-of-the-road, always asking myself how it is possible to make this work. How can we live on this beautiful planet and make a difference? While our hearts may be in the right place, are our actions having any effect or doing any good for our planet?
Where do I stand now? It's all such a fascinating evolution, and because I have always been an all-in-person person, it has made for some challenging times, like when we went camping. My beautiful husband decided to forage for dinner and returned with three leaves. I wish I were kidding. Needless to say, I don't hold my breath with foraging anymore, even though I have been on some extraordinary adventures and have learnt a lot in different courses. Treading lightly and foraging while a magnificent adventure is truly humbling at the same time.
Let's start at the beginning: what does sustainable shopping mean, and where did the term originate from? That is no easy topic, and in the spirit of moving away from greenwashing, we will return to what we believe is the start of it all. As we know it today, environmental concerns first raised its head as the effects of the Industrial Revolution became apparent. The first concerns date back to the early 19th century. As the era of industrialisation exploded and became more prevalent, so did a growing awareness of the effects of pollution due to smoke and other debris in the air and the water, mainly around the cities most affected by industrialism.
Another side effect of the Industrial Revolution I read about was population growth. This, in turn, led to a demand for more food, and so agriculture needed to produce more. This led to the move towards monoculture farming. With the developments in chemistry during World War II and new ways of using pesticides, which allowed higher yields per crop, chemical pesticides in agriculture became a reality. I find it fascinating that we can find recorded use of chemicals in agriculture in ancient civilisations with the Sumerians, who used sulfur compounds to control insects and mites over 4,500 years ago. So there was a time, and we can find many more when there was a balance before excess became our reality.
But even before all of this, Rudolf Steiner, an inspirational writer and speaker who founded the Antrhopsophy and the Waldorf Education, talked about the harmful and dangerous effects of using synthetic chemicals in farming. He inspired Rudolf Hauschka and Elizabeth Sigmund, who created Dr Hauschka in 1967. Steiner is also considered the starting point for biodynamic agriculture, and it is fascinating to see that all of Dr Hauschka's ingredients for their skincare line come from farms practising the principles of biodynamic farming and permaculture.
Silent Spring, published in 1962, was written by marine biologist and conservationist Rachel Carson. This book initiated the widespread discussion about the use of chemical pesticides. It exposed the devastating environmental impact of widespread pesticide use, particularly DDT, warning of a silent future where birdsong would no longer be able to be heard due to chemical poisoning of the land. This book halted DDT's domestic production with stricter regulations coming into place and catalysed the global environmental movement.
Following Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the movement towards protecting our beautiful planet and establishing environmental groups began. During this time, an American Senator, Gaylord Nelson, and Denis Hayes, an environmental activist and today's environmental advocate, pushed for the establishment of Earth Day in 1970. The establishment of Government regulatory bodies began to address the negative impact of pollution on our precious planet.
Growing up as a teenager in South Africa, I remember the widespread rumours of acid rain, and as a teenager, I was always wary of standing in the rain, fearing it was acid rain. Acid rain is not an urban legend; it is a reality that has been well-documented. You can read about it, like in the Adirondack Mountains, a clear example of this, where the acid rain created by coal-burning power plants created high levels of acidity in the lakes, killing the natural fish population and damaging the surrounding natural ecosystems. The energy crisis of the 1970s made the need for alternative energy sources the centre of the worldwide environmental discussion.
The discussions and roles of environmental groups and organisations have evolved over the years. The realities of climate change are the central issue around which sustainable development and the sustainable management of resources have become pivotal.
Consumer culture grew fast and furiously with technological advancements and subsequent economic growth, the development of the advertising and marketing industry, and the ubiquitous credit availability. While there was a significant increase in access to goods and some living standards improved, there is no doubt the overall impact has been negative. The surge in overconsumption and excessive waste contributed to environmental degradation and exacerbated social inequalities by promoting materialism and debt.
But with this growing environmental awareness and the extensive education created by the many varied environmental organisation's active roles, our part as consumers became increasingly apparent as we realised how our individual choices matter. As we became more aware of the life cycle of products and the damaging effects from the outset, from the harmful impact on the raw material to the final product and subsequent waste, the demand for conscious and sustainable products increased, and the concept of sustainable shopping evolved and developed. To the point today where the statement “Sustainable shopping isnt a trend; it's a lifestyle” is a well-known slogan.
And this is where it all got tricky, and sustainable shopping opened the door for greenwashing. We all know, and hopefully acknowledge, the profoundly flawed interaction between capitalism and consumerism, where the reality is that consumerism gives capitalism the impetus it needs to grow. When we look at Capitalism, we can see it contains two fundamental aspects: growth and profit, and the only way these two work hand in hand is when we, as consumers, continuously consume. When consumers stop consuming and start demanding sustainable, ethical and environmentally sound production, how does production meet that demand while being driven by growth and profit alone?
Let's look at the beauty industry as an example, which is one close to my heart. The growth in the demand for sustainable, environmentally kind, and conscious products presents the industry with an opportunity to meet a consumer's need, which in turn meets the industry's need for growth and subsequent profit. However, meeting this need with complete honesty, transparency, and actual deliverance of a sustainable, ethical product can not be cost-effective. I constantly question if a big conglomerate can do this. The resultant green-washing occurs, and to be clear, greenwashing is when an entity creates, with the use of marketing means, an impression or setting that appears more sustainable and clean than it is.
Here are some great examples of greenwashing: when a label reads “natural,” “organic,” or my all-time favourite, “eco-friendly,” or even better, “chemical free,” without any recognised or actual substantial backing to these statements, and you only have to turn the packaging over and read the list of ingredients to know this is greenwashing at its absolute shoddiest. Using these terms implies that the product is safer for the user and safer for our beautiful planet. But here is the crux: no regulatory body defines these terms in the beauty industry; even the term organic is considered nuanced. A skincare product can contain a minuscule percentage of natural ingredients but also use a lot of synthetic chemicals that are not it at all.
Another all-time favourite in the beauty industry is visual marketing, using images of plants and nature and choosing strong earthy tones to signify harmony with the natural environment. This use of imagery and colour creates the impression that this product cares about the environment and is in tune with it. Another great greenwashing tactic is packaging made from recycled ocean plastic, like sunscreens with labels filled with imagery of coral reefs. Still, it contains ingredients that are well-documented as damaging to marine life.
Another big challenge with the beauty industry and its propensity to greenwash is the lack of complete transparency in its production process and supply chain. Companies aren't required to give any details about the sourcing and actual production of their products, nor do they disclose the exact environmental impact of these processes. Ultimately, even certification bodies, which have relatively low standards, can be used to support this greenwashing.
In reality, the rise of greenwashing is a narrative of evolving environmental consciousness and commercial adaptation. While we walk around blithely ignorant, saying and possibly believing, “Sustainable shopping isnt a trend; it's a lifestyle”, the reality is that the current economic system has not yet found a way to resolve the conflict between profit-driven growth and sustainable, ethical production. So, it is ultimately up to us as consumers to exercise our initiative and think about our need for consumerism and how we can manage it better for our beautiful planet.