Product Code Database
Greenwashing (a compound word modeled on "Whitewashing"), also called green sheen, is a form of advertising or marketing spin that deceptively uses green PR and green marketing to persuade the public that an organization's products, goals, or policies are environmentally friendly. Companies that intentionally adopt greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers. Firms engage in greenwashing for two primary reasons: to appear legitimate and to project an image of environmental responsibility to the wider public. Since there is no harmonized and international definition of greenwashing, its determination in a given instance can be a subjective challenge for consumers and regulatory bodies.
Corporations attempt to capitalize on consumers' environmental guilt. Critics of the practice suggest that the rise of greenwashing, combined with ineffective regulation and lack of its actual enforcement, contributes to consumer skepticism of all green claims and diminishes the power of the consumer to influence companies toward greener Manufacturing and business operations. Greenwashing covers up unsustainable corporate agendas and policies.
Highly public accusations of greenwashing have contributed to the term's increasing use.
Moreover, the act of greenwashing directly undermines "green trust" in consumers, which also harms the credibility and profitability of the company making the practice. Accurate green marketing can serve as a competitive advantage, but its misuse as greenwashing can lead to the company being perceived as morally irresponsible, damaging its reputation.
Greenwashing has recently increased to meet consumer demand for environmentally-friendly goods and services. New regulations, laws, and guidelines put forward by organizations such as the Committee of Advertising Practice in the UK aim to discourage companies from using greenwashing to deceive consumers. At the same time, activists have been increasingly inclined to accuse companies of greenwashing, with inconsistent standards as to what activities merit such an accusation.
According to the United Nations, greenwashing can present itself in many ways, such as claiming that the company will achieve future environment milestones while not putting sufficient plans in place to do so, being intentionally vague about operations or using vague claims that cannot be specifically proven (like saying they are "environmentally friendly" or "green"), saying that a product does not contain harmful materials or use harmful practices that they would not use anyways, highlighting one thing the company does well regarding the environment while not doing anything else, and promoting products that meet regulatory minimums as if peer products do not.
Additionally, TerraChoice, an environmental consulting division of UL, described the "seven sins of greenwashing" in 2007 to "help consumers identify products that made misleading environmental claims". The first one is "Hidden Trade-off", which is a claim that a product is "green" based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other critical environmental issues. The second one is "No proof", which is a claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible information or a reliable third-party certification. Then "Vagueness" is a poorly defined or broad claim that the consumer will likely misunderstand its meaning. "All-natural", for example, is not necessarily "green". Also there is "Worshipping False Labels", which is a claim that, through words or images, gives the impression of a third-party endorsement where none exists. "Irrelevance", which is a claim that may be truthful but unimportant or unhelpful to consumers seeking environmentally preferable products. Additionally, there is "Lesser of Two Evils", a claim that may be true within the product category, but risks distracting consumers from the more significant environmental impact of the category. Finally, there is "Fibbing", which is a claim that is simply false. Considering these ways of identifying greenwashing, TerraChoice noted that by 2010, approximately 95% of consumer products in the U.S. claiming to be green were discovered to commit at least one of these sins.
The characteristics and concept of greenwashing are vaguely defined, and some only consider environmental claims, while others also factor in deception regarding corporate social responsibility (CSR). Additionally, scholars make a distinction between an object's attributes view, which focuses on whether a product's environmental claims align with its features, and the process attribute view, which examines whether the firm's environmental efforts match its promotional efforts.
The first type is direct greenwashing, which occurs when a firm’s own processes are inconsistent with its environmental claims and lead to blaming the entire company and having low intention to invest.
The second type is indirect greenwashing, which happens when a supplier makes false environmental claims, thus the company it supplies is also negatively impacted and is blamed even though the company itself did not commit any misconduct.
The third type is vicarious greenwashing, which occurs when a “green” company partners with a non-environmentally friendly supplier. In this case the company is held liable for the supplier's misconduct because of its stated commitment to sustainability.
