Is Pinkwashing better than Greenwashing? The former is a term given to companies running pink ribbon campaigns and purporting to care about breast cancer awareness, and even going so far as to create special products that capitalize on the immense bandwagon popularity of the pink ribbon. The latter-- as we all know, is the term given to those brands and companies attempting to appear more environmentally friendly, better for the environment, or more socially aware than they really truly are.They both have the same cause and effect: Savvy marketers attempting to ride popular trends and attract consumers to their brand. Ultimately if they don't cut the mustard, they're labeled x-washers and are quickly marginalized. The really big brands are fully aware of the brand reputation risks, and attempt to enter any space like this with extreme caution, but ultimately, if you're a target, you're a target. Wal-mart is a great example. They've actually done amazing things as far as 'going green', like converting to solar in some stores with huge solar projects, and changing their logistics and merchandising process and strategy to reduce waste, reduce energy consumption, and ultimately reduce their footprint. --but they're still Wal-mart, so everyone hates them.
What would be some other examples of x-washing? Blue-washing for companies appearing to care about water resources while polluting or over consuming. Red-washing for companies trying to hop on the HIV/AIDS bandwagon (like the many brands that support the (RED) campaign, that could just as easily donate the same amount of money + their marketing spend, directly to a charity). Check-mark-washing for those companies that put accreditation and check marks on everything to make the consumer think that they've passed rigorous scrutiny and tests and regulations to finally make it to the shelf of your local 7-11... Plaid washing for companies trying to appear sensitive to the atrocities of the English-Scottish battles in the 17th century.