Rebecca Styles: Consumer NZ Investigative Team Lead on the organisation's investigations into greenwashing

Concerns have been raised over the punishments NZ-based companies could face for greenwashing - and whether or not it's a suitable deterrent.

An Australian court has ordered Glad owner Clorox Australia to pay A$8.25 million ($8.87m) for false or misleading representations about bags partly made of recycled 'ocean plastic'.

Consumer NZ Investigative Team Lead Rebecca Styles joined the Afternoons team to explain how greenwashing violates the Fair Trading Act - and the disciplinary action Kiwi companies could face for rule-breaking. 

LISTEN ABOVE

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talk zed B.
Follow this and our Wide Ranger podcasts now on iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Let's talk about greenwashing. This on the back of an
Australian court has ordered glad owner Clorox to pay eight
point twenty five million dollars for fossil more misleading representations
about bags partly made or of recycled ocean plastic. The
offending garbage bags were partly made of Indonesian plastic source
from communities that were miles away from any shoreline. To
chat about this more, we're joined by Rebecca Styles, Consumer

(00:39):
NZ Investigative team leader Rebecca Good.

Speaker 3 (00:42):
Afternoon him any relation to Harry Styles? I wish, I wish, Hey,
Rebecca Styles. What is green washing?

Speaker 4 (00:56):
So? Basically, greenwashing is a misleading claim under the Fair
Trading Act. So, in particularly for greenwashing, it's a pright
that makes itself appear better for the environment than other
similar products on the shelves.

Speaker 3 (01:08):
What are the punishments of a company is caught green washing?

Speaker 4 (01:12):
Well, for New Zealand's penalties are actually quite light in
comparison to the big pine that Floric Scott so under
the Fair Trading Act, it's six hundred thousand dollars fine,
So that is quite light for it, especially for these
big multinational companies, And it's not much of a deterrent
to stop greenwashing. So we would just support a regulator

(01:34):
upping those fines, and upping the fines mean that it's
more roof while for their time and energy to actually
take these prosecutions so that it becomes a bigger deterrent
for these companies.

Speaker 3 (01:44):
And is it prevalent in New Zealand? Are you seeing
more of it? Is it something that's that's growing as
a problem.

Speaker 4 (01:53):
In some way, it feels a bit insidious because I
think any walk along the supermarket aisles you will come
across sort of meaningless terms things like green and natural
and environmentally friendly, eco, sustainable, There's all sort of these
environmental buzzwords but are sort of not backed up or
seem pretty meaningless on some products. So it is around,

(02:15):
but it feels like it's so much of it around
at the moment that it's almost, you know, I can't
be the fast for the trees type of thing.

Speaker 3 (02:22):
Is there a version of green washing that isn't exactly illegal,
but it's still gross in a way, like safe for example,
you're on an airline and they're celebrating their greenness by
serving your food with bamboo knives and forks while you're
blasting aviation fuel on around the world flight? Is that
so they're not It's like almost like a green distraction.

(02:43):
It's like, look at the way we're doing this over here,
and don't look at what we're doing over there very much.

Speaker 4 (02:49):
It feels very much like window dressing, doesn't it. Yeah,
And I think Uno a few years ago I wrote
about Any Zealand for their plant based cups, and that's
not much good yet when you're burning all that yet,
really it's a bit of a toe congestion. So it's
very much tinkering out the edges, but not tackling the
huge problem of what's being put in fiel thing. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (03:07):
Has it got to the point where bee where companies
they you know, the trust on from consumers to believe
that these companies are doing environmental good for the planet
or whatever they might be doing. But that trust is
just completely lost now and most consumers will look at
this stuff and say, I think that's probably nonsense because
I've seen so many examples of that.

Speaker 4 (03:29):
Yeah, I mean, you should be able to trust what's
on the label. You know, you expect a bit of
puffery with marketing and stuff, but essentially the essence of
what's said on products should be true and you should
be able to rely on it. And there has been
calls overseas for these green claims that a should be
checked before they go on to market so that consumers
can be very assured. Because it's also a competitive advantage.

(03:50):
If you're essentially misleading customers and you know, earning more
money on the back of that misleading claim. You know,
it's an anti competitive behavior, so it's good for other
businesses and for consumers.

Speaker 3 (04:01):
Is because sometimes it seems to me that a company
shouldn't be allowed to continue. I'm not going to name
the name of it, doesn't cause get it wrong, but
it was a while back, and this isn't quite green washing.
I guess it's sort of a moral form of washing.
But you know, a free range selling eggs and saying
that they're free range and selling a whole lot of
eggs as free range, people are paying more for them,

(04:22):
and then there's an investigation and you find out though
it were never free range. Doesn't that feel like that
should be a company ending situation because you've lied to people,
People have paid money. It's come out of the consumers,
you know, pocket they thought they were buying free range
eggs because they care about that, they haven't. It seems
odd when you see a company continuing on they've paid

(04:43):
a fine, but you see what I'm saying.

Speaker 4 (04:47):
Yeah, a similarly erodes trust, and I certainly would as
a customer, would steer clear of that particular brand. But yeah,
the marketplace is such a you know, the ethical concerns,
what ingredients come from, the fly chain. The marketplace is
just so complex for consumers at the moment, and we
just don't have the time to stand in the aisle

(05:08):
for our have to unpack all of these claims. So
it just makes it so much more important. You know,
if things were checked before they went to the market,
it would make life a lot easier for everyone. I
think what.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
Would be a fair punishment for those companies found greenwashing
and making up you know, effectively they are lies. What
would be an appropriate punishment in New Zealand? I mean,
could it get to the point where you take that
product supermarkets are forced to take that product off the
shelves for a week, Maybe a.

Speaker 4 (05:36):
Fine in proportion to the profit the company has made
or for that product, and those claims would be a
good idea. Certainly, at the moment the six hundred thousand
dollars is not working, so we would definitely support a
review of the penalties of the Bear Trading Act going
up quite substantially to act as a deterrant. And I
think this raising the penalty would be a good encouragement

(05:57):
to businesses to look at how they're labeling their products
and whether they're being miss learning or not.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
Rebecca has been great to chat with you. Thank you
very much for your time. My pleasure that is Rebecca Styles.
She is Consumer insid investigative team leader for more.

Speaker 1 (06:13):
From News Talk set B. Listen live on air or online,
and keep our shows with you wherever you go with
our podcasts on iHeartRadio.