Additionally, some scholars argue that the more internal and intentional the greenwashing, the more blame and less investment the company receives.
Greenwashing can also take different forms depending on whether it is on a firm-level or a product-level.
“Product-level greenwashing” mainly focuses on the products or services provided by the company. On this level, “claim greenwashing” occurs when there is a use of misleading statements about the environmental benefits and vague, unverified, and false certifications such as “eco-friendly”. Moreover, "executional greenwashing” happens when companies rely on visuals and symbols, such as green colors and nature imagery, that connect to sustainability and mislead consumers into believing that a product is more ecological than it is. These tactics, which are also known as the “sins of greenwashing”, tend to hide the negative impacts and diminish consumer trust.
On the other hand, “firm-level greenwashing” happens at the organizational level, for example when a firm uses advertising and campaigns to promote sustainability while still having operations that damage the environment. This misleads the reputation and image of corporate responsibility, which confuses consumers through both words and imagery, leading to marketing deception on authentic environmental efforts.
In the mid-1960s, the environmental movement gained momentum, particularly after the publication of the landmark Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. The book marked a turning point in environmental awareness and inspired citizen action. It prompted many companies to seek a new, cleaner or greener image through advertising, although others, like E. Bruce Harrison, known as the father of modern greenwashing, sought to defame Carson and disparage the message of her book. Jerry Mander, a former Madison Avenue advertising executive, called this new form of advertising "ecopornography."
The first Earth Day was held on 22 April 1970. Most companies did not actively participate in the initial Earth Day events because environmental issues were not a major corporate priority, and there was a sense of skepticism or resistance to the movement's message. Nevertheless, some industries began to advertise themselves as environmentally friendly. For example, public utilities were estimated to have spent around $300 million advertising themselves as clean and green companies, which was eight times what they spent on pollution reduction research.
The term "greenwashing" was coined by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld
In 1991, a study published in the "Journal of Public Policy and Marketing" (American Marketing Association) found that 58% of environmental ads had at least one deceptive claim. Another study found that 77% of people said a company's environmental reputation affected whether they would buy its products. One-fourth of all household products marketed around Earth Day advertised themselves as being green and environmentally friendly. In 1998, the Federal Trade Commission created the "Green Guidelines", which defined terms used in environmental marketing. The following year, the FTC ruled that the Nuclear Energy Institute's claims of environmental cleanliness were invalid. However, the FTC took no action regarding the ads because they fell outside the agency's jurisdiction. This caused the FTC to realize they needed new, clear, enforceable standards. In 1999, the word "greenwashing" was added to the "Oxford English Dictionary."
Days before the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Greenpeace released The Greenpeace Book on Greenwash, which described the corporate takeover of the UN conference and provided case studies of the contrast between corporate polluters and their rhetoric. Third World Network published an expanded version of that report, "Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism", in 1996.Greer, J., Greenwash : the reality behind corporate environmentalism, Third World Network: Penang, Malaysia
In 2002, during the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the Greenwashing Academy hosted the Greenwash Academy Awards. The ceremony awarded companies like BP, ExxonMobil, and even the U.S. Government for their elaborate greenwashing ads and support for greenwashing. A 2020 European Union study found that over 50% of examined environmental claims in the EU were vague, misleading, or unfounded, while 40% of them were unsubstantiated.
Many companies have committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to net zero after the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. A net zero emissions level means that any emissions given off by a company would be offset by carbon sequestrators in the natural world (also known as carbon sinks). However, companies are not actually cutting emissions, but are creating unfeasible plans and attempting to improve other things rather than their emissions. Therefore, most companies are not actually upholding their agreements and ultimately continue not to cause any positive change.
