Greenwashing is a widespread and growing phenomenon. How much does this tactic of companies burden the environment? And how can it be tackled? More and more products appear on supermarket shelves that claim to be ‘sustainable’, ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘plastic free’. And products with such labels can be very tempting – especially as more and more consumers seek to reduce their environmental footprint.

Research conducted in 16 countries around the world showed that approximately 50% of consumers prefer to buy products with an environmental label. However, only 3% can tell when a product is misleadingly marketed as ‘green’.

What does “greenwashing” mean?

Greenwashing is a marketing tactic in which a product or service is presented as more beneficial to the environment than it really is. And there are many energy companies, banks, retailers or even governments that have been accused of greenwashing.

Although the international community has not settled on a single legal definition, greenwashing generally involves environmental claims that are exaggerated, misleading or simply false – with the aim of persuading environmentally conscious investors and consumers to buy or support the product. .

And this tactic is highly profitable. Most consumers say they are willing to pay more for a “sustainable” product, while companies claiming to sell green products and services are experiencing disproportionate market growth, according to research by consulting firms McKinsey and NielsenIQ.

How can one detect greenwashing?

Greenwashing can take many different forms – some more and some less obvious. A company in the technology sector for example could claim that it is going to annihilate its environmental footprint, without actually having a thorough plan in place. Or a shampoo package may list vague words without a specific meaning, claiming that the product is e.g. “sustainable” or “environmentally friendly”.

Sometimes a certain feature of the product may again be emphasized, without simultaneously providing information about the rest of its elements: a “green” dress, for example, may have been produced with 20% recycled materials, but be the product of a fast fashion from a factory that significantly burdens the environment.

Why does greenwashing matter?

To prevent the most devastating effects of climate change, scientists say we need to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and eliminate them by 2050.

Greenwashing impedes this effort by allowing companies to continue their operations as if nothing is wrong – potentially maximizing their profits as well. According to the UN, greenwashing not only diverts attention away from finding concrete solutions, but also undermines the world’s confidence in drawing up a credible climate strategy.

At the same time, greenwashing is both a widespread and growing phenomenon. An EU assessment from 2021 found evidence that 42% of ‘green claims’ made by companies operating in clothing, cosmetics or home appliances are untrue or misleading. And according to a report by the RepRisk company based in Zurich, in 2023 there was a 70% increase in greenwashing incidents in the banking and financial sector.

The legal battle against greenwashing

At the same time, legal disputes about greenwashing are increasing – and plaintiffs are scoring important victories. Last month, a Dutch court ruled that KLM airline’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign misled consumers, given that traveling by plane contributes significantly to carbon dioxide emissions and therefore global warming. Fossil Free, the environmental group that filed the controversial lawsuit, hailed the court’s ruling as “a historic victory against greenwashing by big polluters.”

Advertising regulators are also cracking down on greenwashing. In the UK, for example, Ryanair’s advertisements claiming to be the lowest-emission airline were deemed misleading and therefore banned. The same thing happened with the claims carried by the Lipton Ice Tea bottles claiming to be “100% recycled”.

The EU’s strategy is just as strict. This year the European Parliament voted to ban products that claim to be “climate neutral”, “biodegradable”, “eco-friendly” or “natural” without providing thorough evidence, as well as products which state without tangible evidence that they are durable or repairable.

Edited by: Giorgos Passas