In 2009, Volkswagen launched a wide-reaching marketing campaign to promote its “clean diesel” cars.

Across print and televised ads, including in one prime-time Super Bowl commercial, the automaker
touted a drastic reduction in the tailpipe emissions of its new VW and Audi models. “Green has never felt
so right,” the Audi commercial bragged.

But a few years later, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discovered that Volkswagen had
installed software allowing it to cheat emissions tests for 11 million of its vehicles. The automaker’s so-
called clean diesel cars produced nitrogen oxide emissions up to 40 times the legal limit. The resulting
“Diesel Gate” scandal marked one of the most notorious examples to date of deceptive environmental
marketing—a phenomenon known as greenwashing—and ultimately cost Volkswagen nearly $40 billion.

But greenwashing is often far less sensational—and far harder to spot. We regularly encounter misleading
sustainability claims on packaging for our everyday household items but also in, say, so-called
sustainability initiatives promoted by major corporations. Given how urgent the climate, biodiversity, and
public health crises have become, sorting sustainability fact from fiction is more important now than ever.
Let’s get into what greenwashing can look like and what can be done about it.

A group of protesters hold a large banner that mimics a laundry instruction tag and reads "Greenwash
Instructions"
Credit:Ana Fernandez/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
What does greenwashing mean?
Greenwashing is the act of making false or misleading statements about the environmental benefits of a
product or practice. It can be a way for companies to continue or expand their polluting as well as related
harmful behaviors, all while gaming the system or profiting off well-intentioned, sustainably minded
consumers. The term was actually coined back in 1986 in an essay by environmentalist and then student
Jay Westerveld. While visiting a hotel in Fiji, Westerveld noticed that it asked guests to reuse towels for
the planet’s sake—a request that would also conveniently save the hotel money. Meanwhile, the hotel,
located near sensitive island ecosystems, was in the middle of an expansion.

In the decades since, a number of high-profile greenwashing examples have made front-page news. In the
1980s, Chevron launched its infamous People Do campaign, touting its work protecting wildlife, even
while the company continued to spill oil in sensitive ecosystems and drive climate change. And in the
early 2000s, fossil fuel company BP coined the term “carbon footprint” when it launched a calculator for
individuals to assess their personal emissions, avoiding the fact that its own emissions were among the
highest on the planet.

But as environmentalism has gone mainstream—meaning more consumers are willing to pay for
sustainable products, and the financial sector has turned its attention to environmental risk—
greenwashing has gotten more sophisticated. “[Companies are] better at how they message it, so it doesn’t
come across quite so badly. “says Todd Larsen, the executive co-director for consumer and corporate
engagement at Green America, one of the first organizations to put together vetted lists of green
businesses and products. “It’s more in the general marketplace now.”

What are some examples of how greenwashing shows up?

Greenwashing can still look like an overt, and potentially even illegal, lie. But as Larsen notes, most
greenwashing is subtler and includes more insidious forms of manipulation, like these common strategies:

Nature-based imagery—such as trees, leaves, or animals—on product packaging and in advertisements

can imply sustainability, even if the company or product either actively harms the environment or takes
no real steps to protect it.
A case of bottled water with the Poland Spring logo in white writing on a background of green trees
Poland Spring bottled waterCredit:Mike Mozart CC BY 4.0
LEARN MORE ABOUT GREENWASHING

An illustration of a person standing in front of a store shelf reading labels on two different bottles of
cleaner
Learn to Spot Greenwashing

“Chemical Recycling” Isn’t Actually Recycling.

A pile of small wood pellets with a flame burning at the center
No, Burning Wood Fuels Is Not Climate-Friendly
Just scan the aisle of bottled water brands and you’ll notice a trend: packaging featuring scenic
naturescapes and pristine rivers, lakes, and springs. In reality, the companies that manufacture bottled
water are some of the world’s biggest contributors of plastic waste, and they often drain ecologically
essential water resources in the process of sourcing. BlueTriton Brands—the company formerly known as
Nestlé Waters—is behind a third of U.S. bottled-water brands, including Poland Spring.