After a legal analysis, the corruption and integrity risks in climate solutions reports show that regulations are significantly weaker for misleading ESG credentials than for climate washing and advertising standards. Despite imposed obligations, ESG rating agencies or ESG auditors are not regulated in any reviewed jurisdictions. Factors such as the lack of oversight by third-party environmental service providers, the opacity of internal scoring methodologies, and the lack of alignment and consistency around ESG assessments can create opportunities for misleading or unsubstantiated claims and, in worst-case scenarios, bribery or fraud.
Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to. Other research suggests that few consumers notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed.
Consumer trust is mediated by two primary psychological effects, which are green consumer confusion and green perceived risk. Green consumer confusion occurs when a vague environmental claim makes consumers have a difficulty to differentiate between genuinely ecological and misleading products that appear as "environmentally friendly". On the other hand, green perceived risk happens when a consumer has an increasing negative perception of the consequences and the product's sustainability claims. Research shows that there is a positive correlation between greenwashing, green consumer confusion, and green perceived risk. With this being said, the consumers tend to negatively evaluate the product and the company environmental efforts when they perceive greenwashing. This can lead to immediately reducing consumer satisfaction during the interaction with a company's website where greenwashing is suspected.
Other research suggests that consumers with more green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the more green concern, the stronger the intention not to purchase from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing.
Research suggests that consumers distrust companies that greenwash because they view the act as deceptive. If consumers perceive that a company would realistically benefit from a green marketing claim being true, then it is more likely that the claim and the company will be seen as genuine.
Consumers' willingness to purchase green products decreases when they perceive that green attributes compromise product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as "gentle," can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option.
Exposure to greenwashing can make consumers indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. Thus, genuinely green businesses must work harder to differentiate themselves from those who use false claims. Nevertheless, consumers may react negatively to valid sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing.
Conversely, concerns about the perception of genuine efforts to develop more environmentally friendly practices can lead to "greenhushing", where a company avoids publicizing these efforts out of concern that they will be accused of greenwashing anyway.
There have been attempts to reduce the impact of greenwashing by exposing it to the public. The Greenwashing Index, created by the University of Oregon in partnership with EnviroMedia Social Marketing, allowed the public to upload and rate examples of greenwashing, but it was last updated in 2012.
Research published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2011 shows that Sustainability Ratings might deter greenwashing. Results concluded that higher sustainability ratings lead to significantly higher brand reputation than lower sustainability ratings. This same trend was found regardless of the company's level of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communications. This finding establishes that consumers pay more attention to sustainability ratings than CSR communications or greenwashing claims.
The World Federation of Advertisers released six new guidelines for advertisers in 2022 to prevent greenwashing. These approaches encourage credible environmental claims and more sustainable outcomes.
In January 2021, the European Commission, in cooperation with national consumer protection authorities, published a report on its annual survey of consumer websites investigated for violations of EU consumer protection law. The study examined green claims across a wide range of consumer products, concluding that for 42 percent of the websites examined, the claims were likely false and misleading and could well constitute actionable claims for unfair commercial practices.
In the context of escalating concerns regarding the authenticity of corporate ecological sustainability claims, greenwashing has emerged as a significant issue and poses a real challenge to sustainable finance regulations gaps. ESMA outlined the correlation between the growth of ESG-related funds and greenwashing. The exponential rise of funds integrating vague ESG-related language in their names started since the Paris Agreement (2015), and is effective in deceivingly attracting more investors. (2025). 9789295202863, Publications Office. ISBN 9789295202863
The 2020-2024 agenda of DG FISMA concern about greenwashing reconciles two objectives: increasing capital for sustainable investments and bolstering trust and investor protection in European financial markets.
The European Union struck a provisional agreement to mandate new reporting rules for companies with over 250 staff and a turnover of . They must disclose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information, which will help combat greenwashing. These requirements go into effect in 2024. The European Commission has introduced a proposal of ESG regulation aimed at bolstering transparency and integrity within ESG rating in 2023.
