View source for Greenwashing

{{Short description|Misleading environmental marketing claims}}
{{Use dmy dates|cs1-dates=y|date=December 2023}}
[[File:Eco MOL (solar powered) petrol station. - Budapest, XII. distr. Istenhegyi St., 55.JPG|thumb|right|250px|[[Solar power|Solar-power]]ed petrol station in [[Budapest]], [[Hungary]]]]
[[File:VW Golf TDI Clean Diesel WAS 2010 8983.JPG|thumb|right|250px|A [[Volkswagen]] [[Golf TDI]] in 2010, featuring the phrase "clean diesel" (a type of fuel, also known as [[ultra-low-sulfur diesel]]). The company later faced scrutiny and conviction due to [[Volkswagen emissions scandal|an emissions scandal]].]]
{{Environment sidebar}}
{{Green politics sidebar|Related}}

'''Greenwashing''' (a [[compound word]] modeled on "[[Whitewashing (communications)|Whitewashing]]"), also called '''green sheen''',<ref>{{cite web |date=8 January 2011 |title=Season 5: It's Not Easy Being Green: Green Marketing |url= http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110804064419/http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/ |archive-date=4 August 2011 |access-date=30 July 2022 |work=CBC Radio}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=LP: 'The biggest environmental crime in history' |url= http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=209637 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130116004629/https://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=209637 |archive-date=16 January 2013 |access-date=11 September 2009 |website=libertypost.org}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=Joe |title=Greenwashing: Appearance, illusion and the future of 'green' capitalism |journal=Geography Compass |date=2024 |volume=18 |issue=1 |article-number=e12736 |doi=10.1111/gec3.12736 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2024GComp..18E2736W }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zioło |first1=Magdalena |last2=Bąk |first2=Iwona |last3=Spoz |first3=Anna |title=Literature review of greenwashing research: State of the art |journal=Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management |date=2024 |volume=31 |issue=6 |pages=5343–5356 |doi=10.1002/csr.2842 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2024CSREM..31.5343Z }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=de Freitas Netto |first1=Sebastião Vieira |last2=Sobral |first2=Marcos Felipe Falcão |last3=Ribeiro |first3=Ana Regina Bezerra |last4=Soares |first4=Gleibson Robert da Luz |title=Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review |journal=[[Environmental Sciences Europe]] |date=2020 |volume=32 |article-number=19 |doi=10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Companies that intentionally adopt greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pizzetti |first1=Marta |last2=Gatti |first2=Lucia |last3=Seele |first3=Peter |title=Firms Talk, Suppliers Walk: Analyzing the Locus of Greenwashing in the Blame Game and Introducing 'Vicarious Greenwashing' |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |date=April 2021 |volume=170 |issue=1 |pages=21–38 |doi=10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 |s2cid=214383794 |url=http://doc.rero.ch/record/329946/files/Seele_2019_jbe.pdf }}</ref> Firms engage in greenwashing for two primary reasons: to appear legitimate and to project an image of environmental responsibility to the wider public.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=Kent |last2=Wan |first2=Fang |date=2012-08-01 |title=The Harm of Symbolic Actions and Green-Washing: Corporate Actions and Communications on Environmental Performance and Their Financial Implications |url=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=109 |issue=2 |pages=227–242 |doi=10.1007/s10551-011-1122-4 |issn=1573-0697|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Harvard">{{cite web|url=https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/07/24/greenwashing-navigating-the-risk/ |title=Greenwashing: Navigating the Risk|first1=Peter|last1=Pears|first2=Tim|last2=Baines|first3=Oliver|last3=Williams|publisher=Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance|date=July 24, 2023}}</ref>

== Occurrence ==
Greenwashing occurs when an organization spends significantly more resources on "green" advertising than on environmentally sound practices.<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite journal |last1=Gatti |first1=Lucia |last2=Seele |first2=Peter |last3=Rademacher |first3=Lars |date=2019-08-17 |title=Grey zone in – greenwash out. A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary-mandatory transition of CSR |journal=International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=6 |doi=10.1186/s40991-019-0044-9 |doi-access=free |issn=2366-0074|hdl=10419/297652 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Many corporations use greenwashing to improve [[public opinion]] of their brands. Complex corporate structures can further obscure the bigger picture.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Condon |first1=Madison |date=26 July 2020 |title=Climate Change's New Ally: Big Finance |url=https://bostonreview.net/science-nature/madison-condon-climate-change%E2%80%99s-new-ally-big-finance |access-date=6 April 2022 |work=Boston Review}}</ref>

Corporations attempt to capitalize on consumers' environmental guilt.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Sheehan |first1=Kim Bartel |last2=Lee |first2=Joonghwa |date=2014-10-01 |title=What's Cruel About Cruelty Free: An Exploration of Consumers, Moral Heuristics, and Public Policy |url=https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/jane/article/4/2/1/227765/What-s-Cruel-About-Cruelty-Free-An-Exploration-of |journal=Journal of Animal Ethics |language=en |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=1–15 |doi=10.5406/janimalethics.4.2.0001 |issn=2156-5414 |url-access=subscription}}</ref> 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|manufacturing processes]] and business operations.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dahl |first=Richard |date=1 June 2010 |title=Greenwashing: Do You Know What You're Buying? |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |volume=118 |issue=6 |pages=a246–a252 |doi=10.1289/ehp.118-a246 |pmc=2898878 |pmid=20515714}}</ref> Greenwashing covers up unsustainable corporate agendas and policies.<ref>{{cite web |last=Karliner |first=Joshua |date=22 March 2001 |title=A Brief History of Greenwash |url=http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161109224438/http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243 |archive-date=2016-11-09 |access-date=23 March 2018 |website=corpwatch.org}}

* {{cite news |date=25 May 2011 |title=Top 10 Greenwashing Companies In America |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/top-10-greenwashing-compa_n_182724 |access-date=30 July 2022 |newspaper=Huffington Post}}</ref> Highly public accusations of greenwashing have contributed to the term's increasing use.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Seele |first1=Peter |last2=Gatti |first2=Lucia |date=2015 |title=Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=239–252 |bibcode=2017BSEnv..26..239S |doi=10.1002/bse.1912}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thornton |first=Gabriella |date=18 May 2022 |title=New Environmental Claims Guidance from CAP, BCAP and the European Commission |url=https://marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/new-environmental-claims-guidance-from-cap-bcap-and-the-european-commission/ |access-date=5 November 2022 |website=marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com |language=en-GB}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Harvard" />{{TOC_LIMIT|2}}

==Characteristics==
Activities deemed to be characteristic of greenwashing can vary by time and place, product, and the opinions or expectations of the person making the determination.<ref name="Harvard2">{{cite web |last1=Pears |first1=Peter |last2=Baines |first2=Tim |last3=Williams |first3=Oliver |date=July 24, 2023 |title=Greenwashing: Navigating the Risk |url=https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/07/24/greenwashing-navigating-the-risk/ |publisher=Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":42">{{Cite web |last=Nations |first=United |title=Greenwashing – the deceptive tactics behind environmental claims |url=https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/greenwashing |access-date=2024-11-18 |website=United Nations |language=en}}</ref>

Additionally, TerraChoice, an environmental consulting division of [[UL (safety organization)|UL]], described the "seven sins of greenwashing" in 2007 to "help consumers identify products that made misleading environmental claims".<ref>{{cite web |title=Sins of Greenwashing |url=https://www.ul.com/insights/sins-greenwashing |access-date=15 November 2022 |publisher=UL Solutions}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":04">{{cite web |date=2013 |title=The Sins of Greenwashing |url=http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140717143618/http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/ |archive-date=17 July 2014 |access-date=30 July 2022 |website=sinsofgreenwashing.org}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{cite news |last1=Gelles |first1=Jeff |date=26 October 2010 |title=Study: 'Greenwashing' mars 95% of 'green' items |url=https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/consumer/Cleaning_up_the_greenwashing.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221115171247/https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/consumer/Cleaning_up_the_greenwashing.html |archive-date=November 15, 2022 |access-date=15 November 2022 |newspaper=The Philadelphia Inquirer}}</ref>

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.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

== Types of greenwashing ==
Greenwashing can take different forms, which change depending on where and how the environmental misconduct or environmental claim occurs within an organization or its supply chain. These types change how stakeholders blame, judge, and decide whether to support or even invest in a firm.

