In today’s world, sustainability is more than just a trend—it has become a core value for many consumers. People are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of their choices, and businesses are responding by marketing their products as eco-friendly, sustainable, or green. However, not all of these claims hold up under scrutiny. Greenwashing, a deceptive practice where companies exaggerate or falsely advertise their environmental efforts, has become a growing problem.
Greenwashing occurs when a company presents itself as environmentally responsible without making meaningful changes to its operations. This can be seen in vague or misleading claims, such as labelling a product as “natural” without specifying what that means, using green imagery to imply sustainability, or highlighting one small eco-friendly feature while ignoring larger environmental concerns. The goal is to attract conscious consumers without the company having to invest in genuine sustainability efforts.
One of the most famous examples of greenwashing involved Volkswagen’s emissions scandal. The company marketed its diesel cars as environmentally friendly, only for investigations to reveal that the vehicles had software designed to cheat emissions tests. Similarly, major fashion brands have promoted “sustainable” clothing lines while continuing to produce garments through environmentally harmful fast fashion practices. In the food industry, companies have been caught using misleading environmental labels like “farm fresh” or “eco-friendly” without meeting any meaningful standards.
The rise of greenwashing undermines consumer trust and slows progress toward real environmental change. When companies engage in greenwashing, it makes it harder for consumers to distinguish between brands that are genuinely committed to sustainability and those that are simply using it as a marketing tactic. This not only misleads consumers but also disadvantages businesses that are making real efforts to reduce their environmental impact.
Regulators and advocacy groups are taking steps to address the problem. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has introduced guidelines to crack down on misleading environmental claims. The European Union is also working on stricter rules to ensure that sustainability claims are backed by verifiable evidence. However, enforcement remains a challenge, and consumers must remain vigilant.
To avoid falling for greenwashing, it is essential to look beyond the marketing slogans. Checking for third-party certifications, researching a company’s sustainability practices, and being wary of vague or overly broad claims can help identify whether a brand is genuinely committed to sustainability. Transparency is key—companies that truly prioritise the environment will provide clear and detailed information about their efforts rather than relying on buzzwords and imagery.
Victory in Poland
In Poland, a country where air pollution causes nearly 50,000 premature deaths each year, misleading advertisements can mean far more than just marketing missteps—they can cost lives.
Since the 1990s, some companies in Poland have marketed coal for domestic heating under the name “eco-pea coal” often using packaging featuring images of trees, leaves, or other motifs suggesting the product is “eco-friendly.” The so-called “eco-pea coal” was intended to be small in size (up to 31 mm in diameter) and meet higher quality standards compared to other types of hard coal sold to individual consumers.
In 2021, ClientEarth took a bold step by filing a groundbreaking lawsuit against one of the leading producers of so-called “eco-pea.” Now, the case concludes with a landmark settlement—a powerful message to businesses and a precedent for cleaner air and greater corporate accountability. As part of the agreement, the producer has committed to abandoning the name “eco-pea” and removing packaging that misleadingly suggests environmental benefits.
Clean coal is a myth. Period. The settlement sends a strong message to all sellers still engaging in greenwashing practices: clean coal does not exist, and it’s time to stop misleading consumers. The legal proceedings focused on the misleading use of “eco” in coal product names and visuals, which gave consumers a false impression of environmental safety. Misleading claims like these not only mask the truth but also stall progress in the fight against smog, particularly during the heating season when pollution levels spike.
Greenwashing extends far beyond the coal industry, affecting various sectors. ClientEarth joined forces with Dutch organisations Fossielvrij and Reclame Fossielvrij to successfully challenge deceptive sustainability claims made by KLM, one of the world’s largest airlines. In the wake of this success, ClientEarth has also cautioned other airlines to steer clear of misleading environmental messaging.
The issue is equally pressing in the financial sector. This year, ClientEarth lodged a formal complaint against BlackRock for inaccurately branding certain investment funds as “sustainable,” despite their substantial ties to fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP.
While greenwashing continues to be a widespread problem, the recent settlement in Poland underscores the power of legal action in holding businesses accountable. ClientEarth remains steadfast in its mission to combat greenwashing and ensure that both corporations and governments deliver on their sustainability commitments.
Examples of Greenwashing
Whether intentional or unintentional, greenwashing can tarnish an organisation’s reputation.
Sustainable marketing campaigns have become prevalent as organisations face pressure from consumers to address environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. These campaigns can link a brand’s public image to environmental sustainability and help drive sales. However, organisations may face accusations of greenwashing from activist groups, consumers and regulatory bodies if they make exaggerated claims.
- FIFA
The international sports organisation, FIFA, faced public backlash after it claimed its 2022 World Cup would be carbon-neutral — which means the organisers would purchase carbon offsets to counteract all carbon dioxide emissions the tournament generated. Leading up to the event, FIFA released a report detailing its sustainability strategy, but climate experts and activist organizations found faults with it.
