Greenwashing, or the practice of misleading consumers and stakeholders into believing that a company’s products, services, or policies are more environmentally friendly than they actually are, poses a significant threat to genuine climate action. This deceptive tactic is increasingly under scrutiny as global climate commitments intensify, yet it remains a pervasive practice. Industries employ sophisticated methods to maintain their green image while continuing environmentally harmful practices.
At its core, greenwashing is rooted in the desire of companies to appear environmentally responsible without making the substantial changes required to genuinely reduce their environmental impact. Companies are driven by the need to maintain a positive public image and secure the trust of consumers, investors, and regulators. However, the reality of making significant environmental improvements often involves complex and costly changes that many companies are unwilling or unable to undertake. As a result, they resort to greenwashing as a way to bridge the gap between their actual practices and the expectations of a growingly environmentally conscious public.
READ | Sticky food inflation calls for strategic solutions
Misleading information tactics
One of the oldest and most direct forms of greenwashing is the dissemination of misleading information. Companies may outright lie or exaggerate their environmental credentials to make themselves appear more eco-friendly than they are. For example, a petrol station might market its fuel as “carbon-neutral,” while conveniently ignoring the significant emissions associated with its supply chain. This tactic plays on the assumption that consumers will not dig deeper into the claims and will take the company’s statements at face value.
A more sophisticated version of this tactic involves the use of third-party endorsements or certifications. Companies might create or fund independent organisations to validate their green claims, lending them an air of credibility. These organisations, often portrayed as impartial and trustworthy, may develop green labels or rankings that, while appearing objective, are influenced by the companies themselves. This practice, known as “green labelling,” is particularly effective when these third parties are fledgling NGOs that rely on volatile funding sources, making them vulnerable to corporate influence.
Attention deflection strategies
Another common greenwashing tactic is attention deflection, where companies shift the focus away from their environmental shortcomings by highlighting other aspects of their operations. One approach is “greenshifting,” where companies place the blame for environmental harm on consumers rather than on their own practices. For instance, a company might argue that it sells environmentally harmful products, such as single-use plastics, because there is consumer demand for them. While technically true, this deflection ignores the company’s role in creating and perpetuating such demand.
Another method, known as “greenlighting,” involves companies drawing attention to a small, genuinely green aspect of their operations while continuing environmentally damaging practices on a larger scale. For example, an oil company might heavily promote its investment in renewable energy projects, even though these projects represent a tiny fraction of its overall operations. By focusing public attention on their green initiatives, companies can divert scrutiny away from their more harmful activities.
Reducing scrutiny through information management
Greenwashing can also involve strategies aimed at reducing the level of scrutiny a company faces by managing the information it provides. One such strategy is “absolute attention reduction,” where companies limit the amount of information they disclose, making it difficult for stakeholders to assess the full environmental impact of their operations. A common tactic here is to publish sustainability reports that contain grand ambitions but little supporting data. Some companies might transition from detailed reports to interactive websites that omit critical information, a practice known as “greenhushing.”
A related tactic is “peer-overshadowed attention reduction,” where companies align their reporting standards with the lowest common denominator within their industry. By producing substandard reporting that blends in with industry norms, these companies reduce the likelihood of being singled out for criticism. This tactic often involves aligning with the least ambitious standards in the industry, a practice termed “greencrowding.”
For example, companies may produce carbon offset reports that look impressive to non-experts but fall short of best practices among industry peers. By ensuring that their peers are also engaging in substandard reporting, companies create a situation where no single entity is likely to be scrutinised, making it harder for watchdogs to hold them accountable.
Manipulating timing for maximum effect
Timing also plays a crucial role in greenwashing. Companies often carefully choose when to release environmental information to minimise negative attention. In its simplest form, this tactic involves delaying the disclosure of environmental information, releasing it long after the fact when it is less likely to attract scrutiny. This approach, while frustrating, is manageable because most sustainability disclosures are voluntary and lack statutory deadlines.
A more advanced timing tactic, known as “greenrinsing,” involves releasing impressive environmental goals or achievements that garner positive media coverage, only to quietly dilute these commitments later. For example, a company might set a rigorous sustainability target, receive praise for it, and then gradually weaken the target once public attention has moved on. This tactic is particularly problematic because it relies on the public’s short attention span, allowing companies to benefit from positive publicity without committing to long-term change.
Misinformation campaigns and their impact
Greenwashing is further exacerbated by broader misinformation campaigns, particularly those orchestrated by the fossil fuel industry. These campaigns aim to sow confusion about the feasibility and costs of climate action, creating a false narrative that such policies are economically burdensome and difficult to implement. This narrative, which is often at odds with public opinion and scientific evidence, effectively stalls the transition to a low-carbon economy by influencing political leaders and public sentiment.
The impact of these misinformation campaigns is profound. They not only undermine public trust but also slow the momentum toward genuine climate action. By portraying climate policies as financially prohibitive, particularly for vulnerable populations, these campaigns create resistance to essential measures that are necessary for mitigating climate change. This resistance is particularly dangerous as it can lead to complacency among policymakers, who may downplay the urgency of climate action based on the mistaken belief that it is too costly or difficult to achieve.
Combating greenwashing: Regulatory and consumer actions
Addressing greenwashing requires a multi-faceted approach involving both regulatory measures and consumer vigilance. As highlighted in Report 1, one effective way to combat greenwashing is through the implementation of mandatory anti-greenwashing disclosures. These disclosures should include key environmental indicators, such as Scope 1, 2, and 3 CO₂ emissions, and be clearly defined and universally applied. By eliminating loopholes and ensuring consistent reporting standards, regulators can make it harder for companies to engage in greenwashing.
The United Nations, as noted in Report 2, is also playing a crucial role in tackling greenwashing by establishing stronger standards for net-zero commitments and advocating for more transparent and inclusive national climate plans. The push for a global ban on fossil fuel advertising is a significant step toward reducing the influence of misleading marketing that perpetuates greenwashing.
Consumers also have a vital role in combating greenwashing. By staying informed about common greenwashing tactics and making conscious choices to support genuinely sustainable companies, individuals can help shift market demand towards more ethical and environmentally responsible businesses. This involves critically evaluating product claims, understanding the entire life cycle of products, and supporting companies that align with transparent and ambitious climate action initiatives. Additionally, consumers can advocate for stronger regulations and support organisations that hold companies accountable for their environmental practices.
Greenwashing remains a formidable challenge in the fight against climate change. Through sophisticated tactics that include misinformation, deflection, and selective disclosure, companies can appear environmentally friendly while continuing harmful practices. However, increased awareness, regulatory measures, and consumer vigilance can mitigate these tactics and drive progress toward genuine, impactful climate action. The global community must remain steadfast in its efforts to hold companies accountable and ensure that the path to sustainability is not obscured by deceptive practices. By staying informed and making responsible choices, individuals can contribute to the collective effort needed to address the climate crisis and ensure a liveable planet for future generations.