Put a product in green packaging, add some leaves, water droplets and the words “earth-friendly,” and it looks more sustainable than before. But what materials went into it? How much did it improve? And compared with what? If the words on the packaging cannot answer these questions, what the consumer has bought may not be a better product, but a more comfortable feeling.
This is greenwashing: an organisation leading others to believe it is doing more for the environment than it actually is. Common tactics compiled by the United Nations include using terms such as “green,” “natural” and “eco-friendly” without clear definitions, presenting minor improvements as major impacts, deliberately overlooking primary emissions, or announcing net zero without a credible plan.
Greenwashing Is Not Always an Outright Lie
The hardest greenwashing to spot is often not entirely fabricated, but tells only part of the truth. A bottle may contain 30% recycled plastic, while the brand says nothing about its overall plastic use still rising; a factory may run on renewable energy, while emissions from raw materials and transport are left out; a company may purchase carbon credits and claim neutrality, when the actual share of reductions is very low.
So assessing an environmental claim cannot stop at “is this statement true or false.” We also need to ask whether it is complete, comparable and verifiable. Does the claim cover one product, one factory, or the whole company? Which year is the data from? What standard was used? Has it been verified by a third party? If offsets are used, where do the credits come from and what is their quality?
Sometimes companies are not deliberately deceptive; their internal data is simply not yet mature, while the marketing language runs ahead of actual decarbonisation progress. In that situation, the best response is not to cover things up with vaguer wording, but to state honestly what has been completed, what is not yet covered, and when the next step will be achieved.
Consumers Should Not Have to Be Full-Time Detectives
It is unreasonable to expect people to read through every report before they buy anything. Governments need to establish rules and penalties for environmental claims, companies should provide simple and traceable information, and the media and civil society need to keep checking. When “eco-friendly” can be used at no cost at all, the companies genuinely investing in transition are the ones driven out by bad currency.
When the Vision Association promotes awareness, it is not encouraging everyone to doubt all good intentions, but to build judgement. When you see an attractive commitment, you can pause for a moment: does it change the product and the system, or only my impression of the brand?
When a company finds that a claim is not precise enough, it should also have a correction mechanism. Voluntarily revising packaging, supplementing information or withdrawing an overstated commitment is not necessarily a failure; on the contrary, it shows an organisation willing to let sustainability be examined as rigorously as financial information.
Sustainability requires trust, but trust cannot rest on colours and slogans. If a company is willing to disclose its data, boundaries, progress and shortcomings together, it is more worth believing, even if it is not yet perfect.
Because real sustainability is not about looking problem-free; it is about being willing to let problems be seen, and accepting that society will keep asking questions.
References
-
United Nations, Greenwashing – the deceptive tactics behind environmental claims.
-
United Nations High-Level Expert Group, Integrity Matters: Net-Zero Commitments, and subsequent accountability recommendations.