Carbon Market Watch, a climate activism organisation, released a 2022 report that suggested FIFA dramatically underestimated the tournament’s emissions levels. In 2023, the Swiss Fairness Commission reviewed these findings and ruled that FIFA made false claims. This case demonstrates that organisations should not use terms like carbon-neutral lightly.
- Deutsche Bank’s DWS
In 2021, DWS’ former sustainability officer, Desiree Fixler, alleged the asset management company overstated the degree to which it used sustainability criteria — which evaluate an organisation’s level of sustainability — in its investment offerings. Soon after, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and BaFin, a German financial regulatory body, opened investigations into DWS.
In May 2022, German prosecutors and police raided the DWS office and Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt based on greenwashing claims. DWS told reporters it has cooperated with the investigation and denied allegations that it misled investors. However, in September 2023, DWS agreed to pay the SEC $25 million in penalties for greenwashing and anti-money laundering violations.
These investigations serve as a warning for organisations in the asset management industry. Although $25 million is a relatively small sum for large firms like DWS, investigations and legal cases make headlines, which can damage brands’ reputations.
- Ikea
Ikea launched a sustainability initiative before many of its competitors, including phasing out single-use plastics in 2020 and planning to eliminate plastic from consumer packaging by 2028. However, the furniture retailer faced accusations of greenwashing after a nonprofit organisation, Earthsight, launched an investigation into its supply chain. Earthsight released a report in 2021 that suggested Ikea sold wood that suppliers illegally sourced from Russia.
Like many organizations, Ikea relies on the Forest Stewardship Council certification to obtain its wood. The FSC is a voluntary forest certification system that aims to help organisations find wood sourced in accordance with strict environmental and social sustainability criteria. However, the illegally sourced wood that Ikea allegedly sold was FSC-certified, according to the report.
Earthsight’s report largely blamed the FSC for Ikea’s alleged involvement in the scandal. Following the greenwashing accusations, Ikea said it parted ways with the suppliers. This case highlights the challenges of supply chain sustainability, even for companies that have led the way in terms of ESG.
“Some pretty well-known sustainable brands … have been caught in greenwashing because it’s difficult to master the entire value chain,” Husson said. “This is why we’re starting to see some organisations going into auditing processes … to ensure that their supply chains are clean.”
- Kohl’s and Walmart
In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against two U.S. retailers, Kohl’s and Walmart, for false claims. The companies advertised certain products, such as clothing and bedding, as being made from eco-friendly bamboo fibres. Yet, the items were made of rayon — a semi-synthetic fibre that requires toxic chemicals to produce. Both retailers agreed to settle the charges for a financial penalty. The FTC ordered Kohl’s to pay $2.5 million and Walmart $3 million.
- H&M
The fast-fashion brand, H&M, faced accusations of greenwashing after a 2022 investigation from the news publication Quartz claimed the brand misled consumers with its environmental scorecards.
To offer consumers information about its Conscious Choice collection, H&M used a fashion industry metric called the Higg Sustainability Profile. This metric gauges how much carbon a material’s manufacturing releases into the atmosphere compared to traditional materials. It also compares water and energy usage. However, more than half of H&M’s scorecards overstated their respective products’ environmental soundness, according to Quartz.
In one example, a scorecard for a garment that required 20% more water to create than average said the garment required 20% less water. H&M said a technical error caused this discrepancy. Misleading marketing like H&M’s case has worn down customer trust in corporate sustainability initiatives. Organisations that make false claims may swiftly face greenwashing accusations from an increasingly wary customer base. Most U.S. consumers consider companies to be responsible for protecting the environment, but only about a third of them trust companies when they say they will commit to sustainability, Husson said.
Labour Faces Backlash
Labour faces a growing backlash across the country over proposals to build a new generation of more than 40 waste incinerators to burn household and commercial rubbish. Communities are fighting plans for the new energy-from-waste incinerators which have been called the UK’s dirtiest form of power. The plants, some of which can burn more than 500,000 tonnes of rubbish a year, are often located in more deprived areas.
There are already about 50 waste incinerators across England, but new figures reveal a further 41 have been given planning permission. Of these, 27 have already been granted environmental permits and some are already under construction.
Ministers are expected to announce new curbs on waste incinerators on Monday, as they face growing public concern over their impact. Campaigners want the government to revoke the permits of the incinerators which are not yet under construction and ban any new projects.
Shlomo Dowen, from the UK Without Incineration Network, the campaign group which collated the figures on projects in the pipeline, said: “There are already far too many waste incinerators across the UK, meaning that most of what is burned is material that could and should have been recycled or composted.
“For every tonne of plastic that is incinerated, more than two tonnes of carbon dioxide are being released, as the carbon in the plastic combines with oxygen in the air. It makes incineration a significant source of greenhouse gases.”
Learoyd, an independent councillor for Redcar and Cleveland council, said there had been “greenwashing” over the claimed benefits of incinerators, which hampered recycling and contributed to global warming. “Councils are offloading their waste to one of the poorest areas of the country to be burned,” he said. He describes the schemes as “carbon emissions madness”.