More recently, BlueTriton faced litigation over its attempts to market its bottled water as sustainable,
despite its “significant and ongoing contributions to plastic pollution and its depletion of natural water
resources,” the lawsuit asserts. (Never mind that just making the plastic for a liter bottle of water takes
three to four more liters of water.) In a motion to dismiss the case, BlueTriton’s attorneys defended the
company by saying its “representation of itself as ‘a guardian of sustainable resources’ and ‘a company
who, at its core, cares about water,’ is ‘vague and hyperbolic’” and therefore qualifies as “non-actionable
puffery.” That’s about as close to a definition of greenwashing as you can get.
Environmental buzzwords that have no legal weight—like “natural” or “eco-friendly”—and tell you little
about a company’s specific sustainability practices are also everywhere. This language is intentionally
vague enough to remain subjective and unregulated while still attempting to convince customers of a
product’s benefits.
A swatch of brown empty land in the middle of a green forest
Clearcut area of Canada’s boreal forest, which has been continuously damaged by companies like P&G to
produce toilet paperCredit:River Jordan for NRDC
You should be especially skeptical of greenwashing tied to sectors known for their environmentally
harmful practices—such as logging and the various industries it feeds. Exhibit A: tissue product
manufacturers and toilet paper brands like Charmin. Procter & Gamble, the company that makes
Charmin, created a catchy marketing slogan—“Protect, Grow, and Restore” forests. But the slogan only
serves as smoke and mirrors for unsuspecting buyers who don’t know its supply chain includes pulp
sourced from irreplaceable primary forests, which are key allies in our fight against climate change.
Sometimes these buzzwords are even concealing downright poisonous business ventures, like the practice
of “chemical recycling.” The phrase implies materials are turned into new plastic when it generally means
plastic is burned to make fuel. That process can emit more greenhouse gases than fossil fuel–fired power
plants.

Even labels that promote a specific benefit, like “BPA-free,” should be approached with caution. That’s
because, as public health advocates note, the chemical industry leans on a laundry list of “regrettable
substitutions,” i.e., similarly toxic chemicals that have become routine replacements for better-known
offenders. “The problem is that we don’t start from the precautionary principle in the United States,”
Larsen says, “which would say don’t use a chemical or something that can harm you until you’ve proven
it’s safe. Our regulatory framework is that you can use anything you want until it’s proven that it can
harm you—and that proof is very arduous.”

Large plastic jugs of laundry detergent on a grocery store shelf

Seventh Generation’s cardboard laundry detergent container, which has a plastic pouch inside that many
people are unlikely to separate for recyclingCredit:Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via
Getty Images
Products that lean on official-looking labels. Companies that produce plastic products often try to assuage
consumer guilt by prominently featuring the ubiquitous recycling symbol or language like “please
recycle” on the packaging. The logo may make someone feel like the choice is greener even if that type or
mix of plastic is difficult to recycle in practice. It also puts no real onus on the manufacturer to actually
reduce waste in its supply chain or to recycle, for that matter. As it stands, the world continues to recycle a
meager 9 percent of the 440.9 million U.S. tons of plastic waste produced each year. Instead of these
flimsy or false solutions, companies should take tangible steps, like reducing overall plastic use, upping
the percentage of recycled content, or even investing in programs that help collect postconsumer waste.
Companies that tout their latest (and even legitimate) sustainability initiative but that do so to draw
attention away from the harmful activities making up the majority of their business practices.
When the company Ozinga Bros recently proposed building a massive “underground storage facility”
below Chicago’s residential Southeast Side neighborhood, it laid the greenwashing on thick, says Gina
Ramirez, NRDC’s Midwest outreach manager.

