Greenwashing

Greenwashing is an action aimed at making an organization, product, or service appear more environmentally friendly or responsible than it truly is, by using misleading or deceptive information about its environmental impacts, practices, or benefits. This communication strategy is referred to in the literature by various alternative terms such as green accenting, green painting, or green coating. Greenwashing is typically a tactic used to gain a commercial competitive advantage; the concept focuses on false or unsubstantiated environmental claims. The core mechanisms of this practice center on managing the perception of environmental responsibility while providing commercial benefits to the organization.

These mechanisms include: Dissemination of False Information, which misleads consumers into believing that an organization’s environmental performance, practices, or products are more positive than they actually are; Selective Disclosure, which involves presenting only positive information about a company’s environmental or social performance while omitting relevant negative information; Intentional Deception, which entails falsely portraying a product or activity as environmentally harmless while using green marketing to simulate environmentally beneficial actions; and finally, Corporate Image Management, which refers to the dissemination of false or incomplete information to preserve an organization’s reputation or to appear more environmentally sensitive than it is.

^{Representative Visual of Greenwashing (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)}

The systematic use of the term greenwashing is traced back to 1986 and the environmentalist Jay Westervelt. Westervelt criticized hotels for promoting the reuse of towels, arguing that the underlying motive was not environmental protection but a strategic marketing effort designed to reduce operational costs.

Before the term greenwashing was systematically adopted, similar practices emerged in parallel with rising environmental awareness in the 1960s; during this period, advertising executive Jerry Mander labeled such advertising—creating an environmental image for non-environmental products or services—as “ecopornography.” In these early years, companies’ frequent use of the color green raised public skepticism about their messages. However, Westervelt’s hotel example became the foundational case for these deceptive practices and is widely regarded as the event that established the concept in academic literature. Although earlier precedents exist, Westervelt’s critique initiated the systematic use of the term in scholarly discourse.

Greenwashing manifests in diverse forms and target areas, appearing at four primary levels: from the product level to corporate strategies. Product-Level Greenwashing encompasses misleading environmental communications related to specific product features such as labeling, packaging, advertising, or product certifications. At this level, False Labeling involves adding misleading, unsubstantiated, or unauthorized ecological symbols to products, while Visual Imagery employs visual cues such as green colors, leaves, or natural landscapes to create an environmentally friendly perception despite the product being non-eco-friendly. Corporate-Level Greenwashing involves misleading claims about a company’s overall image, reputation, name, or logo. Strategic-Level Greenwashing includes misleading environmental communications tied to medium- or long-term goals, strategic plans, reporting, or intended operations; this is particularly evident in unverified promises about future actions such as net-zero commitments and is also known as Futurewashing, which emphasizes future aspirations over current performance. Dark-Level Greenwashing refers to deceptive environmental communications used to conceal secret, illegal activities such as money laundering, corruption, collusion with criminal organizations, forged documents, or smuggling.

Research and applications of greenwashing have progressed through three main stages, with the focus shifting over time from products to corporate strategies and future-oriented pledges. The first stage, Greenwashing 1.0: The Consumer-Oriented Static Communication Era, focused primarily on static communication channels such as advertising or packaging directed at consumers; studies during this period aimed to identify greenwashing methods and explore ways to eliminate simple forms of the practice. The second stage, Greenwashing 2.0: The Dynamic Management of Stakeholders, Intermediaries, and Issues Era, is characterized by the expansion of greenwashing into broader domains and the involvement of new stakeholders (governments, investors) and intermediaries (certification bodies); during this phase, corporate efforts to avoid perceived contradictions and stakeholder pressures shaped behavior; new concepts such as Brownwashing and Wokewashing—referring to misleading claims about social issues—emerged during this period. The final stage, Greenwashing 3.0: The Era of Future-Oriented Narrative Creation, centers on long-term, future-oriented, and often uncertain pledges such as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria and net-zero commitments; due to the long-term nature of net-zero pledges, this stage opens new mechanisms that prioritize future aspirations over verifiable claims about current performance, a phenomenon termed Futurewashing.

^{Representative Visual of Greenwashing (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)}

Greenwashing also emerges not only through direct claims but also through the restriction of communication or the redirection of attention; this has led to the development of new tactics and associated concepts. Brownwashing refers to companies deliberately downplaying or concealing their environmental achievements to avoid negative reactions such as accusations of hypocrisy; this strategy is also known as Strategic Silence or Greenhushing.

Another tactic, Greenlighting, involves focusing excessive attention on a specific green activity to divert attention from less environmentally favorable practices. When a company delays its environmental target timelines to a distant future date to avoid meeting current obligations, this is termed Greenrinsing.

Misleading claims regarding social responsibility goals are expressed through the concept of Wokewashing (such as Femvertising for gender equality or Diversitywashing for social justice). This occurs when companies adopt these values in their communications without genuinely embracing them. Additionally, ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) rating systems or certifications designed to prevent greenwashing can themselves be exploited by companies to support their claims, leading to Certification and Metric Greenwashing.

^{Representative Visual of Greenwashing (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)}

Greenwashing generates systemic risks that affect not only individual consumers but also market integrity and global environmental goals. One consequence is Erosion of Consumer Trust; greenwashing reduces consumers’ confidence in green products and their sense of “green trust,” thereby damaging brand reputation. Moreover, it complicates consumers’ ability to distinguish between genuinely green products and those that merely appear green, creating Green Confusion (YKK), and increases Green Perceived Risk (YAR)—the expectation of negative environmental outcomes associated with purchasing decisions.