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pizzetti |first1=Marta |last2=Gatti |first2=Lucia |last3=Seele |first3=Peter |date=2021-04-01 |title=Firms Talk, Suppliers Walk: Analyzing the Locus of Greenwashing in the Blame Game and Introducing 'Vicarious Greenwashing' |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=170 |issue=1 |pages=21–38 |doi=10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 |issn=1573-0697|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=de Freitas Netto |first1=Sebastião Vieira |last2=Sobral |first2=Marcos Felipe Falcão |last3=Ribeiro |first3=Ana Regina Bezerra |last4=Soares |first4=Gleibson Robert da Luz |date=2020-02-11 |title=Concepts and forms of greenwashing: a systematic review |journal=Environmental Sciences Europe |volume=32 |issue=1 |pages=19 |doi=10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3 |doi-access=free |issn=2190-4715}}</ref>

==History==

The origins of greenwashing can be traced to several different moments. For example, [[Keep America Beautiful]] was a campaign founded by beverage manufacturers and others in 1953.<ref>{{cite web |title=Business-Managed Environment – Front Groups – Keep America Beautiful |url= https://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/environment/fronts/KAB.html |website=herinst.org |date=2017 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref> The campaign focused on recycling and littering, diverting attention away from corporate responsibility to protect the environment. The objective was to forestall the regulation of disposable containers, such as the one established by [[Vermont]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Abdelfatah |first1=Rund |title=The Litter Myth: Throughline |url= https://www.npr.org/transcripts/757539617 |website=NPR.org |date=5 September 2019 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://drilled.media/news/harrison-1 |title=E. Bruce Harrison: The godfather of greenwashing |website= www.drilled.media| publisher= Drilled|date= 6 July 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/environment/climate-change-compromise/|title=There can be no compromise on a burning planet |website= www.thenation.com| publisher= The Nation|date= 27 October 2021}}</ref> [[Jerry Mander]], a former [[Madison Avenue]] advertising executive, called this new form of advertising "ecopornography."<ref>{{cite book |last=Black |first=Brian |url= https://archive.org/details/greatdebatesamer00blac |title=Great Debates in American Environmental History |publisher=Greenwood Press |year=2008 |isbn=9780313339301 |editor-last=Lybecker |editor-first=Donna L. |location=Westport |page= [https://archive.org/details/greatdebatesamer00blac/page/n171 147] |url-access=limited}}</ref>

[[File:Earth Day - Enact 1970.jpg|thumb|Earth Day 1970|273x273px]]

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.<ref name="tglo2">{{cite web |date=6 July 2012 |title=Greenwashing 101 |url= http://thegreenlifeonline.org/greenwash101/ |access-date=7 July 2016 |website=thegreenlifeonline.org}}</ref><ref name="gfs2">{{cite web |date=22 March 2001 |title=Greenwash Fact Sheet |url= http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170207224534/http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242 |archive-date=7 February 2017 |access-date=7 July 2016 |website=corpwatch.org}}</ref>

The term "greenwashing" was coined by New York [[environmentalist]] [[Jay Westerveld]]<nowiki/>in a 1986 essay about the [[Hospitality industry|hotel industry's]] hypocritical practice of placing notices in bedrooms promoting the reuse of towels to "save the environment". He noted that these institutions often made little or no effort toward reducing energy waste, although towel reuse saved them laundry costs. He concluded that the fundamental objective was most frequently increased profit. He labeled this and other profitable-but-ineffective "environmentally-conscientious" acts as "greenwashing", introducing properly the term as the act of a company appearing more environmentally friendly than it actually is, often through selective disclosure, misleading advertising, or exaggerated claims.<ref>{{cite web |last=Motavalli |first=Jim |date=12 February 2011 |title=A History of Greenwashing: How Dirty Towels Impacted the Green Movement |url=https://www.aol.com/2011/02/12/the-history-of-greenwashing-how-dirty-towels-impacted-the-green/ |access-date=24 December 2023 |work=AOL}}

* {{cite web |date=21 June 2008 |title=Grønvaskere invaderer børsen |trans-title=Greenwashers invade the market |url=http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705195538/http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece |archive-date=5 July 2008 |access-date=11 December 2012 |website=epn.dk |publisher=Jyllands-Posten |language=da}}
* {{cite web |last=Hayward |first=Philip |date=1 February 2009 |title=The Real Deal? Hotels grapple with green washing |url=http://www.lodgingmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=FD212DB2AA944808BF5CE6519B2BCC06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090205171221/http://www.lodgingmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=FD212DB2AA944808BF5CE6519B2BCC06 |archive-date=5 February 2009 |work=Lodging Magazine online}}
* {{cite web |last=Suryodiningrat |first=Meidyatama |date=28 August 2008 |title=Commentary: When CSR is neither profit nor public good |url=http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/28/commentary-when-csr-neither-profit-nor-public-good.html |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211019174659/https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/28/commentary-when-csr-neither-profit-nor-public-good.html |archive-date=19 October 2021 |work=Jakarta Post online}}
* {{cite news |last1=Romero |first1=Purple |date=17 September 2008 |title=Beware of green marketing, warns Greenpeace exec |url=https://www.abs-cbn.com/special-report/09/16/08/beware-green-marketing-warns-greenpeace-exec |access-date=24 December 2023 |website=news.abs-cbn.com}}</ref>

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]]."<ref name="tglo2"/><ref name="gfs2"/>

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.<ref>Greer, J., [https://archive.org/details/greenwashreality0000gree/page/n263/mode/2up Greenwash : the reality behind corporate environmentalism], ''Third World Network'': Penang, Malaysia</ref>

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 [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. Government]] for their elaborate greenwashing ads and support for greenwashing.<ref name="tglo2"/><ref name="gfs2"/> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Consumer protection: enabling sustainable choices and ending greenwashing |url=https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1692 |access-date=2024-06-26 |work=European Commission – European Commission}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":42"/>

==Examples==

=== Fashion industry ===

{{See also|Environmental impact of fashion|Sustainable fashion}}
* [[Kimberly-Clark]]'s claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside but utilizes the same petrochemical gel inside as before. Pampers also claims that "Dry Max" diapers reduce landfills by decreasing the amount of paper fluff in the diaper, but also a way to trim product and to save money in producing Pampers.<ref>{{cite web |date=26 May 2010 |title=The True Story Of Pampers Dry Max Part 1 The Diaper Wars |url= http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/the-true-story-of-pampers-dry-max-part-1-the-diaper-wars/ |access-date=5 November 2022 |website=zrecommends.com|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100526014140/http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/the-true-story-of-pampers-dry-max-part-1-the-diaper-wars/ |archive-date=26 May 2010}}</ref>
* 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 and is aimed at European fur farms.<ref>{{cite web |title=Four Paws and Fur Free Alliance warn against 'WelFur' animal welfare label |url=https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/press-releases/four-paws-and-fur-free-alliance-warn-against-welfur-animal-welfare-label |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Four Paws International |archive-date=2023-06-08  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230608040847/https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/press-releases/four-paws-and-fur-free-alliance-warn-against-welfur-animal-welfare-label |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* Clothing company [[H&M]] came under fire for greenwashing their manufacturing practices as a result of a report published by ''[[Quartz News]]''.<ref>{{cite web |last=Stern |first=Matthew |title=H&M Case Shows How Greenwashing Breaks Brand Promise |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/retailwire/2022/07/13/hm-case-shows-how-greenwashing-breaks-brand-promise/ |date=13 July 2022 |work=Forbes |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref> Despite H&M adopting initiatives such as "H&M Conscious" to promote eco-friendly clothes, the Norwegian Consumer Agency debunked their claims as false and illegal due to the corporation's lack of concrete action.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Alizadeh|first1=Leila|first2=Marco|last2=Circo Liscio|last3=Sospiro|first3=Paolo|title=The phenomenon of greenwashing in the fashion industry: A conceptual framework|url= https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352554123004515#bib59|date=1 January 2024 |journal= Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy|volume=37 |article-number=101416 |doi=10.1016/j.scp.2023.101416 |bibcode=2024SusCP..3701416A |access-date=8 May 2025|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Food industry ===
* 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."<ref>{{cite web |title=McDonald's rolling out green logo in Europe |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34111784 |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=NBC News|date= 23 November 2009 }}</ref> In October 2021 McDonald's was accused of greenwashing after announcing its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.<ref>{{cite web |date=5 October 2021 |title=McDonald's Rebuked for Greenwashing Climate Pledge |url= https://www.ecowatch.com/mcdonalds-greenwashing-2655223811.html |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=EcoWatch}}</ref>
* In 2018, in response to increased calls to ban plastic straws, [[Starbucks]] introduced a lid with a built-in drinking straw that contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid together (though it can be recycled, unlike its predecessor).<ref>{{cite web |date=23 July 2018 |title=Starbucks is banning straws – but is it really a big win for the environment? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/23/starbucks-straws-ban-2020-environment |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=the Guardian}}</ref>
* In 2020, [[Coca-Cola]] was found to be the world's number one plastic polluter by Break Free From Plastic. However, the company continues to say that it is making headway in lessening plastic waste. They say they have a commitment to "get every bottle back by 2030" despite being the biggest plastic polluter for several years in a row. They were sued by the [[Earth Island Institute]] in 2021 for their false claims.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robinson |first=Deena |date=2022-07-17 |title=10 Companies Called Out For Greenwashing |url=https://earth.org/greenwashing-companies-corporations/ |access-date=2024-11-18 |website=Earth.Org |language=en}}</ref>

