Greenwashing is a marketing tactic where companies make bold claims about being environmentally friendly, but in reality, their actions don’t match up to the promises. It’s when a brand touts its eco-friendly efforts without backing them up with real, measurable metrics. Instead of making genuine progress toward sustainability, they often rely on vague terms and unverified claims to create the illusion of environmental responsibility.

Take BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, for example. The company spent millions to promote the idea that it was transitioning toward clean energy, but behind the scenes, it continued to pour resources into oil and gas exploration. Despite all the advertising, BP’s commitment to sustainability didn’t result in any meaningful change, and the campaign was widely criticised as nothing more than a public relations stunt.

In today’s world, where consumers are increasingly aware of environmental issues, greenwashing can be hard to spot. But it’s crucial to look beyond the glossy marketing and ask: Are these companies actually following through, or are they just riding the wave of eco-consciousness without truly making a difference?

 

Need all your wellness solutions in one place? A whole new world awaits just a click away.

 

7 Ways to Spot Greenwashing

Vague or Unverified Claims

Terms like "eco-friendly," "green," or "sustainable" without clear definitions or supporting evidence can be red flags. Always look for detailed, verifiable information or third-party certifications.

Volkswagen's "Dieselgate" Scandal: Volkswagen falsely marketed its diesel vehicles as low-emission, environmentally friendly options. In reality, the company had installed software to cheat emissions tests, leading to significant fines and a damaged reputation. 

Coca-Cola's Plastic Pollution: Despite Coca-Cola's claims of environmental responsibility, it was identified as the world's top plastic polluter by Break Free From Plastic in 2020, highlighting a significant gap between its marketing and actual environmental impact. 

 

Related story: Are You Anxious Climate Change?

Lack of Third-Party Certification

Genuine eco-friendly products often have certifications from recognised third-party organisations (e.g., Fair Trade, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), FSSAI (Food Safety and Standards Authority of India), GreenPro Certification. If there’s no credible certification or independent verification, the claim may be unsubstantiated.

McDonald's Green Logo Change: In 2009, McDonald's altered its European logos from yellow-and-red to yellow-and-green, suggesting a commitment to environmental responsibility. However, this change was largely cosmetic and did not reflect substantial environmental improvements. 

Allbirds' Sustainability Claims: Footwear company Allbirds faced criticism for allegedly misleading consumers about its sustainability practices, particularly concerning the carbon impact of its wool sourcing. A federal lawsuit accused Allbirds of false advertising by omitting significant environmental impacts in its marketing. 

 

Related story: How is Climate Change Affecting Your Health?

 

Misleading Labels

When a label claims to be sustainable but provides no evidence or information about how the company is reducing its environmental impact (e.g., carbon footprint, energy use, waste reduction), it’s likely just a marketing tactic to appear eco-friendly.

Starbucks' Plastic Straw Initiative: Starbucks introduced a lid with an integrated straw to reduce plastic waste. However, the new lid contained more plastic by weight than the previous straw and lid combined, raising questions about the effectiveness of the initiative. 

 

Related story: What Food Labels Tell You...And What They Don't

Only Focus on the “Greener” Option, Not the Whole Range

Some companies may highlight one “greener” product in their range while ignoring or downplaying the less sustainable options they offer. If they emphasise one eco-friendly product but continue to produce others with harmful impacts, they may be using this tactic to distract from their overall practices.

Mercer’s Misleading ESG Investments: Mercer falsely marketed certain investment funds as sustainable while investing in fossil fuels and other harmful industries. This case shows how focusing on one "green" initiative doesn’t necessarily mean the company is fully sustainable

Target's "Clean" Beauty Products: Retailer Target faced legal action for labeling certain beauty products as "Target Clean," despite these products containing harmful chemicals. A federal court in Minnesota allowed the case to proceed, highlighting concerns over misleading environmental claims in the beauty industry. 

 

Related story: Tackling Climate Misinformation

 

Overemphasis on a Single Positive Attribute

Some companies promote a single environmentally friendly feature of their product while neglecting other harmful aspects. This creates the illusion of sustainability, even though the product may still have a significant negative environmental impact.
H&M’s Conscious Collection: H&M promoted its "Conscious" collection as being environmentally friendly, claiming it was made with sustainable materials like organic cotton and recycled polyester. However, the collection represented only a small portion of the brand's total production, and H&M continued to rely heavily on fast fashion, which contributes to significant waste and pollution. Critics argue that this initiative was more about marketing than actual sustainable change.

 

Related story: 3 Ways Climate Change Affects Your Health

 

Hidden Trade-Offs

Some companies may market their products as sustainable, but they fail to acknowledge trade-offs, such as high environmental costs in other areas of the supply chain or lifecycle.
 

Nestlé’s Bottled Water: Nestlé has marketed its bottled water products as environmentally responsible by emphasising their use of "lightweight bottles" or "recyclable materials." However, it has been heavily criticised for its massive water extraction practices, particularly in drought-prone regions, and the environmental toll of single-use plastic. Despite the marketing, the broader environmental impact is far from sustainable.

 

Lack of Clear Action or Accountability

Companies may make ambitious environmental promises but fail to follow through with concrete actions, relying on vague commitments without setting measurable goals or reporting progress.

BP’s "Beyond Petroleum" Campaign: BP (British Petroleum) spent millions on an advertising campaign claiming to be shifting toward clean energy with their "Beyond Petroleum" slogan. However, the company continued to invest heavily in oil and gas exploration and failed to make meaningful progress toward a sustainable energy future. BP’s commitment to sustainability was criticised as a public relations move designed to distract from its continued reliance on fossil fuels.

 

Need all your wellness solutions in one place? A whole new world awaits just a click away.