High public perception of greenwashing reduces the perceived value of brands and affects Green Brand Equity (GBE); greenwashing can undermine corporate reputation and firm value. At the economic level, greenwashing increases skepticism toward environmental claims, preventing truly eco-friendly products and businesses from gaining competitive advantages, thereby slowing the transition to a green economy and creating a Green Market Blocking effect.

Greenwashing generates Legal Risks through consequences such as litigation, regulatory investigations, fines, and reputational damage; in response, the European Union aims to combat this through the 2024/825 Green Claims Directive, which seeks to ban such practices. On the other hand, the EU’s regulatory efforts to increase information obligations may lead consumers to experience Information Overload and hinder their ability to effectively use the information, thereby complicating efforts to combat greenwashing.

_{Representative Visual of Greenwashing (Generated by Artificial Intelligence)}

The European Union (EU) has launched a series of comprehensive legal regulations and strategic initiatives to address the problem of greenwashing, which is said to undermine market integrity and the transition to a green economy; these efforts are conducted under the European Green Deal (EGD). One of the EU’s key steps in this area was the adoption of the 2024/825 Green Claims Directive (GCD), designed to enable consumers to make informed decisions and protect them from deceptive practices; this directive amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD).

Through amendments to the UCPD, general claims about environmental benefits—such as labeling a product as “carbon neutral” based on carbon offsetting—are prohibited unless based on certification schemes established by public authorities or widely recognized standards. The use of sustainability labels not backed by such official schemes is also banned, as is the use of vague and unsubstantiated general environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly” or “green.” Furthermore, any claims about future environmental performance must now be supported by a detailed and realistic implementation plan and subject to regular verification by independent third parties. The directive also amends the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD), mandating that consumers be provided with more information on product durability, repairability, and the availability of software updates.

The European Commission has launched the Green Claims Verification Initiative (GCD) to ensure that corporate environmental claims are reliable, comparable, and verifiable; this initiative requires claims to be verified before public disclosure (ex ante) and certified for compliance. In the financial sector, the EU has developed regulatory tools such as the EU Taxonomy Regulation (2020/852), which defines criteria for environmentally sustainable economic activities; the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which imposes stricter sustainability reporting obligations on large companies; and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR - 2019/2088), which requires investors to be informed about the sustainability risks of financial products.

Greenwashing today is a multidimensional phenomenon that spans nearly every sector and domain, from product-level claims to corporate strategies and even international political pledges. The growing popularity of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria and “net-zero” carbon commitments has led to a surge in the number of environmental claims.

Energy, Fossil Fuels, and Industrial Sectors are frequently cited examples; organizations in these sectors often attempt to portray themselves as environmentally friendly or conceal the environmental impacts of their core activities.

Major oil and fossil fuel companies have sought to reposition themselves as “energy companies” rather than merely oil companies through corporate rebranding and extensive public relations campaigns, a move widely criticized as greenwashing. Coal companies have run advertisements promoting “clean coal,” while large industrial and manufacturing firms have launched campaigns highlighting their environmental initiatives while struggling to comply with clean air regulations. Electricity distribution companies have sometimes used misleading information in their reports on greenhouse gas emissions, an approach interpreted as brownwashing (under-reporting).

In the Automotive and Transportation Sector, greenwashing commonly occurs through claims about vehicle emissions and eco-friendly fuels. The automotive industry created one of the most notorious greenwashing examples by using software to manipulate emissions tests; companies have been criticized for running environmental campaigns while simultaneously producing high-carbon vehicles. Airlines have faced legal complaints over claims of “carbon neutrality” or “sustainable aviation fuel,” with some airlines’ carbon offsetting claims leading to lawsuits under unfair commercial practices. Even in public transportation, vehicles powered by fossil fuels have been described as “green” or “eco-friendly,” constituting greenwashing examples.

In recent years, one of the key areas of greenwashing has been the Finance and Investment Sectors. In the race to offer ESG-compliant investments, some ESG funds have been found to engage in greenwashing through misleading claims. Corporate net-zero carbon reduction pledges and ESG targets have created a new greenwashing mechanism by offering future-oriented promises that are difficult to verify. Some of these pledges, particularly those relying on carbon offsetting methods, have been questioned for their credibility. Financial institutions and banks have been banned from advertising emission reduction plans and have faced legal claims for continuing to finance polluting producers. ESG rating systems intended to monitor sustainability goals can themselves be exploited by firms to support their own claims.

In Consumer Products, Food, Accommodation, and Fashion Sectors, which directly target consumers, greenwashing is widespread through product packaging, labeling, and advertising. In the food and beverage industry, major producers have faced legal challenges for distorting goals to reduce plastic pollution or for labeling themselves as “sustainable and environmentally friendly” despite contributing to plastic pollution. Bottled water brands have been cited as examples of greenwashing through claims of “carbon neutrality,” and ready-meal brands have altered their logos’ colors to suggest environmental responsibility. Fast fashion and outerwear brands have been sued for claiming their products are environmentally safe while containing harmful chemicals. In cosmetics and personal care products, items containing harmful substances such as microplastics are marketed as “pure and natural,” falling within this category of greenwashing.