=== Automobile industry ===
* The [[Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom)|UK Advertising Standards Authority]] upheld complaints against major vehicle manufacturers, including [[Suzuki]], [[SEAT]], [[Toyota]], and [[Lexus]] who made false claims about their vehicles.<ref>{{cite web |title=ASA Adjudication on Suzuki GB plc |url= http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46368.htm |work=Advertising Standards Authority |location=UK |date=10 June 2009 |archive-url= https://archive.today/20120718134656/http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46368.htm |archive-date=18 July 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
* Volkswagen [[Volkswagen emissions scandal|fitted their cars]] with a "defeat device" that 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.<ref>{{cite news |date=22 September 2015 |title=Volkswagen: The scandal explained |language=en-GB |first=Russell |last=Hotten |work=BBC News |location=UK |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref> Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen [[US$]]35.4 billion.<ref>{{cite news |last=Team |first=Trefis |title=The Domino Effect Of Volkswagen's Emissions Scandal |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/28/the-domino-effect-of-volkswagens-emissions-scandal/ |date=28 September 2015 |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Forbes}}</ref> Other automakers [[Diesel emissions scandal|also cheated]] on emissions systems.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shekhtman |first1=Lonnie |title=Volkswagen effect: Are other car companies cheating on emissions? |url= https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0921/Volkswagen-effect-Are-other-car-companies-cheating-on-emissions |work=Christian Science Monitor |date=21 September 2015 |access-date=24 December 2023 }}</ref>
* In November 2020, [[Aston Martin]], [[Robert Bosch GmbH|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 cars, in response to the UK announcing that it would ban the sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines from 2030.<ref name="theguardian.com">{{cite news |date=2 December 2020 |title=Aston Martin in row over 'sock puppet PR firm' pushing anti-electric vehicle study |url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/02/aston-martin-pr-firm-anti-electric-vehicle-study |access-date=5 November 2022 |first=Jillian |last=Ambrose |work=the Guardian |location=UK}}</ref> 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.<ref name="theguardian.com"/>
* Calling the next provisionally approved [[European emission standards]] for light and medium vehicles "Euro 7" instead of "Euro 6f" could be considered greenwashing because of unchanged pollutant limits.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://epha.org/ngo-call-to-rename-euro-7-for-cars-to-euro-6f/ |title=NGO call to rename Euro 7 for cars to Euro 6f – EPHA |work=European Public Health Alliance |date=7 December 2023 |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.electrive.com/2023/12/19/eu-lawmakers-take-watered-down-euro-7-deal-one-step-further/ |title=EU lawmakers take watered-down Euro 7 deal one step further |first=Nora |last=Manthey |work=electrive |location=Germany |date=19 December 2023 |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref>
* Calling [[start-stop system]]s "micro" hybrid.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://guide.autoscout24.ch/fr/mobilite-electrique/entrainement-hybride/|title=Hybride et plug-in: les différences|first=Isaline|last=Muelhauser|date=19 August 2022|website=AutoScout24 Magazine}}</ref>
* [[Mild hybrid|"Mild" or "smart" hybrids]].<ref>{{cite web|date=21 July 2021 |first=Olly |last=Frankland |title=The rise of the mild hybrid – a steppingstone technology or greenwash? |website=regen.co.uk |url= https://www.regen.co.uk/the-rise-of-the-mild-hybrid-a-steppingstone-technology-or-greenwash/}}</ref>
* Calling [[hybrid vehicle]]s "self-charging" or "fueled by petrol, driven by electric."<ref name="Toyota">{{cite news|url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/03/toyota-accused-of-greenwashing-in-greenpeace-complaint-filed-to-accc |title=Toyota accused of greenwashing in Greenpeace complaint filed to ACCC|first=Lisa |last=Cox |date=3 March 2023 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/motoring-electric-vehicles.html |title=Motoring: Hybrid and electric vehicles |author=((Advertising Standards Authority; Committee of Advertising Practice)) |website=asa.org.uk}}</ref>
* The fleet of [[PHEV]]s underperforms on emissions reductions.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.autoevolution.com/news/transport-environment-accuses-phevs-of-performing-greenwashing-once-again-210201.html |title=Transport & Environment Accuses PHEVs of Performing Greenwashing Once Again |first=Gustavo Henrique |last=Ruffo |date=11 February 2023 |website=autoevolution.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite tech report |url= https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/PHEV-white-paper-sept2020-0.pdf |title=Real-world usage of plug-in – hybrid electric vehicles |first1=Patrick |last1=Plötz |first2=Cornelius |last2=Moll |first3=Georg |last3=Bieker |first4=Peter |last4=Mock |first5=Yaoming |last5=Li |work=International Council on Clean Transportation |date=September 2020 |access-date=9 March 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-your-voice/news/first-commission-report-real-world-co2-emissions-cars-and-vans-using-data-board-fuel-consumption-2024-03-18_en|title=First Commission report on real-world CO2 emissions of cars and vans using data from on-board fuel consumption monitoring devices – European Commission|website=climate.ec.europa.eu}}</ref> However, they would have more potential if properly used.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Plötz |first1=P. |last2=Funke |first2=S. A. |last3=Jochem |first3=P. |last4=Wietschel |first4=M. |title=CO2 Mitigation Potential of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles larger than expected |journal=Scientific Reports |date=28 November 2017 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=16493 |doi=10.1038/s41598-017-16684-9 |doi-access=free |pmid=29184118 |pmc=5705705 }}</ref>
* [[Fuel cell vehicle]]s powered by non-[[green hydrogen]].<ref name="Toyota"/>

=== Coal industry ===
* In 2024, Turkey's Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, [[Alparslan Bayraktar]], announced that the government aimed to increase coal mining in an environmentally friendly way.<ref>{{cite web |date=2024-03-20 |title=Bakan Bayraktar açıkladı! Yerli kömür üretiminde hedef 6 milyon ton |url= https://www.dunya.com/ekonomi/bakan-bayraktar-acikladi-yerli-komur-uretiminde-hedef-6-milyon-ton-haberi-720572 |access-date=2024-03-29 |website= dunya.com |language=tr-TR |quote=Bayraktar, bu bağlamda yerli kömürün üretimini çevreyle uyumlu şekilde artırmayı hedeflediklerine işaret ederek, "Bu anlamda, bütün AK Parti iktidarları döneminde yerli kömür kullanımına devam ettik, devam ediyoruz. İnşallah en kısa zamanda yıllık 6 milyon tona çıkacağız. Ne kadar daha fazla üretirseniz, o kadar daha az ithal etmiş olursunuz." dedi. |trans-quote=In this context, Bayraktar pointed out that they aim to increase the production of domestic coal in an environmentally friendly manner and said, "In this sense, we continued to use domestic coal during all AK Party governments, and we continue to do so. Hopefully, we will reach 6 million tons annually as soon as possible. The more you produce, the more you produce." "You will import as much less." he said.}}</ref>
* As of 2025, the [[Turkish Coal Operations Authority]] website has a toggle for “energy saving mode” which changes the web page from color to monochrome.<ref>{{Cite web |title=General Directorate of Turkish Coal Enterprises |url=https://www.tki.gov.tr/en-US |access-date=2025-03-05 |website=www.tki.gov.tr}}</ref>

=== Oil industry ===
* Chevron's 2010 advertising campaign 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.<ref>{{cite web |date=3 December 2010 |title=Massive Chevron Ad Campaign Derailed, Media Slapstick Follows |url= http://ucimc.org/content/massive-chevron-ad-campaign-derailed-media-slapstick-follows |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101203100811/http://ucimc.org/content/massive-chevron-ad-campaign-derailed-media-slapstick-follows |archive-date=3 December 2010 |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Urbana Champaign Independent Media Center}}</ref>
* 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 campaign's launch, 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 performance and precautions of the group's members. The loose guidelines of responsible care caused industries to adopt self-regulation over government regulation.<ref name="gfs2" /><ref name="tglo2" />
* [[BP]] was also reported to have engaged in such conduct in the 2010s.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.sustainability-beat.co.uk/2023/09/15/bp-greenwashing/ |title=Is BP's latest campaign nothing more than 'sophisticated greenwashing'? |first=Ria |last=Kakkad |work=The Sustainability Beat |location=UK |date=15 September 2023 |access-date=8 December 2023}}</ref>

