Lessons Learned From Greenwashing

Are those bold sustainability claims real or just greenwashing? The truth isn’t always obvious. Here’s how to spot the difference and take action: Sustainability is the buzzword of the decade, but not every “green” initiative is what it claims to be. For some companies, sustainability goals are less about driving real change and more about crafting a feel-good narrative to stay relevant. Here’s how to tell if a company’s sustainability goals are authentic or performative: 🚩 Red Flags of Performative Sustainability 1. No Clear Metrics: Vague promises like “net-zero by 2050” with no transparent roadmap or interim milestones. Example: Companies announcing climate neutrality without detailing how they’ll achieve it. Often, this means buying carbon offsets (sometimes dubious) instead of reducing actual emissions. 2. Cherry-Picked Wins: Highlighting small, flashy changes (e.g., eliminating plastic straws) while ignoring their larger environmental footprint. Example: Fast fashion brands touting “sustainable collections” while producing billions of garments annually with no commitment to reducing overall production. 3. ESG Reporting Gaps: Slick sustainability reports that focus on aesthetics but offer little substance on their environmental or social impact. ✅ Signs of Genuine Sustainability Goals 1. Ambitious, Measurable Targets: Companies that set specific, science-based goals and regularly update progress. Example: Microsoft’s goal to become carbon negative by 2030, backed by aggressive investments in renewable energy and carbon capture technology. 2. Systemic Change: Organizations working to transform their entire supply chain or business model for sustainability. Example: Patagonia’s commitment to a circular economy by offering repair services and prioritizing recycled materials. What Can You Do as a Professional Today? 1. Ask Hard Questions: Look beyond marketing jargon. If a company claims “we’re committed to sustainability,” ask: How do you measure progress? What specific actions have been taken? How does this align with your business model? 2. Challenge Your Own Workplace: Push for real accountability by advocating for transparency in ESG goals. Suggest using frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) or the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) to keep your company honest. What’s your take? How can we move from talk to impact? With purpose and impact, Mario

Let's cut the SustainaBull-Shit. I’m a recovered conventional marketer. I spent a decade conning people. I can smell marketing BS a mile away.  Unfortunately, most people can’t, and they shouldn’t have to. But here we are in the depths of greenwashing. Earth Day is near, and the BS meter is buzzing like a swarm of bees in my ears, almost drowning out the genuine efforts of those committed to making a real difference. How can you tell where the stink is?  Look for these common sutainabull-shit practices: 💩 Catchphrases: Imagine a major fast-fashion retailer launching a “Conscious Collection,” touting it as a sustainable fashion choice because it uses recycled materials. However, the brand remains tight-lipped about its vast global operations’ overall environmental footprint, including water usage, chemical pollution, and the sheer volume of waste generated by encouraging disposable fashion. It’s all buzz, no bees. 💩 Micro “Initiatives” That Are More Decoration: Picture a massive oil company sponsoring a beach clean-up and flooding social media with pictures of their employees picking up litter. Commendable? Sure. But it’s like putting a Band-Aid on a broken arm when their daily operations spill more carbon into the atmosphere than that beach has seen plastic straws. 💩 A Sudden Pause in Their Environmental Regulation Dodgeball: Think of a prominent auto manufacturer fighting tooth and nail against emissions regulations. But come Earth Day, they’re all about their “commitment to the planet” with a flashy ad featuring electric vehicles they barely produce. It’s like a game of dodgeball, where they pause only to pose for a photo op, and then it’s back to business as usual. 💩 Blaming the Eco-Crisis on Your Plastic Straw: This is when a fast-food giant launches a campaign focusing on its switch to paper straws. It calls for customer action to “save the oceans” while conveniently ignoring its massive contribution to global waste through single-use packaging. It’s akin to a magician’s sleight of hand, directing your attention away from the real trick. As Earth Day approaches, let’s amplify the voices that matter, the actions that count, and the brands making worthy waves toward a sustainable future. Brands that are both 1% for the Planet members and Certified B Corporations offer a beacon of reliability, embodying a commitment to genuine sustainability, ethical business practices, and monetary support for environmental non-profits doing the work. Drop your fave real-deal sustainable businesses in the comments—let’s explore who’s truly turning the tide! #sustainability #greenwashing #bcorp #onepercentfortheplanet #purposedriven #earthdayiseveryday