One important guideline involves qualifications and disclosures. The Commission traditionally has held that to be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in the green guides should be sufficiently clear, prominent, and understandable to prevent deception. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.
Another guideline focuses on making a distinction between benefits of product, package, and service. An environmental marketing claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental attribute or benefit being asserted refers to the product, the product's packaging, a service, or to a portion or component of the product, package or service. If the environmental attribute or benefit applies to all but minor, incidental components of a product or package, the claim need not be qualified to identify that fact. There may be exceptions to this general principle. For example, if an unqualified "recyclable" claim is made and the presence of the incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle the product, then the claim would be deceptive.
The FTC also warns against an overstatement of environmental attribute. An environmental marketing claim should not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits if the benefit is negligible.
Finally, the guidelines address the use of comparative claims. When an environmental marketing claims includes a comparative statement, it should be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. In addition, the advertiser should be able to substantiate the comparison.
The FTC announced in 2010 that it would update its guidelines for environmental marketing claims in an attempt to reduce greenwashing. The revision to the FTC's Green Guides covers a wide range of public input, including hundreds of consumer and industry comments on previously proposed revisions, offering clear guidance on what constitutes misleading information and demanding clear factual evidence.
According to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, "The introduction of environmentally-friendly products into the marketplace is a win for consumers who want to purchase greener products and producers who want to sell them." Leibowitz also says such a win-win can only operate if marketers' claims are straightforward and proven.
In 2013, the FTC began enforcing these revisions. It cracked down on six different companies; five of the cases concerned false or misleading advertising surrounding the biodegradability of plastics. The FTC charged ECM Biofilms, American Plastic Manufacturing, CHAMP, Clear Choice Housewares, and Carnie Cap, for misrepresenting the biodegradability of their plastics treated with additives.
The FTC charged a sixth company, AJM Packaging Corporation, with violating a commission consent order prohibiting companies from using advertising claims based on the product or packaging being "degradable, biodegradable, or photodegradable" without reliable scientific information. The FTC now requires companies to disclose and provide the information that qualifies their environmental claims to ensure transparency.
/a> Retrieved 2023-05-05. The Chinese government has issued regulations and standards to regulate green advertising and labeling, including the Guidelines for Green Advertising Certification, the Guidelines for Environmental Labeling and Eco-Product Certification, and the Standards for Environmental Protection Product Declaration. These guidelines promote transparency in green marketing and prevent false or misleading claims. The Guidelines for Green Advertising Certification require that green advertising claims should be truthful, accurate, and verifiable. These guidelines and certifications require that eco-labels should be based on scientific and technical evidence, and should not contain false or misleading information. The standards also require that eco-labels be easy to understand and not confuse or deceive consumers. The regulations that are set in place for greenwashing, green advertising, and labeling in China are designed to protect consumers and prevent misleading claims. China's climate crisis, sustainability, and greenwashing remain critical and require ongoing attention. The implementation of regulations and guidelines for green advertising and labeling in China aims to promote transparency and prevent false or misleading claims.
In efforts to stop this practice, in November 2016, the General Office of the State Council introduced legislation to promote the development of green products, encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices, and mention the need for a unified standard for what was to be labeled green. This was a general plan or opinion on the matter, with no specifics on its implementation, however with similarly worded legislation and plans out at that time there was a push toward a unified green product standard. Until then, green products had various standards and guidelines developed by different government agencies or industry associations, resulting in a lack of consistency and coherence. One example of guidelines set then was from the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (now known as the Ministry of Ecology and Environment). They issued specifications in 2000, but these guidelines were limited and not widely recognized by industry or consumers. It was not until 2017, with the launch of GB/T (a set of national standards and recommendations), that a widespread guideline was set for what would constitute green manufacturing and a green supply chain. Expanding on these guidelines in 2019 the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) created regulations for Green Product Labels, which are symbols used on products to mark that they meet certain environmentally friendly criteria, and certification agencies have verified their manufacturing process. The standards and coverage for green products have increased as time passes, with changes and improvements to green product standardization still occurring in 2023.