=== Animal agriculture industry ===

* In response to environmental criticism linking [[Environmental impacts of animal agriculture|beef production to climate change]], the [[National Cattlemen's Association]] (NCA) launched a $100,000 advertising campaign in 1990 featuring full-page ads in [[The New York Times]] and [[USA Today]] with the slogan “Every Day is Earth Day for American Cattlemen,” presenting the beef industry as environmentally responsible despite mounting scientific evidence of its climate impact.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Loy |first1=Loredana |last2=and Jacquet |first2=Jennifer |title=The animal agriculture industry's obstruction of campaigns promoting individual climate action |journal=Climate Policy |date=2025 |issue=9 |volume=25 |pages=1536–1545 |doi=10.1080/14693062.2025.2460603 |bibcode=2025CliPo..25.1536L |issn=1469-3062|doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Political campaigns ===
{{See also|Ecofascism}}
[[File:Recycling bus, in front of bags of free coal.jpeg|thumb|Municipal bus encouraging recycling in the city of [[Samsun]], [[Turkey]], in 2022, in front of bags of free coal from another part of the Turkish government. The same political party ([[Justice and Development Party (Turkey)|AK Party]]) controls this municipality and the national government, while the [[Green Party (Turkey)|Green Party]] was barred from [[2023 Turkish general election|the 2023 election]].<ref>{{cite web|url= https://bianet.org/yazi/stalled-for-two-years-turkiye-s-green-party-can-t-cut-through-ankara-s-red-tape-268975 |title=Stalled for two years, Türkiye's Green Party can't cut through Ankara's red tape |website=bianet.org}}</ref>]]

* In 2010, environmentalists stated the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush Administration's]] "[[Clear Skies Initiative]]" actually weakened air pollution laws.<ref>{{cite web |date=3 February 2010 |title=Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy "The Greenwashing Of The Bush Anti-Environmental Record On The President's Earth Day Visits To Maine And Florida" |url= http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200404/042604a.html |access-date=5 November 2022 |website=leahy.senate.gov |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100203121457/http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200404/042604a.html |archive-date=3 February 2010}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{cite news |date=2 September 2020 |title=Des ONG dénoncent un "détricotage systématique" du droit de l'environnement |language=fr |newspaper=Le Monde |url= https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2020/09/02/des-ong-denoncent-un-detricotage-systematique-du-droit-de-l-environnement_6050631_3244.html |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref>
* "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]], [[Coal pollution mitigation|clean coal]] is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron... pure and utter greenwash."<ref>{{cite web |date=26 February 2009 |title=Greenwash: Fred Pearce on why 'clean coal' is the ultimate climate-change oxymoron |url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/26/greenwash-clean-coal |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=the Guardian}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |date=1 February 2017 |title=Clean energy cash could fund new coal plants, Morrison says |language=en-AU |work=ABC News |url= https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/clean-energy-money-could-fund-coal-power-stations-morrison-says/8234118 |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref>
* 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 to counter 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 argue that it is simply a means of cloaking the issue behind friendlier terminology.
[[File:Narendra Modi addressing at the inauguration of the India Pavilion, at COP21 Summit, in Paris, France. The Minister of State for Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Independent Charge).jpg|thumb|Narendra Modi addressing the inauguration of the India Pavilion, at [[COP21]], in the presence of his ministers [[Prakash Javadekar]] and [[Piyush Goyal]].]]
* Since 2018, [[Indian people|Indian]] [[Prime Minister of India|Prime Minister]] [[Narendra Modi]] has been increasingly promoting himself as an environmental champion, while using about protecting the environment at international events. Modi was instrumental in forming the [[International Solar Alliance]] and promoting the [[African cheetah translocation to India]]. In 2025, he promoted the native [[Euryale ferox|foxnut]] as an [[alternative food]]<ref>{{Cite news |title=How did makhana become a global superfood? |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/food/story/how-did-the-makhana-became-a-global-super-food-ft-makhana-board-2675820-2025-02-07 |first=Dristi |last=Sharma |website=India Today |location=India |date=2025-02-07 |access-date=2025-02-28}}</ref> and inaugurated the [[Vantara]] zoo, the world's largest zoo that claims to house rescued animals. However, within the country, Modi's [[Hindutva|Hindu right]]-wing [[Bharatiya Janata Party]] has repeatedly expressed opposition to environmentalism, whenever the former has clashed with [[Hinduism|Hindu]] religious occasions, most notably over the [[Firecrackers in India|bursting of firecrackers]] in [[Diwali]]. The [[National Green Tribunal]], the premier environmental protection body of the country, has been labelled as a '[[Anti-Hindu sentiment|Hinduphobic]]' organization by many BJP leaders.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2017-10-13 |title=Ban on sale of firecrackers: Hindutva forces attack NGT, feel green body is anti-saffron |url=https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ngt-hindutva-forces-ban-on-firecrackers-protests-dharnas-aol-cremation-of-hindus-1063812-2017-10-13 |first=Kumar Shakti |last=Shekhar |access-date=2025-02-28 |website=India Today |location=India}}</ref> Additionally, Hindutva official [[Yogi Adityanath]] slammed the National Green Tribunal's report on the [[Pollution of the Ganges|pollution]] of the Hindu holy river [[Ganges|Ganga]] during the [[2025 Prayag Maha Kumbh Mela|2025]] [[Kumbh Mela]] in [[Prayagraj]] as fake and an attempt to mock the faith of [[Hindus]].<ref>{{Cite news |first1=Namita |last1=Bajpai |first2=Shekhar |last2=Singh |date=2025-02-12 |title=NGT slams UP govt over polluted Ganga; Yogi says water clean enough to consume |url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Feb/19/effort-to-malign-mahakumbh-sangam-waters-clean-enough-to-consume-up-cm-yogi-refutes-cpcb-report |access-date=2025-02-28 |website=The New Indian Express |location=India}}</ref> The Vantara zoo is described as a private zoo of Anant Ambani, son of [[Mukesh Ambani]], the owner of the [[Jamnagar Refinery|world's largest oil refinery]]. The facility has courted multiple controversies,<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Costs of Reliance's Wildlife Ambitions |url=https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/costs-reliances-wildlife-ambitions |access-date=2025-03-17 |website=Pulitzer Center |language=en}}</ref> including allegations of housing [[Wildlife smuggling|wildlife trafficked]] from [[South Africa]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-03-12 |title=Rights group calls for investigation into Ambani's private zoo that Modi inaugurated |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/south-africa-investigation-vantara-ambani-zoo-b2712860.html |access-date=2025-03-17 |website=The Independent |language=en}}</ref> Modi's green push is described as an attempt to greenwash the images of him and his party before the international community.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kanji |first=Azeezah |date=2 June 2023 |title=Ecofascism Is a Rising Threat. We Should Take Modi's Ascendance as a Warning. |url=https://truthout.org/articles/ecofascism-is-a-rising-threat-we-should-take-modis-ascendance-as-a-warning/ |work=[[truthout]] |location=US |access-date=11 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602144022/https://truthout.org/articles/ecofascism-is-a-rising-threat-we-should-take-modis-ascendance-as-a-warning/ |archive-date=2 June 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Moore |first1=Sam |last2=Roberts |first2=Alex |date=7 February 2022b |title=Ecofascism and Indian nationalism |url=https://theecologist.org/2022/feb/07/ecofascism-and-indian-nationalism |work=[[The Ecologist]] |location=UK |access-date=11 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321120517/https://theecologist.org/2022/feb/07/ecofascism-and-indian-nationalism |archive-date=21 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Moore |first1=Sam |last2=Roberts |first2=Alex |date=2022a |title=The Rise of Ecofascism: Climate Change and the Far Right |publisher=[[Polity Press]] |isbn=978-1-5095-4537-7|pages=61–64}}</ref>
* In 2021, [[Saudi Arabia]]n [[Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia|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 criticized as a greenwashing attempt by some climate scientists.<ref name="Holleis 2021 k741">{{cite web |last=Holleis |first=Jennifer |title=Saudi Arabia: Greenwashing or real change? |work=DW |date=2021-11-04 |url= https://www.dw.com/en/cop26-saudi-arabias-climate-strategy-greenwashing-or-genuine-transformation/a-59704908 |access-date=2023-08-24}}</ref><ref name="Dhahran 2022 k805">{{cite magazine |last=Walt |first=Vivienne |title=Inside Top Oil Exporter Saudi Arabia's Plan to Go Green |magazine=Time |date=2022-09-01 |url= https://time.com/6210210/saudi-arabia-aramco-climate-oil/ |access-date=2023-08-24}}</ref><ref name="Kennedy 2021 n270">{{cite web |last=Kennedy |first=Robert |title='Dangerous and delusional': Critics denounce Saudi climate plan |work=Al Jazeera |date=2021-10-26 |url= https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/26/green-or-greenwashing-saudi-arabias-climate-change-pledges |access-date=2023-08-24}}</ref>
* Some environmental activists and critics condemned the [[2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference|2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26)]] as greenwashing.<ref>{{cite web |title=Commentary: COP26 protesters are right about 'greenwashing' |url= https://fortune.com/2021/11/11/greenwashing-cop26-climate-change-protest-carbon-emissions-gregor-robertson-nexii/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=Fortune}}</ref> They also condemned [[COP28]], which is purported to have the highest carbon footprint of all COP events. In May 2023, a [[Wikipedia]] user who identified themselves as an employee of [[ADNOC]] [[Sultan Al Jaber#2023 greenwashing accusations|was alleged to have suggested edits to the Wikipedia article of]] [[Sultan Al Jaber]], president of [[COP28]], which presented Al Jaber as a supporter of the climate movement.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Stockton |first1=Ben |title=Cop28 president's team accused of Wikipedia' greenwashing' |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/30/cop28-president-team-accused-of-wikipedia-greenwashing-sultan-al-jaber |work=The Guardian |date=30 May 2023 |location=London}}</ref> In June 2023, Marc Owen Jones of [[Hamad Bin Khalifa University]] noted that a large number of apparently fake Twitter profiles were used to defend Al Jaber's COP28 presidency.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Carrington |first1=Damian |title=Army of fake social media accounts defend UAE presidency of climate summit |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/army-of-fake-social-media-accounts-defend-uae-presidency-of-climate-summit |work=The Guardian |date=8 June 2023 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/30/uae-cop-has-biggest-carbon-footprint-of-any-climate-summit/ |title=UAE's Cop28 has 'biggest carbon footprint' of any climate summit |first=Emma |last=Gatten |work=The Telegraph |location=UK |date=2023-11-30 |access-date=2023-12-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/al-gore-slams-cop28-climate-summit-host-uae-says-its-emissions-soared-2023-12-03/ |title=Al Gore slams COP28 climate summit host UAE, says its emissions soared |first=Valerie |last=Volcovici |work=Reuters |date=2023-12-04 |access-date=2023-12-08}}</ref>
* The construction of the new Indonesian capital, [[Nusantara (city)|Nusantara]], despite being described as a smart, green, and clean city, has been accused by many groups of alleged greenwashing by the Indonesian government due to extensive environmental damage caused by its construction.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/06/14/nusantara-indonesia-new-capital-environment-indigenous-land/ |title=Indonesia's New Capital Is a Mess of Trees and Dirt |last=Rachman |first=Joseph |date=14 June 2024 |website=foreignpolicy.com |publisher=Foreign Policy |access-date=8 August 2024 |quote=}}
</ref>