Per Jamie Beck Alexander recent public awakening and excellent TEDx on the inherent conflicts of interest at play between corporate and civil society (and sometimes government and elected officials) when it comes to sustainability partnerships (https://lnkd.in/gizPYEMg), I'd like to re-testify in support of her conclusions. As a former eNGO lead scientist I saw a lot. I continue to see a lot as a private citizen. And much of what I saw and see has shaped many-a-cartoon post on Linkedin. At my eNGO, there was a lot of internal discussion about the conflicting behaviors of our partners and what degree of “green washing” we could swallow for the sake larger good, or more often, the incremental good. We were opening paid by our corporate partners to do cause marketing, consulting, and co-branding communications on setting commitments, pilots, and philanthropy. While the Corporate Sustainability staff would meet with us to discuss their sustainability impacts and mitigation strategies, the main objective was always clear - external communications of our “work” - get both of our logos on the same public communications. I’ve had more than one corporate staff confirm to me - off the record - that the primary objective of the partnership - from the corporate perspective - is mitigating reputational and legal risk for their company i.e., shareholders, and the best way to do so was to have joint commitments and other external communications with partners whose Brand helps convey to the public that the company is “seriously" addressing their risk. Once the external comms was out-the-door, very few of our corporate partners came running back to work on meaningful implementation per the company's impacts. As one Director of Sust Sourcing told me, “the external comms offset the reputational risk we were having on Climate or Deforestation etc so now we have to move on to the next fire.” In other words — we are no longer funding you for climate but what are you doing on plastic pollution? We’d really like to work with you on that issue now. I assume the above isn’t new and represents the challenges of NGO-corporate partnerships. There is always the promise/hope of these large firms to “scale up” impacts through hopefully their brands, their purchasing power, their lobbying power(?). But what I saw time and again is that the only thing corporations were willing to lend was their brands and what they were paying us for was the use of ours. You can hear more testifying to this issue by two CURRENT Environmental Defense Fund employees in the recent Vox article on corporate agriculture and NGO partnerships. Sadly, the two employees are cited anonomously for "fear of retaliation!" https://lnkd.in/gRUmJctc #greenwashing

Patagonia bumped their sales by 30% with one bizarre message to their customers:  “Don’t buy our stuff.” The campaign was designed to make people think about only buying what they truly need. So was it a success? Or a failure? — This raises a spicy question: when companies preach sustainability, but profit from it, do they actually care? Or is it just a slick way to juice sales numbers? Patagonia might be the rare exception here. They were one of the first companies to make clothing from recycled materials and donate 1% of sales to environmental causes. Lots of companies pull stunts like this. But Patagonia went WAY further. In 2022, founder Yvon Chouinard straight-up donated his $3 billion company into a trust to fight climate change. That’s not just marketing. That’s putting your money where your mouth is. If nothing else, Patagonia proves sustainability as a marketing strategy works. The real question is whether other companies are actually walking the walk. Or are we all just falling for greenwashing with a side of guilt? Let’s talk about some companies that deserve a little side-eye: H&M: Fast fashion on steroids. Even their "sustainable" lines are built on cheap labor and non-eco-friendly production. Slapping a green label on a sweatshop shirt doesn’t make it green. Volkswagen: Ah, Dieselgate. The company cheated emissions tests while its cars spewed way more pollution than advertised. “Clean diesel”? Not so much. Coca-Cola: One of the world’s biggest plastic polluters, and their “solutions” to fix it are about as effective as using a bendy straw to bail out a sinking ship. Amazon: Sure, they ship everything in under 12 hours, but they’re also running up huge carbon emissions with their delivery network. Add in wasteful packaging and questionable labor practices, and it’s clear: two-day shipping isn’t exactly “green.” Who else is greenwashing?

