Greenwashing

• Kimberly Clark's claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside but uses the same petrochemical gel inside as before. Pampers also claims that "Dry Max" diapers reduce landfill by reducing the amount of paper fluff in the diaper, which really is a way for Pampers to save money.[19]
• In January 2020 the Fur Free Alliance noted that the "WelFur" label, which advocated for animal welfare on fur farms, is run by the fur industry itself and is aimed at European fur farms.[20]
• Clothing company H&M came under fire for greenwashing their manufacturing practices as a result of a report published by Quartz News.[21]

• In 2009, McDonald's changed the color of its European logos from yellow-and-red to yellow-and-green; a spokesman explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources".[22] In October 2021 McDonald's was accused of greenwashing after announcing its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.[23]
• In 2018, in response to increased calls to ban plastic straws, Starbucks introduced a lid with a built-in drinking straw that actually contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid together (though it can be recycled, unlike its predecessor).[24]

• In 1985, the Chevron Corporation launched one of the most famous greenwashing ad campaigns. Chevron's "People Do" advertisements were aimed at a "hostile audience" of "societally conscious" people. Two years after the launch of the campaign, surveys found people in California trusted Chevron more than other oil companies to protect the environment. In the late 1980s The American Chemistry Council started a program called Responsible Care, which shone a light on the environmental performances and precautions of the group's members. The loose guidelines of responsible care caused industries to adopt self-regulation over government regulation.[17][16]
• The UK Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints against major vehicle manufacturers including Suzuki, SEAT, Toyota, and Lexus who made false claims about their vehicles.[25]
• Volkswagen fitted their cars with a "defeat device" which activated only when a car's emissions were being tested, to reduce polluting emissions. In normal use, by contrast, the cars were emitting 40 times the allowed rate of nitrogen oxide.[26] Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen US$35.4 billion.[27]
• A 2010 advertising campaign by Chevron was described by the Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch, and The Yes Men as greenwash. A spoof campaign was launched to pre-empt Chevron's greenwashing.[28]
• In November 2020, Aston Martin, Bosch, and other brands were discovered to have funded a report which downplayed electric vehicles' environmental benefits with misleading information about the CO₂ emissions produced during the manufacture of electric vehicles, in response to the UK announcing that it would ban the sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines from 2030.[29] The greenwashing scandal became known as Astongate given the relationship between the British automotive manufacturer and Clarendon Communications, a shell company posing as a public relations agency which was set up to promote the report, and which was registered to James Michael Stephens – the Director of Global Government & Corporate Affairs at Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.[29]

Municipal bus encouraging recycling in the city of Samsun in 2022, in front of bags of free coal from another part of the Turkish government. This municipality and the national government are controlled by the same party, and the Green Party is barred from the 2023 election.[30]

• In 2010, environmentalists stated the Bush Administration's "Clear Skies Initiative" actually weakened air pollution laws.[31] Similar laws were issued under President Macron of France as "simplifying ecology rules" that were criticized on similar grounds while still being referred to by his government as "ecology laws".[32]
• "Clean Coal", an initiative adopted by several platforms for the 2008 U.S. presidential election, cited carbon capture and storage as a means of reducing carbon emissions by capturing and injecting carbon dioxide produced by coal power plants into layers of porous rock below the ground. According to Fred Pearce's Greenwash column in The Guardian, clean coal is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron… pure and utter greenwash".[33] In 2017, Australia's then Treasurer Scott Morrison used "Clean Coal" as the basis to suggest clean energy subsidies be used to build new coal power plants.[34]
• The renaming of "Tar Sands" to "Oil Sands", (Alberta, Canada) in corporate and political language reflects an ongoing debate between the project's adherents and opponents. This semantic shift can be seen as a case of greenwashing in an attempt at countering growing public concern about the environmental and health impacts of the industry. While advocates claim that the shift is scientifically derived to better reflect the use of the sands as a precursor to oil, environmental groups claim that it is simply a means of cloaking the issue behind friendlier terminology.
• In 2021, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman announced a tree planting campaign in the desert as part of the plan to reach carbon neutrality by 2060. The plan was criticised as a greenwashing attempt by some climate scientists.[35][36][37]
• Some environmental activists and critics condemned the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) as greenwashing.[38]
• In May 2023, a Wikipedia user who identified themselves as an employee of ADNOC was alleged to suggest edits to the Wikipedia article of Sultan Al Jaber, president of COP28, which presented Al Jaber as a supporter of the climate movement.[39] In June 2023, Dr Marc Owen Jones of Hamad Bin Khalifa University noted that a large number of apparent fake Twitter profiles were used to defend Al Jaber's COP28 presidency.[40]

The Airbus A380 described as "A better environment inside and out."