=== Business slogans ===

[[File:Emirates A380 2.JPG|right|thumb|The [[Airbus A380]] is described as "A better environment inside and out."]]
* "Clean Burning Natural Gas" {{snd}} When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, natural gas is only 50% as dirty. Producing natural gas through [[fracking]] and distribution by a pipeline may lead to methane emissions into the atmosphere. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse agent.<ref>{{cite web |last=Bittman |first=Mark |date=2013-09-25 |title=Is Natural Gas' Clean'? |url= https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/is-natural-gas-clean/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs}}</ref> Despite this, natural gas is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse. In practice, it balances the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy.<ref>{{cite web |date=2009-04-25 |title=Natural Gas: Safer Cleaner Energy That Pays For Itself |url= http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/May/Pages/NaturalGasSaferCleanerEnergyThatPaysForItself.aspx |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=nationaldefensemagazine.org|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090425062131/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/May/Pages/NaturalGasSaferCleanerEnergyThatPaysForItself.aspx |archive-date=2009-04-25 }}</ref> 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 [[Hydrogen economy|gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use]].
* [[First-generation biofuel]]s are said{{according to whom|date=December 2022}} to be better for the environment than fossil fuels, but some, such as palm oil, [[Palm oil#Environmental|contribute to deforestation]] (which contributes to global warming due to the 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)|Wired magazine]] highlighted slogans that suggest environmentally benign business activity: the [[Comcast]] Ecobill has the motto "PaperLESSisMORE," but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing.<ref name=":2"/>
* The [[Poland Spring]] (from the American city of [[Poland, Maine]]) eco shape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good," although 80% of beverage containers go to landfills.<ref name=":2"/>
* The [[Airbus A380]] airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high environmental cost.<ref name=":2">{{cite magazine |last=Hagerman |first=Eric |title=Little Green Lies{{snd}}How Companies Erect an Eco-Facade |magazine=Wired |url= https://www.wired.com/2008/10/st-greenmarketing/ }}</ref>
* The multinational oil company formerly known as [[BP|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{{snd}}most notably the Prudhoe Bay pipeline rupture in 2006 and the [[Deepwater Horizon explosion|Gulf of Mexico rig explosion]] in 2010.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Furlow |first=Nancy E. |date=2010 |title=Greenwashing in the New Millenium |url=http://www.m.www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/jabe106/FurlowWeb.pdf |journal=Journal of Applied Business and Economics |volume=10 |issue= |pages=22–25 |access-date=2022-04-20  |archive-date=2023-03-28  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230328170220/http://m.www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/jabe106/FurlowWeb.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== ESG ratings ===
* In 2021, American financial services company [[MSCI]] upgraded the [[environmental, social, and governance]] (ESG) rating of the company [[McDonald's]], which produces emissions comparable to an entire mid-size EU country like Portugal, by eliminating from its analysis the significance of greenhouse gas emissions and highlighting a new recycling initiative, which had been mandated by regulatory authorities in France and the United Kingdom for all fast-food companies.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Simpson |first1=Cam |last2=Rathi |first2=Akshat |last3=Kishan |first3=Saijel |date=10 December 2021 |title=The ESG Mirage |work=Bloomberg |url= https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-what-is-esg-investing-msci-ratings-focus-on-corporate-bottom-line/ |access-date=6 May 2024}}</ref>
* [[Volkswagen]] had an ESG rating higher than its peer average, even though in September 2015, the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) sanctioned Volkswagen with over $25 billion in fines for using a "defeat device", causing vehicles produced from 2009 to 2015 to pollute at a much higher rate than advertised.<ref>{{cite journal|last=El-Hage |first=Javier |title=Fixing ESG: Are Mandatory ESG Disclosures the Solution to Misleading ESG Ratings? |journal=Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law |volume=26 |issue=2 |date=2021 |pages=359–390 |url= https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1499&context=jcfl |access-date=6 May 2024}}</ref>
* [[TotalEnergies|Totalenergies]] was sued for claiming it can reach net zero objectives by 2050 while increasing fossil fuel activities.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/environmental-groups-sue-totalenergies-over-climate-marketing-claims-2022-03-03/ |title=Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies over climate marketing claims |first1=Simon |last1=Jessop |first2=Gloria |author-link2=Gloria Dickie |last2=Dickie |first3=Benjamin |last3=Mallet |work=Reuters  |date=2 March 2022 |access-date=6 May 2024}}</ref> It is rated A− on climate by the [[Carbon Disclosure Project|CDP]].<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.cdp.net/en/responses/19257/TotalEnergies |title=TotalEnergies |work=CDP |location=UK |access-date=2024-01-20}}</ref>

== Consequences ==
[[File:Greed Isn't Green - RNC Tampa 2012.jpg|thumb|[[Anarchist]] protesters against capitalism, with a sign reading "Greed isn't Green"]]

=== Lack of integrity ===
Some companies communicate and publicize unsubstantiated ethical claims or social responsibility, and practice greenwashing, which increases consumer cynicism and mistrust.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jahdi |first1=Khosro S. |last2=Acikdilli |first2=Gaye |date=August 2009 |title=Marketing Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Marriage of Convenience or Shotgun Wedding? |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=88 |issue=1 |pages=103–113 |doi=10.1007/s10551-009-0113-1}}</ref> By using greenwashing, companies can present their business as more ecologically sustainable than it is. According to a policy report, greenwashing includes risks such as misleading advertisements and public communications, misleading ESG credentials, and false or deceiving carbon credit claims.<ref name="lse-corruption2">{{cite tech report |url=https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Corruption-and-integrity-risks-in-climate-solutions.pdf |title=Corruption and integrity risks in climate solutions: an emerging global challenge |last1=Chan |first1=Tiffanie |last2=Ford |first2=Laura |last3=Higham |first3=Catherine |last4=Pouget |first4=Shirley |last5=Setzer |first5=Joana |date=October 2023 |access-date=2024-01-01 |work=London School of Economics and Political Science}}</ref>

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.<ref name="lse-corruption2" />

=== Psychological effects ===
Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology, and there needs to be more consensus among studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences.