The Illusion of Green: Are Tech Giants Truly Committed to Sustainability? In recent years, large enterprise technology players have increasingly vocalized their commitment to sustainability, crafting extensive press releases and touting high ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores. Yet, despite their fervent declarations, a critical examination often reveals a stark contrast between their stated intentions and actions. This discrepancy raises important questions about whether these companies are genuinely dedicated to sustainable practices or merely engaging in greenwashing to enhance their public image. One core example of this disconnect is seen in some corporations' energy usage. While they may proudly announce investments in renewable energy projects, the overall carbon footprint often paints a different picture. Reports have highlighted instances where tech giants still rely heavily on non-renewable energy to power data centers, which are among the largest consumers of electricity globally. These data centers significantly contribute to emissions, undermining any lip service paid to sustainability. Moreover, the lifecycle management of electronic devices is another area where rhetoric falls short of reality. Promises to promote a circular economy through recycling and sustainable manufacturing processes often lack tangible results. The rapid turnover of electronic goods continues, spurred by the pursuit of profit and planned obsolescence, which leads to increased e-waste and resource depletion. The public statements made by these enterprises frequently emphasize transparent supply chains, yet numerous audits and investigations reveal persistent environmental and human rights abuses in their supply networks. These findings suggest a gap between corporate pledges and the actual oversight and enforcement of sustainability standards. To be fair, some companies are making genuine strides towards sustainability, albeit incrementally. However, the broader trend of proclaiming commitment without substantial action is increasingly evident. For the industry to achieve true sustainability, it requires more than just high ESG scores—it demands a fundamental shift in operational practices and corporate culture. As enterprises navigate this complex terrain, stakeholders, investors, and consumers must scrutinize actions over words. Only through consistent accountability and transparency can we discern authentic dedication from strategic posturing in the realm of sustainability. What are your thoughts on this? Am I being too hard on them? #Sustainability #FakeSustainability #EnterpriseIT

A $1.5 million fine for misleading K-Cup recycling claims – Is this a wake-up call for brands to prioritize more honest sustainability? Or will this scare off imperfect sustainability solutions in favor of business as usual?? Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. (KDP) recently settled charges with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for making misleading statements about the recyclability of its K-Cup pods. This serves as a stark reminder that companies need to be transparent and accountable when making sustainability claims. A few bullets on the matter - thanks as always Packaging Dive :) 🟢 KDP will pay a $1.5 million civil penalty. 🟢 The SEC charged KDP with omitting crucial information about the recyclability of K-Cups in its annual reports. 🟢 Two major recycling companies, representing over one-third of U.S. recycling facilities, expressed concerns about the feasibility of recycling K-Cups. 🟢 Despite this, KDP claimed in its 2019 and 2020 annual reports that K-Cups could be "effectively recycled." It's crucial that brands prioritize genuine sustainability efforts and avoid greenwashing. This includes investing in innovative packaging solutions, improving recycling infrastructure, and educating consumers about proper recycling practices. This incident also shines a light on the complexities of communicating sustainability efforts in today's "it depends" world. While transparency is paramount, I also worry about the rising fear of "greenhushing". Are companies hesitant to share their (imperfect) initiatives due to the potential for scrutiny or backlash, and could this fear be stifling genuine progress towards a more sustainable future? Would it be better to make unrecyclable cups and just say nothing, or is there a way to be honest about the challenges while still striving for improvement? How can brands navigate this delicate landscape without compromising their integrity or their sustainability goals? Or, was this one just a flat out misleading and incorrect claim with a just penalty? If one thing is clear, the SEC's action against KDP underscores the importance of accurate and complete disclosures, even when they involve complex issues like recyclability. Let’s hope this serves as a catalyst for more honest sustainability efforts across industries. After all, true progress comes from honest actions, not misleading claims. And in the same breath, let's hope that brands still strive to stretch their sustainability strategy, rather than watering it down or removing it as a core part of their business.

