In an era where sustainability is a buzzword and climate concerns dominate headlines, environmental activism is surging. The impending global warming crisis has pushed consumers to use more eco-friendly products, but many have fallen victim to corporations’ elaborate illusion: greenwashing. Greenwashing is a deceptive stunt used by big businesses to cash in on the green culture currently rising. Various corporations have quickly jumped on the trend, deliberately using vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated claims about their products to come off as more environmentally friendly.
The most notable greenwashing scandal was in 2015, Volkswagen’s “Dieselgate,” in which the car manufacturer tampered with its engines to pass emission tests. The $200 billion scandal shook the car industry, sparking public skepticism of the credibility of corporations. As the climate clock ticks by, the question remains: how many of companies’ green advertisements are deceptions, and what would this mean for the environmental crisis?
There are two major classifications of greenwashing: executional greenwashing and claim greenwashing. Executional greenwashing refers to companies’ use of natural elements in their advertisements to fabricate a deceptive image of the brand’s eco-friendly practices. Claim greenwashing involves the manufacturer making misleading claims regarding the sustainability of products. Everyday consumers struggle to identify this multifaceted deception, which makes environmental controversy so frequent.
In a report that studied online claims of sustainability from various business sectors, the European Commission found that 42% of cases had claims that were “exaggerated, false, or deceptive and could potentially qualify as unfair commercial practices under EU rules.”
In America, greenwashing is an even more prominent trend. The Environmental Resources Management (ERM) reported that 68% of U.S. corporate leaders admit to greenwashing their brands.
Volkswagen’s Dieselgate is only one of the many greenwashing scandals in recent times. Keurig, one of the largest coffee manufacturing companies in the world, was called out for misleading recycling practices. The corporation promoted their plastic cups as recyclable, when in reality, they were not. Their cups were composed of mixed materials, which could not be easily separated or processed in recycling programs. As a result, many of their pods ended up in landfills, effectively achieving the opposite effect of their advertisement claims.
In 2021, fashion retailer H&M was exposed for their false plastic sustainability claims. H&M released their Conscious Collection, which featured clothing made from sustainable materials like cotton or polyester. While they claimed this clothing line was environmentally friendly, many were quick to notice that the majority of the clothes they sell are not. The problem was hypocrisy. Though the collection itself may not have been misleading, it was only a small part of a giant environmentally degrading process of clothing production.
The fashion industry is particularly guilty of this climate scandal. John Pabon, author of The Great Greenwashing: How Brands, Governments, and Influencers Are Lying to You, noted in an interview that “Their entire business model, the fast fashion houses, is set up on producing more faster. That’s why it’s called fast fashion, and getting more things to people quicker. So the business model is and it runs against the idea of building a sustainable for the planet business, because that’s just how the business model is.”
The capitalistic, profit-hungry nature of these industries incentivizes greenwashing. Ecofriendly products appeal to consumers, so companies may hone in on a single sustainable practice, diverting attention away from their ecologically damaging activities.
One of the main reasons why most of the general public is so gullible when it comes to greenwashing is because they are not primed to think about it as a practice.
In a study conducted in Germany to examine the ability of consumers to identify greenwashed products, the investigators found that when solely asked about purchase intentions, (also known as buyer intent), the participants found it difficult to spot the difference between sustainable products and their imposters. They can only distinguish between genuinely eco-friendly products and greenwashing products when they were prepared for it beforehand. These results suggest that greenwashing inoculation can significantly improve the ability of consumers to unmask untrue environmental claims, which is why it is more important than ever to combat environmental misinformation.
“It’s about changing that mindset for consumers. You have to do research,” said Pabon. “Then there’s also buying less and being more conscious about the cost of things, particularly with economies like they are today. For people who have the means to do so, think about quality over quantity.”
The power of individual consumers to combat greenwashing cannot be underestimated.
The public often puts the brunt of the burden on the government, but overlooks the influence accountability can have on counteracting the effects of greenwashing. “Sustainability is a very long term mindset. It almost runs counter to how politicians operate. On the international level, we’ve seen big United Nations (UN) environmental conferences, which just produced empty results. And that is testament to the fact that we shouldn’t be putting all our eggs in the government basket. I think from a long term perspective, we should be looking to the private sector and making them better,” Pabon notes.
We’ve seen this approach materialize on the legal front to hold companies accountable. In 2023, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) updated guidelines for company sustainability claims to consumers, applying pressure to the use of the terms ‘carbon neutral’ and ‘net zero’. The committees of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice emphasized how the guidance would ensure that the number of misleading claims are reduced.
Additionally, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a $5.5 million settlement with Kohls and Walmart for incorrectly labeling their textile products as environmentally friendly. Both companies advertised their products claiming that they were made from bamboo, though they were actually made from rayon. Rayon is a fiber composed of toxic chemicals, so their claims of “eco-friendly” and “sustainability” were wildly misleading.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is also working towards adopting a sweeping climate disclosure rule, which would force more transparency onto large corporations. This would involve extensive climate reporting, including publishing greenhouse gas emissions.
The consequences of greenwashing extend far beyond consumer deception; it can have massive implications for the climate. The practice in itself undermines efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change and delays real, concrete solutions. Resources become misallocated, attention gets diverted from the daunting issue, and the legitimacy of many industries and corporations is further and further eroded. Greenwashing instills a false sense of hope in consumers — a hope that companies are waking up to our burning world — but it is just a guise to pick the pockets of buyers and maximize profits.
In the face of the climate crisis, we must not look towards temporary ‘band-aid’ solutions. We think we are taking sufficient steps to combat climate change, but we are not. Permanent action grounded in a long-term perspective is critical. High-emission practices are being prolonged as the ice caps melt and biodiversity decreases. We must force companies to become transparent and accountable to ensure they engage in real sustainability. Holding them to the same green standard that the public is supposed to meet is necessary in such an urgent time. Only then can we wash away the facade and step into a future that is authentically sustainable.
As the climate clock ticks by, the question remains: how many of companies’ green advertisements are deceptions, and what would this mean for the environmental crisis?