We Hear Ya: Answers to Questions about the Sierra Club and Green Works
by Greg Haegele, Sierra Club on 05. 9.08
We've been listening closely at the Sierra Club to the public discussion -- on blogs and elsewhere -- about our endorsement of the new Green Works line from the makers of Clorox products. It's been a fascinating debate with folks lining up in various camps often for different reasons. The issues we've seen being raised are the same concerns that came up when members of various Sierra Club committees considered this new alliance.
After a thorough review of the company and its new product line, we decided to move forward with our collective eyes wide open. In response to the lively debate that's ensued, we've posted an FAQ on our website that answers questions like "What is Clorox's overall environmental record?" and "Isn't Clorox a big dumper of chlorine into the environment?" I hope it helps those of you who have following the discussion on Treehugger and elsewhere to understand why we made the decision we did.
Everyone should understand that Green Works is the first new product line that Clorox has launched in 20 years. I think this is a remarkable thing -- and a sign that major companies see the green market maturing and recognize it's possible to manufacture and sell products that will be good both for business and for the planet. As Sierra Club's Executive Director Carl Pope was quoted when Treehugger writer Collin Dunn blogged about the news in January, "We hope we are transforming the marketplace by doing this."
Beyond what we do as individuals and what we push our leaders to do on our behalf, industry has to be a part of the solution and the Sierra Club has the power to influence corporations to move in the right direction. We believe and hope that this will be a selling proposition that other companies will be quick to adopt. (Think about how eager we all are for U.S. auto manufacturers to bring more hybrids online.) We know that choosing to partner with a big, market-changing company like Clorox has consequences. The Sierra Club has chosen to be selective and to partner only with companies whose environmental performance is much better than average. But we have also determined that we will not achieve our overall goal of changing consumer behavior by making affordable, natural products available to the majority of Americans if we avoid partnering with companies because they have had environmental violations in the past, or make some product lines which we think could be improved.
Some have called our endorsement greenwashing. But the bottom line is that the Green Works products are environmentally safe, made from corn- or coconut-based cleaning agents, essential lemon oils, and other natural ingredients; they contain no toxic chemicals, phosphorus, or bleach, and are hypo-allergenic. They do not use aerosol and did not involve animal testing.
And they're affordable and available to mainstream America. Accessibility is key here. As I read in one comment on the Treehugger discussion, people who stay away from some eco-friendly products "because they don't come from a conventional/trusted source will green up their homes with something they trust. If it takes Clorox to do this, more power to them."
This point is being proven by sales figures on Green Works products, which are far exceeding initial expectations.
Promoting the use of environmentally sustainable products and helping people find ways to make their lifestyles "greener" is integral to our mission of protecting the planet. But finding ways to do that on a large scale -- the kind of scale that can really make a difference -- has not always been easy.
Our endorsement of Green Works provides that kind of scale.
Image credit::OrganicMania, Greeworks product on shelf with sale price.
The bottom line is that America is made of both large blue chip manufacturers like Clorox, and smaller companies that fill niche markets for green products and the like.
We need all kinds and sizes of these companies for healthy competition, and to be frank, the smaller 'green' companies that have BEEN providing cleaning products likely trailblazed the way and showed that demand exists for giants like Clorox to acknowledge consumer desires and get in the game with green products.
Lets look at the bottom line: if the Greenworks label is truly made from more natural ingredients that are biodegradable, less impact on indoor air quality, and is affordable to the average consumer in times when we are seeing significant increases in the cost of our groceries....where is the bad again?? An endorsement from an organization like Sierra Club gives me, as a consumer, more faith that it isn't straight greenwashing.
Greg: Thank you for taking the time to write about this topic transparently. This is a hugely important issue to TH readers (and staff), and, as you've seen, a sometimes divisive one. The conversation surrounding how we get green (or, at least greener) products into the marketplace is fascinating, and has much to do with economies of scale.