Not all “green” claims are real. Greenwashing happens when companies pretend to be sustainable but fail to take real action. It misleads consumers, slows climate progress, and allows businesses to profit from false promises. Here’s how to spot the difference between Greenwashing vs. Genuine Climate Impact: ❌ Greenwashing: ✖ Vague sustainability claims with no proof ✖ Buzzwords like "eco-friendly" & "carbon neutral" without verification ✖ High-budget PR campaigns instead of real change ✖ Profit-driven marketing disguised as sustainability ✅ Genuine Climate Impact: ✔ Clear, measurable data & transparent reporting ✔ Science-backed solutions with independent audits ✔ Companies that admit challenges & show real progress ✔ Purpose-driven investments that create lasting environmental change Truth matters. In a world where climate action is urgent, businesses must choose impact over image. ▶ Do your research. Demand transparency. Support real change. #Sustainability #ClimateAction #Greenwashing #Transparency #ClimateTech #ESG #ImpactInvesting

Last week I spoke with Kristin Hostetter, Head of Sustainability at Outside about the ills of #greenwashing and how difficult it is for everyday people to distinguish between legitimate ethical and sustainable products and those that are just being marketed that way. Here are a few ways you can fight greenwashing, and check out the full article for more! Seek third-party certifications, like Fair Trade, B-Corp, and Oeko Tex. “Trusted certification programs reduce the burden on consumers, but there’s a caveat,” says Kazemi. “They’re expensive and time-consuming, and often smaller brands can’t afford them. It doesn’t mean they’re not worthy of certifications and being transparent, it just means that certifications aren’t accessible to them.” Look for complete transparency. Vague words like “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” that aren’t accompanied by initiatives, data, goals, and reporting on those goals, are a major red flag. You shouldn’t have to go down a rabbit hole to find quantifiable sustainability information. Beware of short product life cycles. This is why fast fashion is so harmful to the environment. Watch to see if your favorite brands are constantly releasing new products, and colors, and creating new trends. If it’s all new all the time, they are not prioritizing durability and longevity, says Kazemi. #SustainabilityMatters #BeyondGreenwashing #AuthenticChange #EnvironmentalResponsibility #SustainableFashion https://lnkd.in/gSwkgV5r

I don't know much about Reader's Digest except that it is famously associated with conservative politics and ideas. Not only was it a favorite publication of Ronald Reagan, but it also spread Friedrich Hayek's neoliberal classic The Road to Serfdom to the US through as part of its well-known condensed books series. But after reading this thoughtful piece on #greenwashing — when companies mislead consumers by promoting products or policies as environmentally friendly while failing to meet such claims — I realize I need to update my prior impressions. Not only wouldn't I consider the piece conservative, but also it is relatively in-depth, not at all the bite-sized articles I associate with the publication! One thing I like about the article is that it does a nice job of identifying different types of greenwashing, for example here are some: 🎭 Green by association: putting products in nature in ads to give the feeling that they're environmentally friendly or green. 🌀 Lack of definition and ❓unproven claims: when companies use vague buzzwords like "green" or "regenerative" w/o any substantiation or certification. 🪤 Bait and switch and 🐟 Red herrings: highlighting the one sustainable part of a brand but not acknowledging the ways the company isn't sustainable overall. 🚫 Irrelevant claims: Claims products are free of certain chemicals or ingredients that are already banned by the government. 📉 Rallying behind a lower standard: Participating in and promoting voluntary programs with less-rigorous standards than other companies follow. 🚨 Outright lying: Companies ignore the truth and just markets of existing products claiming they are green. The article also names and shames a number of prolific greenwashers including: Boohoo Group PLC, The Coca-Cola Company, H&M, Zara, ExxonMobil. To this list I would add Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. which has paid penalties for inaccurate claims about the recyclability of its K-Cup coffee pods a number of times. 📘 Understanding and exposing the misleading communications of companies has been a longstanding interest of mine. It is an important theme in my book #TheProfiteers, and also I have a recent #FastCompany article on the topic, and have published academic journal articles on greenwashing too. Will post links to some of those in comments! What other examples of greenwashing have you seen? Please add other types or other examples of companies misleading us in the comments!