The company touted the possibility that its Invert mining project would eventually house green
businesses, like solar panels or vertical gardens. However, Ramirez knew it’d more likely become a place
for toxic industry to congregate in her already overburdened neighborhood. Ozinga Bros hoped to bolster
its green reputation by planting trees, putting an environmental activist on its staff, and even building a
community center that was quite literally decked out in green. But when it came to discussing the mine,
they failed to provide studies on the expected impact to air quality or transportation. “You’ll see tree
plantings, recycling, promises for green infrastructure,” Ramirez says, “but then the means to get that
supposed green infrastructure is really hazardous to your health—like blowing up dynamite to mine for
17 years and bringing thousands of additional diesel trucks into the neighborhood.”

A person on a bicycle on a city street with refinery stacks rising into the sky in the background
A worker riding their bicycle to the BP oil refinery in Gelsenkirchen, GermanyCredit:Martin
Meissner/Associated Press
Ambitious climate pledges that sound great on paper but offer few specific or quantifiable changes that
actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.
You’ve probably noticed that thousands of companies have publicly rolled out net-zero pledges, including
fossil fuel companies like ExxonMobile and BP that have no intention of stopping further pollution-
producing development. That’s because it’s possible to finagle the math to imply emissions reductions on
paper while continuing business as usual or even increasing climate pollution.

The way that works is that companies can rely heavily on what are called “carbon offsets” to zero out
their own emissions. These are commitments to take an action that reduces carbon emissions elsewhere,
like paying to conserve carbon-rich land that otherwise would’ve been developed. But not only are the
climate benefits of offsets not guaranteed—a “conserved” forest could be lost to an unexpected wildfire,
for instance—there simply isn’t enough land available to allow everyone that plans to rely on offsets to do
so. Without first changing polluting practices, these net-zero pledges are a form of greenwashing.

Why do companies greenwash?

Because going green sells. In 2021, 85 percent of global consumers said they considered the environment
more when shopping than they did just five years prior, and at least a third said they are willing to spend
more money for green products. This is particularly true for a new generation of socially conscious
consumers. One recent study found that Gen Z considers climate change the single-greatest issue we face.
“Purpose and impact are more in the minds of young people today,” says Andreas Rasche, greenwashing
expert and professor at the Copenhagen Business School. Young people are both less willing to work for
companies they perceive as misaligned with their values—and less willing to support them as consumers.
But, Racshe explains, it’s not just “the bad apples or the straightforward, rogue people trying to deceive
others.” In his work, he often sees well-intentioned sustainability practices not living up to their promise
because of mismanagement, poor internal communication, and a lack of sustainability expertise on staff.

How does greenwashing impact consumers?

Over time, greenwashing erodes consumer faith, which makes us more likely to dismiss environmental
claims altogether—even the ones that are legitimate.

But there are far worse impacts too. Companies making these greenwashed products or running these
greenwashed businesses and facilities have a history of setting up in low-income communities,
communities of color, or both. For example, this trend held true for seven of the eight facilities NRDC
researched during our investigation of chemical recycling. And the burning of that plastic, by the way,
emits toxic chemicals linked to health problems like cancer and birth defects.

An enormous barge carries large industrial equipment

A furnace being delivered by barge to Gulf Coast Growth Ventures’ plastic manufacturing complex, a
joint venture between ExxonMobil and SABIC, Corpus Christi, TexasCredit:Eddie Seal/Bloomberg via
Getty Images
What are the consequences for our environment?
Greenwashing gives some companies an unfair advantage. They are able to keep up with their polluting
practices while simultaneously benefiting from the illusion of environmental stewardship. They can also
make it harder for those who are doing the right thing to stand out in the marketplace. All of that has
ongoing ripple effects for the environment. Take the Invert mine plans in Chicago. NRDC’s Ramirez
pointed out that the drilling, explosions, and excavations would go on for years and kick up all kinds of
pollutants. It’s worth noting that this includes pollution from prior polluters, as this neighborhood has
long been treated like a dumping ground by toxic industries. The impact to the air alone is staggering but
there will also be increased noise pollution and emissions. In other words, when it comes to
greenwashing, public health and the environment stand to suffer.

What can be done to address greenwashing?