• "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, natural gas is only 50% as dirty. Producing natural gas through fracking and/or distribution by a pipeline may lead to methane emissions into the atmosphere. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse agent.[41] Despite this, natural gas is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse. It is in practice used to balance the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy.[42] It can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use.
• First-generation biofuels are said to be better for the environment than fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) contribute to deforestation (which contributes to global warming due to release of CO₂). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these particular issues, but have contributed significantly to deforestation and habitat destruction in Canada due to rising corn prices which make it economically worthwhile to clear-cut existing forests in agricultural areas.
• An article in Wired magazine highlighted slogans that suggest environmentally-benign business activity: the Comcast Ecobill has the slogan "PaperLESSisMORE", but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing.[43]
• The Poland Spring (from the American city of Poland) ecoshape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good", although 80% of beverage containers go to landfills.[43]
• The Airbus A380 airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high environmental cost.[43]
• The multinational oil company formerly known as British Petroleum launched a rebranding campaign in 2000 revising the company's acronym as "Beyond Petroleum". The campaign included a revised green logo, advertisements, a solar-paneled gas station in Los Angeles, and clean energy rhetoric across media to strategically position itself as the 'greenest' global oil company. The campaign became the center of public controversy due to the company's hypocrisy around lobbying efforts that sought permission to drill in protected areas, and its negligent operating practices that led to severe oil spills—most notably the Prudhoe Bay pipeline rupture in 2006 and the Gulf of Mexico rig explosion in 2010[44]

Researchers found that products that are truly environmentally friendly are significantly more favored by consumers than their greenwashed counterparts.[45] A survey by Lending Tree found that 55% of Americans are willing to spend more money on products they perceive to be more sustainable and eco-friendly.[46]

Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to.[47] Other research suggests that few consumers actually 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.[48]

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.[49]

Research suggests that consumers distrust companies who 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.[50]

Consumers' willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the 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.[51]

Eco-labels can be given to a product both from an external organization and by the company itself, which has raised concerns because companies can label a product green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing environmental harms.[52] Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling.[53] Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire, particularly when the advertised environmental claim does not match a company's actual environmental engagement.[54]

Researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that in order for companies to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing, companies should "walk the walk" when it comes to green advertising and green behavior. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising are found to be most effective when it matches a company's actual environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they cannot factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product.[55]

Significant exposure to greenwashing can make a consumer indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. Genuinely green businesses then have to work harder to differentiate themselves from those who use false claims. Consumers may also react negatively to true sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing.[56]

The Australian Trade Practices Act punishes companies that provide misleading environmental claims. Any organization found guilty of such could face up A$6 million in fines.[62] In addition, the guilty party must pay for all expenses incurred while setting the record straight about their product or company's actual environmental impact.[63]

Canada's Competition Bureau along with the Canadian Standards Association discourage companies from making "vague claims" about their products' environmental impact. Any claims must be backed up by "readily available data".[63]

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) handles investigations that have an environmental or sustainability element, such as misspending of EU funds intended for green products and the counterfeiting and smuggling of products with the potential to harm the environment and health. It also handles illegal logging and smuggling of precious wood and timber into the EU (wood laundering).[64]

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.[65] 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.[66]

The European Union has also struck a provisional agreement to mandate new reporting rules for companies with over 250 staff and a turnover of 40 million euros. They will need to disclose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information, which will help combat greenwashing. These requirements go into effect in 2024.[67]

Norway's consumer ombudsman has targeted automakers who claim their cars are "green", "clean", or "environmentally friendly" with some of the world's strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others." Manufacturers risk fines if they fail to drop misleading advertisements. Øverli said she did not know of other countries going so far in cracking down on cars and the environment.[68]

The Green Leaf Certification is an evaluation method created by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as a metric that rates the hotels' environmental efficiency of environmental protection.[69] In Thailand, this certification is believed to help regulate greenwashing phenomena associated with green hotels. Eco hotel or "green hotel" are hotels that have adopted sustainable environmentally-friendly practices in hospitality business operations.[70] Since the development of the tourism industry in the ASEAN, Thailand superseded its neighboring countries in inbound tourism, with 9 percent of Thailand's direct GDP contributions coming from the travel and tourism industry in 2015.[71] Because of the growth and reliance on tourism as an economic pillar, Thailand developed "responsible tourism" in the 1990s to promote the well-being of local communities and the environment affected by the industry.[69] However, studies show the green hotel companies' principles and environmental perceptions contradict the basis of corporate social responsibilities in responsible tourism.[69][72] Against this context, the issuance of the Green Leaf Certification aims at keeping the hotel industry and supply chains accountable for corporate social responsibilities in regard to sustainability by having an independent international organization evaluate a hotel and rate it one through five leaves.[73]

