Limited or no information disseminated by an organization so as to understate or ignore its commitment to and actions on environmental responsibility.
I admit Webster's didn't provide the word or the definition above. Actually, I borrowed it from Gregg Labar of the communications consulting firm Dix & Eaton. He coined this term yesterday in his blog, 3 P's, which focuses on environmental sustainability.
Of course, greenblushing is meant to counter the ever-present term greenwashing - the overstating of a company's green efforts in order to attract publicity and good will. But what's greenblushing? That's when companies have a good story to tell, but don't tell it. Why don't they tell it? Labar offers a few reasons, including the false belief that a company needs to have all the answers and all its ducks in a row prior to saying anything about its programs or progress. Not so.
Many companies are working hard in certain areas to improve their energy usage or their impact on the environment. These are stories worth telling, regardless of how developed they are or how they compare in scale to the big guys' programs. We can't all be GE, Wal-Mart or BP. That's a good thing. If we're really going to make a difference in this area, it'll be through many companies doing many things. By talking about it, we inspire and give other companies new ideas. So, c'mon...don't be shy now. You look great! Green's the new black, you know.
--Dave
Thanks, Dave, for the mention. You raise a great point about GE, Wal-Mart and BP. Everybody sees what those companies are doing, and we all assume we can't measure up. If we look to the leaders for guidance and inspiration, not comparison, then we have a chance. Besides, most of those companies are so focused on the supply chain that they need all of us to come along for the ride - otherwise, they can't be successful. And I want them to know what we're doing to be part of the solution - it's all about communication.
Posted by: Gregg LaBar | October 27, 2009 at 10:32 AM