The best short-term means of tackling greenwashing is to build awareness. You’re doing that by just
reading this piece. Plus, we’ve got an action-oriented guide to help you cut through most murky
greenwashing waters. Consumer activism and consumer advocacy groups have also helped lead the way
via third-party certifications, as have environmental advocacy groups demanding corporate accountability.
But for long-term strategies, the government has to take steps to reduce the burden on consumers.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is in charge of regulating unfair or deceptive
marketing claims, including ones related to the environment, but the agency has gone after greenwashing
violators fewer than 100 times since the early 1990s and seemingly only in the most egregious cases.
There are other innovative ways forward that the United States could learn from. The European Union,
for example, recently launched a taxonomy system that publicly ranks companies on their sustainability
efforts according to a standardized set of criteria, creating more transparency for investors and
policymakers. “It takes quite a bit of the ambiguity out of the debate,” says Rasche.

Ultimately, setting more protective environmental regulations at the outset can do a lot of the legwork.
Federal agencies like the EPA and U.S. Food & Drug Administration must take the lead on restricting
dangerous chemicals. And the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission can hold greenwashing
companies accountable for claims that mislead investors. Lawmakers at the state and local levels have a
role to play too. In the case of Chicago’s Southeast Side, advocates are pushing for both a city ordinance
and a state law to make it more difficult for companies to further target environmental justice
communities like theirs. Activists exposing greenwashing schemes like this have shown us over and over
again that what’s best for big business rarely matches what’s best for communities. And increasingly, their
message is clear: Valuing profits over people will not be tolerated

ARTICLE 2

Greenwashing presents a significant obstacle to tackling climate change. By misleading the public to
believe that a company or other entity is doing more to protect the environment than it is,
greenwashing promotes false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay concrete and
credible action.

Greenwashing manifests itself in several ways – some more obvious than others. Tactics include:

 Claiming to be on track to reduce a company’s polluting emissions to net zero when no

credible plan is actually in place.
 Being purposely vague or non-specific about a company’s operations or materials used.
 Applying intentionally misleading labels such as “green” or “eco-friendly,” which do not
have standard definitions and can be easily misinterpreted.
 Implying that a minor improvement has a major impact or promoting a product that meets
the minimum regulatory requirements as if it is significantly better than the standard.
 Emphasizing a single environmental attribute while ignoring other impacts.
 Claiming to avoid illegal or non-standard practices that are irrelevant to a product.
 Communicating the sustainability attributes of a product in isolation of brand activities
(and vice versa) – e.g. a garment made from recycled materials that is produced in a high-
emitting factory that pollutes the air and nearby waterways.
Why care about greenwashing, and how does it relate to climate
change?

The science is clear: greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon and methane, from human activities
are wrapping the Earth in a blanket of pollution that has warmed the planet and led to severe impacts
such as more intense storms, droughts, floods and wildfires.

To limit climate change and preserve a livable planet, emissions need to be cut nearly in half by 2030
and reduced to net zero by 2050. Every fraction of a degree of warming matters and, as put by the
former chair of the High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State
Entities, “the planet cannot afford delays, excuses, or more greenwashing”.

Greenwashing undermines credible efforts to reduce emissions and address the climate crisis.
Through deceptive marketing and false claims of sustainability, greenwashing misleads consumers,
investors, and the public, hampering the trust, ambition, and action needed to bring about global
change and secure a sustainable planet.

How is the UN tackling greenwashing?

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, an increasing number of companies have pledged
to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to net zero - a level where any remaining emissions would
be absorbed by forests, the ocean or other “carbon sinks.” However, those claims are often based on
questionable plans, including emissions offsetting and “insetting” – rather than actual emission cuts.
As such, the transparency and integrity of such claims remain critically low and risk creating a failure
to deliver urgent climate action.