The Competition and Markets Authority is the UK's primary competition and consumer authority. In September 2021, it published a Green Claims Code intended to protect consumers from misleading environmental claims and to protect businesses from unfair competition.[74]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) provides voluntary guidelines for environmental marketing claims. These guidelines give the FTC the right to prosecute false and misleading claims. These guidelines are not enforceable but instead were intended to be followed voluntarily:

• Qualifications and disclosures: The Commission traditionally has held that in order to be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in these 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.[75]
• 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. In general, 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.[75]
• 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 in fact negligible.[75]
• Comparative claims: Environmental marketing claims that include a comparative statement 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.[75]

The FTC said in 2010 that it will update its guidelines for environmental marketing claims in an attempt to reduce greenwashing.[76] 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.[66]

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.[77]

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.[78]

The FTC charged a sixth company, AJM Packaging Corporation, with violating a commission consent order put in place that prohibits companies from using advertising claims based on the product or packaging being "degradable, biodegradable, or photodegradable" without reliable scientific information.[78] The FTC now requires companies to disclose and provide the information that qualifies their environmental claims, to ensure transparency.

The issue of green marketing and consumerism in China has gained significant attention as the country faces environmental challenges. According to "Green Marketing and Consumerism in China: Analyzing the Literature" authored by Qingyun Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, China has been implementing environmental protection laws to regulate the business and commercial sector. Regulations such as the Environmental Protection Law and the Circular Economy Promotion Law which contains provisions that prohibit false advertising (known as greenwashing). [79][80] 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.[81] 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 should be easy to understand and should 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. The issues of the climate crisis, sustainability, and greenwashing in China remains a critical issue and requires 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 mentioned the need for a unified standard for what was to be labeled green.[82] 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.[83] 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 at the time 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 wasn’t 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. [84][85] 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 their manufacturing process has been verified by certification agencies. [86][87] The standards and coverage for green products have been increasing as time goes, with changes and improvements to green product standardization still occurring in 2023.[88]

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 the health and environmental impacts of air pollution, advocate for stronger government policies and regulations to reduce emissions, and encourage a shift toward clean and renewable energy sources.[89] "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 stopped using toxic and harmful chemicals. They included Adidas, Benetton, Burberry, Esprit, 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 President 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 towards more strict air pollution control measures, promoting more clean energy technology, and contributing the health, wellness, and sustainability in China. Particularly though, the health of Chinese citizens is at the front of this issue being that air pollution has been a critical issue in the nation. The article emphasizes that China has made it a priority to put people front and center on environmental issues. China’s Greenpeace campaigns, and other countries, are a part of their global efforts to address environmental challenges and promote sustainability.

Greenscamming describes an organization or product taking on a name that falsely implies environmental friendliness. It is related to both greenwashing and greenspeak.[91] This is analogous to aggressive mimicry in biology.[92][93]

Greenscamming is used in particular by industrial companies and associations that deploy astroturfing organisations to try to dispute scientific findings that they consider threatening to their business model. One example is the denial of man-made global warming by companies in the fossil energy sector, also driven by specially-founded greenscamming organizations.

One reason to establish greenscamming organizations is that it is difficult to openly communicate the benefits of activities that damage the environment. Sociologist Charles Harper stresses that it would be difficult to market a group called "Coalition to Trash the Environment for Profit". 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, there is a danger of being exposed as an anti-environmental initiative, which entails a considerable risk that the greenscamming activities backfire and are counterproductive for the initiators.[94]

Greenscamming organizations are active in organized climate denial.[92] 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.[95] 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.[96]

Examples of greenscamming organizations include the National Wetlands Coalition, Friends of Eagle Mountain, The Sahara Club, The Alliance for Environment and Resources, The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, the Global Climate Coalition, the National Wilderness Institute, the Environmental Policy Alliance of the Center for Organizational Research and Education, and the American Council on Science and Health.[93][97] Behind these ostensible environmental protection organizations lie the interests of business sectors. For example, the National Wetlands Coalition is backed by oil drilling companies and real estate developers, while the Friends of Eagle Mountain is backed by a mining company that wants to convert open-cast mines into landfills. The Global Climate Coalition was backed by commercial enterprises that fought against government-imposed climate protection measures. Other Greenscam organizations include the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, backed by the nuclear industry; the Wilderness Impact Research Foundation, representing the interests of lumberjacks and ranchers; and the American Environmental Foundation, representing the interests of landowners.[98]

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 timber industry in the region, as well as tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats.[93] 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.[95]

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.[99] 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.[100]