==== Effect on consumer perception ====
Researchers found that consumers significantly favor environmentally friendly products over their greenwashed counterparts.<ref name="doi.org">{{Cite journal |last1=Szabo |first1=Szerena |last2=Webster |first2=Jane |date=2021-07-01 |title=Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=171 |issue=4 |pages=719–739 |doi=10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0 |issn=1573-0697|url-access=subscription }}</ref> A survey by LendingTree found that 55% of Americans are willing to spend more money on products they perceive to be more sustainable and eco-friendly.<ref>{{cite web |last=Sherrier |first=Julie |title=55% Would Spend More on Eco-Friendly Products While Willing to Boycott Less-Green Companies |url=https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/study/consumers-would-spend-more-on-eco-friendly-products/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |work=LendingTree |date=20 April 2021 }}</ref>

Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to.<ref name="osf.io2">{{cite journal |last1=Torelli |first1=Riccardo |last2=Balluchi |first2=Federica |last3=Lazzini |first3=Arianna |date=2019-08-14 |title=Greenwashing and environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders' perceptions |url=https://osf.io/97vxn/ |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=407–421 |doi=10.1002/bse.2373 |hdl=11380/1197669 |s2cid=202310493 |hdl-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Özsoy |first1=Tufan |last2=Avcilar |first2=Mutlu Yüksel |date=2016 |title=An Investigation Of The Effects Of Consumers' Environmental Attitudes On Perceptions Of Green Ads And Attitudes Toward The Brand |url=https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=586058 |journal=Journal of Academic Research in Economics |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=7–37}}</ref>

Consumer trust is mediated by two primary psychological effects, which are green consumer confusion and green perceived risk.<ref name="ReferenceB">{{Cite journal |last1=Chen |first1=Yu-Shan |last2=Chang |first2=Ching-Hsun |date=2013-05-01 |title=Greenwash and Green Trust: The Mediation Effects of Green Consumer Confusion and Green Perceived Risk |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=114 |issue=3 |pages=489–500 |doi=10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0 |issn=1573-0697|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 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.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> 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.<ref name="doi.org"/>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zhang |first1=Lu |last2=Li |first2=Dayuan |last3=Cao |first3=Cuicui |last4=Huang |first4=Senhua |date=June 2018 |title=The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |volume=187 |pages=740–750 |bibcode=2018JCPro.187..740Z |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.201 |s2cid=158188201}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Foreh |first1=Mark R. |last2=Grier |first2=Sonya |date=January 2003 |title=When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism |journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=349–356 |doi=10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_15}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Newman |first1=George E. |last2=Gorlin |first2=Margarita |last3=Dhar |first3=Ravi |date=October 2014 |title=When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements |journal=Journal of Consumer Research |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=823–839 |doi=10.1086/677841}}</ref>

==== Attributions of greenwashing ====
[[Ecolabel|Eco-labels]] can be given to a product from an external organization and the company itself. This has raised concerns because companies can label a product as green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing environmental harms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lyon |first1=Thomas P. |last2=Montgomery |first2=A. Wren |date=June 2015 |title=The Means and End of Greenwash |journal=Organization & Environment |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=223–249 |bibcode=2015OrgEn..28..223L |doi=10.1177/1086026615575332 |s2cid=154964909}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gosselt |first1=Jordy F. |last2=van Rompay |first2=Thomas |last3=Haske |first3=Laura |date=March 2019 |title=Won't Get Fooled Again: The Effects of Internal and External CSR ECO-Labeling |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=155 |issue=2 |pages=413–424 |doi=10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8 |s2cid=157638391 |url=https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/d4019f45-91be-4d30-8720-46bf3db1e8f0 }}</ref> 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 environmental engagement.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nyilasy |first1=Gergely |last2=Gangadharbatla |first2=Harsha |last3=Paladino |first3=Angela |date=December 2014 |title=Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer Reactions |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=125 |issue=4 |pages=693–707 |doi=10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3 |hdl=11343/282809 |s2cid=154101047 |hdl-access=free}}</ref>

==== Implications for green business ====
Researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that companies should "walk the walk" regarding green advertising and behavior to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising are most effective when they match a company's 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berrone |first1=Pascual |last2=Fosfuri |first2=Andrea |last3=Gelabert |first3=Liliana |date=August 2017 |title=Does Greenwashing Pay Off? Understanding the Relationship Between Environmental Actions and Environmental Legitimacy |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=144 |issue=2 |pages=363–379 |doi=10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9 |s2cid=152869329}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Szabo |first1=Szerena |last2=Webster |first2=Jane |title=Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |date=July 2021 |volume=171 |issue=4 |pages=719–739 |doi=10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0 |s2cid=213799479 }}</ref>

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.<ref name="Harvard"/>

==Deterrence==

Companies may pursue [[environmental certification]] to avoid greenwashing through independent verification of their green claims. For example, the [[Carbon Trust]] Standard launched in 2007 with the stated aim "to end 'greenwash' and highlight firms that are genuine about their commitment to the environment."<ref>{{cite news |date=24 June 2008 |title=Carbon Trust aims to end 'greenwash' by launching company standard |newspaper=The Guardian |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/24/carbonemissions.carbonfootprints |access-date=22 July 2014}}</ref>

There have been attempts to reduce the impact of greenwashing by exposing it to the public.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106166&catId=100583&tid=100008 |title=Green Watch |website=choice.com.au |access-date=2009-09-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090509231624/http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106166&catId=100583&tid=100008 |archive-date=2009-05-09 |url-status=dead }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ |title=Greenwashing Index |publisher=Greenwashing Index |access-date=2009-09-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120905220638/http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ |archive-date=2012-09-05 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Parguel |first=Beatrice |date=2011 |title=How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter "Greenwashing": A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication |url=https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/3237630/CR_383-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1667430801&Signature=bGsB57AlmW7WNaBw5yIK0pRpgUlqLV-j3gG8haEbrDTnIT1Pg5H9u8eV89hDYPUS4O~kU9sIoFf1m6c8GvPNPoribEOHR9OIsYsFXkh01XCpr6SJMtN~mSW4S8gwAS1DiKwtElvBOOhpHbWwRNJeg6jqKw~xfZEqAxoh4qHgNSQylB7MKcJmG-OS9Ou3mPKUG-zeYb4topLeQmYC9UimAJN7ObfQlMBmQvYfk2fzLqu-WHa7pYlzv-jg0gLXTSvnQ9koCnS9FtlYziq5OwcVOXIiRwYeUXF8oUmaoW5mPkb-NE3K8LX57tqtUPzxVlYXwC-bEDEiohcLRNWVEVvFmg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=102 |issue=1 |pages=15–28 |doi=10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2 |s2cid=53485873  }}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

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.&nbsp;<ref>{{cite web |last=Advertisers |first=World Federation of |date=2022-04-04 |title=Global Guidance on Environmental Claims 2022 |url= https://wfanet.org/knowledge/item/2022/04/04/Global-Guidance-on-Environmental-Claims-2022 |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=wfanet.org}}</ref>

==Regulation==

Worldwide regulations on misleading environmental claims vary from criminal liability to fines or voluntary guidelines.

===Australia===

The Australian [[Trade Practices Act]] punishes companies that provide misleading environmental claims. Any organization found guilty of such could face up {{AUD|6 million|link=yes}} in fines.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/nurofen-fine-misleading-claims-australia-increased-35-million/ |title=Nurofen fine over misleading claims in Australia increased to £3.5 million |agency=France Presse Agence |date=16 December 2016 |newspaper=Telegraph |access-date=23 March 2018}}</ref> 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]].<ref name=Naish>{{cite journal|last=Naish |first=J. |year=2008 |title=Lies...Damned lies...And green lies |journal=Ecologist |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=36–39}}</ref>

===Canada===

Canada's [[Competition Bureau]], along with the [[Canadian Standards Association]], discourages companies from making "vague claims" about their products' environmental impact. Any claims must be backed up by "readily available data."<ref name=Naish/>

===European Union===

The [[European Anti-Fraud Office]] (OLAF) handles investigations that have an environmental or sustainability element, such as the 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]]).<ref>{{cite news |title=Criminals increasingly targeting EU green funds, says anti-fraud agency |url= https://www.euronews.com/2020/09/10/criminals-increasingly-targeting-eu-green-funds-says-anti-fraud-agency |work=euronews |agency=Reuters |date=10 September 2020 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite report |title=Green EU trade marks. Analysis of goods and services specifications, 1996-2020 |url= https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/reports/2021_Green_EU_trade_marks/2021_Green_EU_trade_marks_FullR_en.pdf |first1=Francisco García |last1=Valero |first2=Marie-Hélène |last2=Faria |first3=Plamen |last3=Ivanov |first4=Nathan |last4=Wajsman |publisher=European Union Intellectual Property Office |isbn=9789291562992 |access-date=6 May 2024}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" />

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.<ref name=":3">{{cite book |doi=10.2856/885324 |date=2023 |author1=European Securities and Markets Authority |title=ESG names and claims in the EU fund industry |publisher=Publications Office |isbn=978-92-95202-86-3 }}{{page needed|date=June 2024}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web |date=September 2020 |title=Strategic Plan 2020-2024 |url= https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-10/fisma_sp_2020_2024_en.pdf |work=European Commission Directorate-General Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref>

The European Union struck a provisional agreement to mandate new reporting rules for companies with over 250 staff and a turnover of {{euro|40 million}}. They must disclose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information, which will help combat greenwashing. These requirements go into effect in 2024.<ref>{{cite news |last=Jones |first=Huw |date=21 June 2022 |title=EU agrees deal on company disclosures to combat greenwashing |work=Reuters |url= https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-agrees-deal-company-disclosures-combat-greenwashing-2022-06-21/ |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref> The European Commission has introduced a proposal of [[Regulation of ESG rating in the European Union|ESG regulation]] aimed at bolstering transparency and integrity within ESG rating in 2023.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/eu-proposes-greater-regulatory-scrutiny-esg-ratings-providers-2023-06-13/ |title=EU proposes new shake-up of ESG ratings agencies |first1=Julia |last1=Payne |first2=Tommy |last2=Wilkes |work=Reuters |date=13 June 2023 |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref>