In China, the Greenpeace Campaign focuses on the pain point of air pollution. The campaign aims to address the severe air pollution problem prevalent in many Chinese communities. The campaign has been working to raise awareness about air pollution's health and environmental impacts, advocate for more robust government policies and regulations to reduce emissions, and encourage a shift toward clean and renewable energy sources. "From 2011 to 2016, we linked global fast fashion brands to toxic chemical pollution in China through their manufacturers. Many multinational companies and local suppliers have stopped using toxic and harmful chemicals. They included Adidas, Benetton Group, Burberry, Esprit Holdings, H&M, Puma, and Zara, among others." The Greenpeace Campaign in China has involved various activities, including scientific research, public education, and advocacy efforts. The campaign has organized public awareness events to engage both consumers and policymakers, urging them to take action to improve air quality. "In recent years, Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping has committed to controlling the expansion of coal power plants. He has also pledged to stop building new coal power abroad". The campaign seeks to drive public and government interest toward more strict air pollution control measures, promote more clean energy technology, and contribute to health, wellness, and sustainability in China. However, the health of Chinese citizens is at the forefront of this issue, as air pollution is a critical issue in the nation. The article emphasizes that China has prioritized putting people front and center on environmental issues. China's Greenpeace campaigns and those in other countries are a part of their global efforts to address environmental challenges and promote sustainability.
Carbon emission trading can be similar to greenwashing in that it gives an environmentally-friendly impression, but can be counterproductive if carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given "free credits". For example, Bank of America subsidiary MBNA offers "Eco-Logique" that reward Canadian customers with carbon offsets when they use them. Customers may feel that they are nullifying their carbon footprint by purchasing goods with these, but only 0.5% of the purchase price goes to buy carbon offsets; the rest of the interchange fee still goes to the bank.
Greenscamming is used in particular by industrial companies and associations that deploy astroturfing organisations to try to dispute scientific findings that threaten their business model. One example is the denial of man-made global warming by companies in the Fossil fuel, also driven by specially-founded greenscamming organizations.
One reason to establish greenscamming organizations is that openly communicating the benefits of activities that damage the environment is difficult. Sociologist Charles Harper stresses that marketing a group called "Coalition to Trash the Environment for Profit" would be difficult. Anti-environment initiatives, therefore, must give their front organizations deliberately deceptive names if they want to be successful, as surveys show that environmental protection has a social consensus. However, the danger of being exposed as an anti-environmental initiative entails a considerable risk that the greenscamming activities will backfire and be counterproductive for the initiators. (2025). 9780205820535, Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780205820535
Greenscamming organizations are active in organized climate denial. An important financier of greenscamming organizations was the oil company ExxonMobil, which financially supported more than 100 climate denial organizations and spent about 20 million U.S. dollars on greenscamming groups. (2025). 9781849713368, Earthscan. ISBN 9781849713368 James Lawrence Powell identified the "admirable" designations of many of these organizations as the most striking common feature, which for the most part sounded very rational. He quotes a list of climate denial organizations drawn up by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which includes 43 organizations funded by Exxon. None had a name that would lead one to infer that climate change denial was their "raison d'être". The list is headed by Africa Fighting Malaria, whose website features articles and commentaries opposing ambitious climate mitigation concepts, even though the dangers of malaria could be exacerbated by global warming. (2025). 9780231157186, Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231157186
Another Greenscam organization is the Northwesterners for More Fish, which had a budget of $2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminum companies, and the region's timber industry and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the Information Council on the Environment funded by the coal industry are also greenscamming organizations.
In Germany, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.Michael Brüggemann: Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Eds.): „Lügenpresse": Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150. In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a lobby organization that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.See Stefan Rahmstorf, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber: Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie. C. H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, , p. 85.
|
|