In response to the rise in greenwashing in net-zero pledges, the Secretary-General established a High-
Level Expert Group tasked with developing stronger and clearer standards for net-zero emissions
pledges by companies, financial institutions, cities and regions, and speed up their implementation. In
its report “Integrity Matters,” the Expert Group outlined ten recommendations for credible,
accountable net-zero pledges and detailed the necessary considerations for each stage towards
achieving net zero and addressing the climate crisis. A checklist for companies to follow is
available here.

Following the report, UN Climate Change published a Recognition and Accountability Framework
and Draft Implementation Plan to begin operationalizing the expert group’s recommendations,
improve transparency and maximize the credibility of climate action pledges, plans and transition
progress.

To further accelerate action and hear from “first movers and doers,” the UN Secretary-General is
convening a Climate Ambition Summit at the UN Headquarters in New York on 20 September 2023.
This summit is designed along three tracks: ambition, credibility, and implementation, leaving “no
room for back-sliders, greenwashers, blame-shifters or repackaging of announcements of previous
years”.

What can you do?

 Learn more: as a consumer, understanding the common greenwashing tactics and what
constitutes sustainable practices and products is crucial to recognizing and avoiding
greenwashing.
 Spend wisely: when possible, take time to research and choose products from companies
who use resources responsibly and are committed to cutting their emissions and waste. A
great place to start your research is to check if the company is aligned with any of the
UN’s climate and sustainability initiatives, such as the UNFCCC’s Race to
Zero or Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, and the UN Alliance for
Sustainable Fashion, among others.
 Consider a product’s lifecycle: when evaluating a product, it is crucial to consider its
entire life cycle, starting from the extraction of raw materials to its eventual disposal,
while also taking into account the environmental consequences associated with its
materials and packaging.
 Look for transparency and accountability: it is often hard to know if companies are on
track to meet their net zero commitments, and the absence of standardized and
comparable data makes it hard to assess progress. The UN-backed credibility
standards and criteria make it possible to reward leading entities taking bold, credible
steps.

For more tips on actions, you can take for a healthy planet, check out the ActNow campaign.

Close-up: the fashion industry

Due to raw material extraction, long supply chains and energy-intensive production, the fashion
industry is responsible for 2 to 8 per cent of global carbon emissions (for context, the shipping and
aviation industry combined account for about 5 per cent of global emissions).

Significant efforts are underway to reduce the fashion industry’s pollution – including through
the UN-backed Fashion Charter – but greenwashing remains a challenge. A recent report found
that 60 per cent of sustainability claims by European fashion giants are “unsubstantiated” and
“misleading.” This has resulted in confusion for consumers and growing mistrust of what is and is not
sustainable.
But with one of the most influential marketing engines on Earth, the fashion industry has the potential
to drive positive change and be a leader towards a more sustainable future, through both action and
communications. The Sustainable Fashion Communication Playbook is a guide for fashion
communicators – marketers, brand managers, imagemakers, media, influencers and beyond – to help
counter greenwashing and advance progress towards the Paris Agreement and Sustainable
Development Goals.

Learn more about…

From the UN Secretary-General

“We must have zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing", said the UN Chief at the launch of the
report of High-Level Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments. Read the complete speech here.
Net Zero

What is net zero? Why is it important? Our net-zero page explains why we need steep emissions cuts
now and what efforts are underway.

Communicating on Climate Change

Beware of greenwashing when creating a communications product – such as a video, a podcast, a
written article, or a graphic on Climate Change. Read here a comprehensive guide on how to make it
a valuable, effective, and reliable piece of content.

Catherine Mckenna: We need to get our act together

Chair of the High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State
Entities, Catherine McKenna talks about why there is an urgent need for stronger and clearer
standards, and criteria for assessing net-zero commitments from non-state entities.
The Acceleration Agenda: roadmap for a livable planet

The Secretary-General’s Acceleration Agenda spells out the actions needed from government,
business and finance leaders to cut greenhouse gas emissions and protect lives and livelihoods.

Read the Climate Action Acceleration Agenda

Initiatives for action

Governments, businesses and civil society members are connecting in climate initiatives to speed the
pace of climate action. Read more about their global initiatives here.