Indeed, terminology that was relatively unheard of a few years ago (including carbon-offsetting, bio fuel, upcycling and food miles) is now commonplace in our newspapers, our offices and our homes. Generally, this is a good sign; people are clearly more aware of environmental issues than ever before, and the increasing use of these green terms and phrases reflects the fact that tackling climate change has become the primary social and economic priority.
However, there is something about the liberal use of this new canon of language that still unnerves me. As anyone in marketing and communications knows, new language can be used just as effectively to cloak a subject as it can to illuminate it - and we are no longer in a media landscape where 'green-wash' will wash.

Defining moments
Sustainability, for instance, is used plentifully within marketing documents, press releases and packaging copy. Especially in the food and drink industry. But what actually constitutes a 'sustainable' business varies greatly according to those claiming to be sustainable? There is no universal definition. Many businesses that want to look environmentally conscious, rather than actually be environmentally conscious love words like this, as it allows some room for poetic licence.
On its website, Friends of the Earth highlights: "many companies use various types of green-wash to maintain and indeed increase their autonomy from regulation or collective action and associate in business and trade groupings which seek to maintain the status quo and protect short term profits."

What's in a word?
As with most issues around the climate change debate and business - the green-wash debate comes can be divided into opportunity and risk. Of course, there is an immediate benefit for shouting about green credentials before you even have them (if the consumer believes you, of course), but the risk of being found out - something exceedingly likely to happen in the hyper-scrutinised world of the environment - is far, far greater.
Last year, the ASA's Chairman, Chris Smith announced a clamp-down on companies over-promoting their green credentials and misleading consumers, stating: "Whether it's wind turbines or airlines or cars with claims about CO2 emissions, the claims have to be accurate and the companies have to be able to justify that. My message is that erroneous claims will not slip through the net."
The fact is, communicating sustainability needs to be accompanied with commitment to making real changes and an aversion to broad 'green-wash' terminology such as 'future friendly' and the trend to stick 'eco' on the front of anything vaguely relevant. There is absolutely no shame in communicating environmental credentials - and there is certainly a huge commercial opportunity for the businesses that do - but the risk for companies that put jargon before action is all the greater.

Alex Myers is a Sustainability Communication Consultant at Kaizo