===Germany===
In June 2024, the [[Federal Constitutional Court]] of Germany ruled that companies that use "climate neutral" in advertising must define what the term means or use of the phrase would not continue to be permitted due to the phrase being too vague.<ref>{{cite news|last=Kirby|first=Joshua|date=June 27, 2024|title=Companies Must Explain What 'Climate Neutral' Means{{snd}}or Not Use It, German Court Says|work=The Wall Street Journal|publisher=News Corp|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-must-explain-what-climate-neutral-meansor-not-use-it-german-court-says-f9f412df|access-date=September 19, 2024}}</ref>

===Norway===
[[Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman|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.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2857/1/2857_1.pdf |first=Bente |last=Øverli |date=3 September 2007 |title=Use of environmental claims in the marketing of vehicles – in relation to the Marketing Control Act |website=orbrukerombudet.no |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101123183503/http://forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2857/1/2857_1.pdf |archive-date=23 November 2010 |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4028677 |title=Prove 'clean, green' ads, Norway tells automakers |first=Alister |last=Doyle |work=Motoring |location=South Africa |date=11 September 2007 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071212111053/http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4028677 |archive-date=12 December 2007 |url-status=dead |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/norway_says_car.php |title=Greenwash Watch: Norways Says Cars Neither Green Nor Clean |website=treehugger.com |first=Lloyd |last=Alter |date=9 June 2007 |archive-date=18 May 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110518210605/http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/norway_says_car.php |url-status=dead |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0671323420070906 |title=Norways Says Cars Neither Green Nor Clean |work=Reuters |date=6 September 2007 |first=Alister |last=Doyle |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref>

=== Thailand ===
The Green Leaf Certification is an evaluation method created by the [[ASEAN|Association of Southeast Asian Nations]] (ASEAN) as a metric that rates the hotels' environmental efficiency of environmental protection.<ref name=":03"/> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rahman |first1=Imran |last2=Park |first2=Jeongdoo |last3=Chi |first3=Christina Geng-qing |title=Consequences of 'greenwashing': Consumers' reactions to hotels' green initiatives |journal=International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management |date=10 August 2015 |volume=27 |issue=6 |pages=1054–1081 |doi=10.1108/IJCHM-04-2014-0202 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Yaping |last2=Li |first2=Yinchang |last3=Parkpian |first3=Parnpree |title=Inbound tourism in Thailand: Market form and scale differentiation in ASEAN source countries |journal=Tourism Management |date=February 2018 |volume=64 |pages=22–36 |doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2017.07.016 }}</ref> 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.<ref name=":03">{{cite journal |last1=Mishra |first1=Prajna Paramita |title=How Green are Our Hotels? Evidence from Thailand |journal=Environment and Urbanization ASIA |date=March 2016 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=132–148 |doi=10.1177/0975425315619050 |bibcode=2016EnUrA...7..132M |s2cid=155825130 }}</ref> However, studies show the green hotel companies' principles and environmental perceptions contradict the basis of corporate social responsibilities in responsible tourism.<ref name=":03" /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baxter |first1=Glenn |first2=Panarat |last2=Srisaeng |title=An Assessment of the Environmentally Sustainable Hotel Operation: The Case of Centara Hotels & Resorts, Thailand |journal=Journal of Sustainable Tourism Development |volume=3 |issue=2 |date=2021 |pages=1–33 |url= https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/JSTD/article/view/256164 |access-date=21 May 2024}}</ref> Against this context, the Green Leaf Certification issuance aims to keep the hotel industry and supply chains accountable for corporate social responsibilities regarding sustainability by having an independent international organization evaluate a hotel and rate it one through five leaves.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Satchapappichit |first1=Sruangporn |first2=Noor Azmi |last2=Hashim |first3=Zolkafli |last3=Hussin |title=Factors influencing adoption of green practices by small and medium sized hotels in Thailand |journal=Journal of Business Management and Accounting |volume=33 |date=2013 |pages=61–78 |doi=10.32890/jbma2013.3.0.8885 |url= https://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jbma/article/view/8885 |access-date=6 May 2024|doi-access=free }}</ref>

===United Kingdom===

The [[Competition and Markets Authority]] is the UK's primary competition and consumer authority. In September 2021, it published a Green Claims Code to protect consumers from misleading environmental claims and businesses from unfair competition.<ref name="CMA">{{cite web |title=Making environmental claims on goods and services |url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims/environmental-claims-on-goods-and-services |website=gov.uk |access-date=24 February 2022}}</ref> In May 2024, the [[Financial Conduct Authority]] introduced anti-greenwashing rules covering sustainability claims made by regulated firms that market financial products or services.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-04-22 |title=FCA confirms anti-greenwashing guidance and proposes extending sustainability framework |url=https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-confirms-anti-greenwashing-guidance-and-proposes-extending-sustainability-framework |access-date=2024-05-21 |website=FCA |language=en}}</ref>

===United States===

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:

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.<ref name="ftc.gov">{{Cite web |title=Part 260 - Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims |url=http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081117145015/http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm |archive-date=2008-11-17 |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=www.ftc.gov}}</ref>

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.<ref name="ftc.gov"/>

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.<ref name="ftc.gov"/>

The FTC announced in 2010 that it would update its guidelines for environmental marketing claims in an attempt to reduce greenwashing.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.greencleancertified.com/green-cleaning-health/green-watch/FTC-Reviews-Guidelines-for-Green-Claims/ |title=FTC Reviews Guidelines for Green Claims |website=greencleancertified.com |date=15 June 2016 |access-date=7 July 2016}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Green trademarks and the risk of greenwashing |url= https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2022/04/article_0006.html |work=WIPO Magazine}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/greenguides.shtm |title=FTC Issues Revised "Green Guides" |work=U.S. Federal Trade Commission |date=2012-10-01 |access-date=2016-07-07}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":1">{{cite web |url=http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/communications/jennifer-elks/ftc-cracking-down-misleading-unsubstantiated-biodegradab |title=FTC Cracking Down on Misleading, Unsubstantiated Biodegradability Claims |work=Sustainable Brands |date=7 November 2013 |access-date=2016-04-06 |archive-date=2018-11-16  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116014144/https://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/communications/jennifer-elks/ftc-cracking-down-misleading-unsubstantiated-biodegradab |url-status=dead }}</ref>

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.<ref name=":1"/> The FTC now requires companies to disclose and provide the information that qualifies their environmental claims to ensure transparency.

=== China ===

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" by Qingyun Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, China has implemented environmental protection laws to regulate the business and commercial sector. Regulations such as the Environmental Protection Law and the Circular Economy Promotion Law contain provisions prohibiting false advertising (known as greenwashing).<ref>Zhu, Qingyun, and Joseph Sarkis. n.d.[https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Business/WP1-2015_Green_Marketing.pdf https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Business/WP1-2015_Green_Marketing.pdf.] Retrieved 2023-05-05.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese and English Text) {{!}} Congressional-Executive Commission on China |url= https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/circular-economy-promotion-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-chinese |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=cecc.gov|date= 29 August 2008 }}</ref> The [[Government of China|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.<ref>{{cite web |title=China Issues Green Product Certification Implementation Rules |url= https://www.packaginglaw.com/news/china-issues-green-product-certification-implementation-rules |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=packaginglaw.com}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Developing a Unified Standard, Certification and Identification System of Green Products |url= http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=25771&lib=law |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=lawinfochina.com}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=哪些重要文件提到了"统一绿色产品标准认证标识体系"? – 工作动态 |url= http://www.chinagreenproduct.cn/GPIA/front/view-5fd465da763c4e858449508e861c394b-fe7c0d8c32a142c1beba04a74e617bdd.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=chinagreenproduct.cn}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=5项绿色产品认证领域认证认可行业标准通过审查 – 工作动态 |url= http://www.chinagreenproduct.cn/GPIA/front/view-5fd465da763c4e858449508e861c394b-c37f04eff94b434bb5df9992994ec6bd.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=chinagreenproduct.cn}}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite web |title=国家标准化管理委员会关于印发 《2023年全国标准化工作要点》的通知 |url= https://www.sac.gov.cn/xw/tzgg/art/2023/art_80c53d6e4b064ec0b64b3a1e2980fe3e.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=sac.gov.cn}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=FAO.org |url= https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC186129/ |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=fao.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=绿色产品标识使用管理办法 – 工作动态 |url= http://www.chinagreenproduct.cn/GPIA/front/view-5fd465da763c4e858449508e861c394b-88244c707c544492992937ba0c804371.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=chinagreenproduct.cn}}</ref> The standards and coverage for green products have increased as time passes, with changes and improvements to green product standardization still occurring in 2023.<ref name="auto"/>

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.<ref>{{cite web |title=How Greenpeace campaigns in China |url= https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/how-greenpeace-campaigns-china |date=12 May 2023 |work=Greenpeace |first=Yuan |last=Ying |access-date=29 March 2024}}</ref> "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|Benetton]], [[Burberry]], [[Esprit Holdings|Esprit]], [[H&M]], [[Puma (brand)|Puma]], and [[Zara (retailer)|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.