As for greenwashing, I like to think that it is in the eye of the beholder. That is, with almost any product that claims to be green, we can pick out both it's eco-improved and needs-to-be-improved qualities. Greenwashing is murky label with no clearly defined parameters. The best thing we can do to protect ourselves against it is to speak up, ask questions, and vote with our dollars. I also like the idea of telling a company what you may like about their product as well as what you don't. Ya know, positive reinforcement.
I hope everyone reading will continue to debate the issue, push mega companies to be transparent and honest, and share their opinions both here and in our forums.
Thanks,
Meaghan
TH Editor
One big question I'd like answered (and maybe it is somewhere). Did the Sierra Club receive ANY form of compensation from Clorox for this endorsement?
Thanks.
Editor's remark:
Sierra Club spokesperson has supplied the following in response to a comment...
--------------------
In answer to Boo Boo's question -- yes, the Sierra Club will receive financial support from the Green Works product line which will help us continue our conservation efforts, including the protection of America’s clean air, clean water, wildlife and special places.
I thought the author may be interested in seeing this argument get really heated in a discussion forum over on Huddler
I'm glad to see the Sierra Club stepping out and addressing their fans and detractors head on. I for one am a bit of a lighter green pragmatist and am excited by the endorsement.
Thanks!
Screw Clorox. You can clean your house on the cheap with borax, vinegar and rubbing alcohol.
Jill Schoff's "Green Up Your Cleanup" is worth a read.
If any Treehugger journalists are reading this, please go to your local newstand and find this month's ID (International Design) magazine, which has an article on how Microfiber cleaning cloths makes many of the cleaning products we use obsolete.
Greenworks is better than a product that completely has no concern for the environment, but a cleaning cloth that eliminates the need for cleaning products is even better than the Greenworks product line.
It would be nice if this news were posted here on Treehugger.
Problem with microfibre clothes is that they're made from polyester and polyamide which isn't particularly great. The clothes also need to be cleaned remain effective (so you have to use detergents somewhere along the line) and after use they don't biodegrade and if burnt release some real nasties.
Vinegar is good (though fragrant), as is bicarb. Still not convinced by borax - yes it is naturally occurring, but it can accumulate in the body. 5g is enough to kill your pets and children. People need to get away from the idea that everything needs to be sterilised. Surgical instruments, yes. Toilets and work surfaces, no. The reason why allergies and asthma rates are sky-rocketting has a lot to do with sterilising everything (I am an immunopharmacologist by training).
The first time I heard about this product line was on TreeHugger, and attention was drawn to two factors, both of which comprised the 1% of Green Works that wasn't natural.
The preservative agent used, "Kathon," is made by Rohm & Haas. On their main product page, they show that they have tested on rats. On another product page, Rohm & Haas shows that they tested on female and male rabbits. These product pages also list side effects as well as possible long term impact in the water.
Now either this information was not made available to either Clorox or The Sierra Club, or there's some kind of Jedi Mind Trick being pulled here. Maybe Clorox does not use animal testing (or mor specifically maybe Green Works doesn't use animal testing), but at least one of the companies that supply ingredients to Clorox does, so guess what? Green Works tests on animals.
Milliken Chemical does not readily list their product information for their Liquitint line of dyes on their website, so it would be grossly unfair to them to assume that these dyes are either tested on animals or have dangerous side effects. However if they are evasive about providing this information or if they do not make it available at all, then serious issues are not being addressed, and we have the right to ask WHY.
Clorox and The Sierra Club have NOT acted in the interest of full disclosure and transparency. I can understand the reasoning behind The Sierra Club selling their support (after all, The Sierra Club was compensated for their endorsement) to Clorox. You want to have as much of an impact in fighting for the environment as possible. That's commendable. The question is which fighter do you support - the one most likely to win (who uses questionable ethics & tactics) or the smaller, lesser-known fighter who stays true to their beliefs and never wavers?