532
Define Greenwashing
(fediscience.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2025
532 points (97.2% liked)
Funny
8723 readers
2690 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Seriously, this should be a criminal offense.
Send the CEO of this company to jail for a year for this shit, see how fast it stops
Why TF is it that if I cheat, fraud, steal, I go to jail but of a company does it it's at best a long-lasting draw out court case that ends in a settlement that costs the company a few cents on the dollar they made?
I'm so so so SO tired of this
Fuck protections for companies. If you wilfully fuck people over, if you steal or cheat, you go to jail, PERIOD. If that means you don't want to start a company anymore, good riddance. There are more than enough people who happily run companies without cheating
Take a look at the other comments. The other side of the bottle states it helps reduce the amount of plastic required on the inside bottle by 50%, while making things easier to recycle.
Unfortunately that detail doesnt fit on one side, the only side the imager taker chose to show.
Omission of details in this image can be slightly misleading. However branding the container as “Paperbottle” is much more misleading by an order of magnitude.
Product labeling is almost pointless. Especially if it can be missed by a photographer.
Neither is right, but one is definitely more wrong
Yeah I did some digging and it seems well-intended but its just done really poorly and misleading. From what I can tell, because of the paper outer protective layer, they were able to use a lighter plastic layer on the inside layer reducing the amount of plastic used. If not for the plastic on the inside, I don't know how you'd really keep the bottle from disintegrating from all the liquid inside.
I do think that they were lying about not seeing how people could misinterpret what they thought they were saying with the bottle. Obviously some people are going to look at something saying "This is a paper bottle" and think that means the whole bottle is paper. I would've assumed some sort of chemical/hydrophobic coating on the inside which might not be great for the environment either. But them saying they didn't expect people to misinterpret it is dumb.
Wax?
How about a ceramic or glass one that you refill?
The refills themselves can also be a glass bottle that you fill at the store or something
Sure, but that increases weight and cost. It's certainly an option though.
Not if you keep using the same bottle for refills, that's the entire point
Sure, but how much does that actually happen?
I've always thought about this. If there was a like a soda machine, with shampoo, dish soap, etc I could refill at, I'd definitely use it.
Yeah, that would be rad. Some stores do that for water and peanut butter and whatnot, but I haven't seen soap.
I think we should also introduce death penalty for companies. Did a company commit a serious enough crime ? Then we just kill it. Is does not deserve to exist anymore.
This this this this this. Corporations are people when their "speech" needs to be protected via campaign bribery, but not when they kill people in the name of profit. Fuck. That. Shit.
Better yet make it a public entity or employee owned
Why punish the company when it was the people inside the company that did the wrong thing? Punish the people and let another batch fix it.
If you kill the company you do punish those people by killing their main revenue/asset. The good thing is that you also punish the investors who will lose all their money. This will dissuade anybody to invest into a company if there is a possibility that the company is fraudulent. This could even push more transparency in the companies to attract investors.
Exactly this. My whole life I've been told that executives deserve their massive compensation because of all the high risk decisions they make. But if they ever get called out they take no responsibility. It's infuriating!
Executive: 'my manager said so'
Manager: 'my director said so'
Director: 'my VP said so'
VP: 'the CEO said so'
CEO: 'tye management board said so'
Management board: 'it was a collective decision, so no one is to blame'
Corporate unaccountability at its finest.
Generally each step morphs slightly:
Oh, you're missing the most important part of the meta:
CEO: We just did that the consulting company told us
Consulting company: We just make recommendations