== Related terms ==

"[[Bluewashing]]" is a similar term. However, instead of falsely advertising environmentally friendly practices, companies are advertising corporate social responsibility. For example, companies are saying they are fighting for human rights while practicing very unethical production practices such as paying factory employees next to nothing.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Explainer: What is greenwashing and bluewashing, and why should we care about it |url=https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/research/commentary/explainer-what-is-greenwashing-bluewashing#:~:text=Some%20companies%20are%20conveying%20false,bluewashing)%20than%20they%20actually%20do. |access-date=2024-11-18 |website=Australian Human Rights Institute}}</ref>

[[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" [[MasterCard]]s 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.<ref name="CashingIn">{{cite web |date=13 November 2009 |title=Cashing in on the Environmental |url= http://www.climatechangecentral.com/publications/enerclick/january-2008/cashing-environmental-cow |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130115222626/http://www.climatechangecentral.com/publications/enerclick/january-2008/cashing-environmental-cow |archive-date=15 January 2013 |access-date=2 December 2017 |work=Climate Change Central}}</ref>

=== Greenscamming ===
Greenscamming describes an organization or product taking on a name that falsely implies environmental friendliness. It is related to both greenwashing and [[greenspeak]].<ref>[[Sharon Beder]]: "Greenwashing", in: John Barry, E. Gene Frankland (Eds.): "International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics". London 2002, p. 253-54</ref> This is analogous to [[aggressive mimicry]] in biology.<ref name="Washington Cook">{{cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate change denial: heads in the sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |date=2011 |publisher=Earthscan |isbn=9781849713368 |location=London |pages=72–75 |author-link=John Cook (Australian author)}}</ref><ref name="Ehrlich">{{cite book |last1=Ehrlich |first1=Paul R. |title=Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future |last2=Ehrlich |first2=Anne H. |date=1996 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=9781559634847 |location=Washington, D.C. |page=16 |author-link=Paul R. Ehrlich |author-link2=Anne H. Ehrlich}}</ref>

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 [[climate change denial|denial of man-made global warming]] by companies in the [[Fossil fuel|fossil energy sector]], also driven by specially-founded greenscamming organizations.{{citation needed|date=March 2022}}

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 organization]]s deliberately deceptive names if they want to be successful, as surveys{{citation needed|date=July 2021}} 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Harper |first1=Charles L. |title=Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues |date=2012 |publisher=Prentice Hall |isbn=9780205820535 |edition=5th |location=Boston |pages=244–256}}</ref>

Greenscamming organizations are active in organized [[climate denial]].<ref name="Washington Cook"/> 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.<ref name="Washington Cook 75">{{cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate change denial: heads in the sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |date=2011 |publisher=Earthscan |isbn=9781849713368 |location=London |page=75 |author-link=John Cook (Australian author)}}</ref> [[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]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Powell |first1=James Lawrence |title=The inquisition of climate science |date=2011 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=9780231157186 |location=New York |pages=93–94 |author-link=James Lawrence Powell}}</ref>

==== Greenscamming organizations ====
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]].<ref name="Ehrlich"/><ref>See also: Jen Schneider, Steve Schwarze, Peter K. Bsumek, Jennifer Peeples: "The Hypocrite's Trap." In: "Under Pressure" (Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication). Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016, {{doi|10.1057/978-1-137-53315-9_5}}</ref> Behind these ostensible environmental protection organizations lie the interests of business sectors. For example, oil drilling companies and real estate developers support the National Wetlands Coalition. 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 loggers and ranchers; and the American Environmental Foundation, representing the interests of landowners.<ref name="Harper">{{cite book |last1=Harper |first1=Charles L. |title=Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues |date=2012 |publisher=Prentice Hall |isbn=9780205820535 |edition=5th |page=245}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Ehrlich" /> 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.<ref name="Washington Cook 75" />

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.<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref name="Rahmstorf">See [[Stefan Rahmstorf]], [[Hans Joachim Schellnhuber]]: ''Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie.'' C.&nbsp;H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, {{ISBN|978-3406633850}}, p. 85.</ref>

==See also==

{{Portal|Environment}}
{{Div col|colwidth=15em}}<!---♦♦♦ Please keep the list in alphabetical order ♦♦♦--->
* [[Astongate]]
* [[Climate bond|Climate bond (green bond)]]
* [[Coca-Cola Life]]
* [[Conspicuous conservation]]
* [[Dieselgate]]
* [[Eco-capitalism]]
* [[Eco-nationalism]]
* [[Ecodesign]]
* [[Ecolabel]]
* [[EMAS (company)|EMAS]]
* [[Ethics of philanthropy]]
* [[False advertising]]
* [[Farm to fork]]
* [[Fossil fuels lobby]]
* [[Gasoline additive]]s
* [[Green brands]]
* [[Greenlash]]
* [[Green marketing]]
* [[Green parking lot]]
* [[Green transition]]
* [[Humanewashing]]
* [[Pinkwashing (LGBT)]]
* [[Reputation laundering]]
* [[Sportswashing]]
* [[Sunshine unit]]
* [[Well-being washing]]
{{div col end}}

==References==

{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* Catherine, P. (n.d). Eco-friendly labelling? It's a lot of 'greenwash'. Toronto Star (Canada), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
* {{cite book |last1=Clegg |first1=Brian |title=Ecologic : the truth and lies of green economics |date=2009 |publisher=Eden Project |location=London |isbn=978-1-905811-25-0}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Dobin |first1=Diana |year=2009 |title=Greenwashing harms entire movement |journal=Lodging Hospitality |volume=65 |issue=14 |page=42 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Greer |first1=Jed |last2=Bruno |first2=Kenny |title=Greenwash: the reality behind corporate environmentalism |date=1996 |publisher=Third World Network |location=Penang, Malaysia |isbn=983-9747-16-9}}
* {{cite news|url= https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destinations/europe-travel/italy/rome/why-greenwash-wont-wash-with-consumers-vtqhj8z7rqr |first=Jonathan |last=Lake |date=11 May 2008 |title=Why 'greenwash' won't wash with consumers |newspaper=[[The Times]] |location=UK |access-date=29 March 2024}}
* {{cite book |last1=Lubbers |first1=Eveline |title=Battling big business: countering greenwash, infiltration, and other forms of corporate bullying |date=2002 |publisher=Common Courage Press |location=Monroe, ME |isbn=1-56751-224-0}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Nelson |first1=Robert |title=Environmental Religion: A Theological Critique |journal=Case Western Reserve Law Review |date=2004 |volume=55 |issue=1 |pages=51 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol55/iss1/5/ |ssrn=2211873 }}
* {{cite journal |last1= Priesnitz |first1= W. |title= Greenwash: When the green is just veneer |journal=Natural Life |date=2008 |issue=121 |pages=14–16 |via= GreenFILE database}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Seele |first1=Peter |last2=Gatti |first2=Lucia |title=Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |date=February 2017 |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=239–252 |doi=10.1002/bse.1912 |bibcode=2017BSEnv..26..239S }}
* {{cite book |last1=Tokar |first1=Brian |title=Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash |date=1997 |publisher=South End Press |location=Boston, MA |isbn=0896085589}}
* {{cite web |title=Beyond Disclosure: Driving Performance & Trust in ESG |date=2023 |url= https://www.scc.ca/en/about-scc/publications/general/beyond-disclosure-driving-performance-trust-esg |work=Standards Council of Canada}}
* {{cite journal |title=Greenwashing culprits to be foiled ahead of business summit |journal=European Environment & Packaging Law Weekly |date=2009 |issue=159 |pages=28 }}{{verify source|date=June 2024}}
* [http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/178833 Greenscamming. The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential].
* [https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/new-global-rules-aim-clamp-down-corporate-greenwashing-2023-06-26/ New rules aim to clamp down on corporate greenwashing] [[Reuters]]. June 26, 2023.

==External links==

{{Commons category|Greenwashing}}

{{Wiktionary}}
* [https://rec.cmc.edu/ Roberts Environmental Center] – ratings of corporate sustainability claims.
* {{HowStuffWorks|greenwashing|How Greenwashing Works}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080410075016/http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007931.html Greenwashing in Popular Culture and Art]
* [http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/ What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem?]
* [https://www.six-group.com/en/blog/greenwashing-explained.html Understanding Greenwashing: How Do I Spot Misleading Sustainability Claims?]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20110113214156/http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/ Streaming audio of a 2011 radio program on the subject of Green Marketing/Greenwashing]{{snd}}from [[CBC Radio]].
* [https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en Green claims, European Commission].

{{Environmentalism}}
{{Environmental social science}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Greenwashing| ]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Green politics]]
[[Category:Public relations terminology]]
[[Category:Deception]]
[[Category:Environmental social science concepts]]
[[Category:1980s neologisms]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]