Stop Falling for Greenwashing: 12 Pet Food Marketing Terms to Watch Out For and the Certifications You Can Trust

In 1986, ecologist Jay Westerveld introduced the term “greenwashing.” He criticized hotel chains for promoting “reuse your towel” campaigns that seemed environmentally friendly but were really just about saving money. This practice has morphed over time, with hotels now asking guests to skip housekeeping to appear more sustainable, all while cutting labor costs. Greenwashing now encompasses a wide range of misleading marketing tactics, from vague sustainability claims to clear deception. Just like Tom Sawyer tricked his friends into painting a fence, companies can mislead consumers into buying products that don’t truly align with ecological values.

Danguole Oželienė from Vilnius University pointed out that while businesses often use environmental claims to attract eco-conscious customers, these claims aren’t always genuine. Misleading marketing erodes trust in real environmental efforts and hinders progress.

To tackle greenwashing, the European Commission’s Green Claims Directive mandates that companies with over ten employees and €2 million in revenue back up their environmental claims. Companies must carry out assessments, including life-cycle analyses, to provide solid proof for their statements. These assessments need to highlight specific environmental impacts and demonstrate benefits that go beyond mere legal compliance. Furthermore, they must share this information clearly with consumers, often via websites or QR codes.

On a similar note, the Pet Sustainability Coalition (PSC) helps pet food companies avoid misleading their customers about their products’ environmental and social impacts. Jim Lamancusa, PSC’s executive director, noted that more companies are seeking help as consumers become more cautious about green claims.

Here are some common phrases that often signal greenwashing:

• Eco-friendly – Often used without proof.
• Sustainable – A vague term that can mean anything.
• All-natural – Not all natural substances are safe.
• Green – Lacks a specific definition.
• Biodegradable – Doesn’t mention the time or conditions for breakdown.
• Compostable – Might require industrial composting not available everywhere.
• Recyclable – May not be accepted in most recycling programs.
• Carbon-neutral – Often lacks clarity on how emissions are reduced.
• Net zero – Risks being more about offsets than real reductions.
• Clean energy – Some still rely on fossil fuels despite this claim.
• Ethically sourced – Needs verification from third parties.
• Responsibly made – Too vague without clear standards.

The challenge with addressing greenwashing lies in the loose definition of sustainability itself. The United Nations has defined it as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their own needs.” This broad definition now covers a wide array of issues, from urgent ecological crises to more everyday concerns. The nuances make it hard for consumers to understand what sustainability truly means.

Lamination said that this fuzziness has made the term prone to greenwashing, leading to consumer doubt. To combat this, he advises companies to follow a few key guidelines: be clear and specific about their initiatives; rely on third-party certifications rather than creating self-serving labels; and report measurable impacts like emissions reductions. For example, companies could state, “We reduced carbon emissions by 30% in 2024 compared to 2020.”

While aiming for clear environmental goals, businesses must also remain financially viable to ensure future generations can thrive. Lamancusa emphasized that ecological, social, and economic sustainability are interconnected and equally important. For instance:

• Ecological sustainability focuses on protecting the environment.
• Social sustainability promotes equity and well-being.
• Economic sustainability aims for long-term success.

Taking all these factors into account creates a resilient business strategy that enhances brand loyalty and fosters innovation.

To prove their sustainability efforts, pet food companies can use independent certifications. The PSC offers its own accreditation based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. To achieve this, companies must meet specific scores and show improvements every two years. Out of 200 PSC members, 77 have already earned this accreditation.

There are also many other certifications that reinforce sustainability claims, including:

• B Corp Certification – For businesses with high social and environmental standards.
• LEED – Certification for sustainable buildings.
• Cradle to Cradle Certified – Focuses on circular economy principles.
• Climate Neutral Certified – Confirms that a company measures and offsets its carbon footprint.
• USDA Organic – Ensures organic farming without harmful pesticides.
• Fair Trade Certified – Guarantees ethical labor practices.
• Rainforest Alliance Certified – Promotes responsible agriculture.
• Non-GMO Project Verified – Confirms no genetically modified organisms.
• Regenerative Organic Certified – The highest standard for sustainable agriculture.

Looking into partnerships can also help boost sustainability in the pet food industry. For example, Mars Petcare is teaming up with suppliers to enhance regenerative agricultural practices across its pet nutrition supply chain in Europe. Collaborations with companies like Cargill and ADM aim to provide financial incentives for using regenerative practices.

These partnerships not only help in sourcing better materials for pet foods but also aim to manage the company’s carbon footprint. Mars uses tools like the USDA COMET Planner for tracking and quantifying their sustainability outcomes.

By utilizing certification systems and steering clear of greenwashing, companies can win the trust of pet owners who increasingly prioritize environmental and social impact in their purchasing decisions.