Greenwashing Exposed: 30+ Real-Life Examples & the 7 Sins Behind Them
- Valinda
- Dec 12, 2023
- 26 min read
Updated: Jul 15
Not everything labeled “eco-friendly” is actually good for the planet.
In a world where green sells, companies are racing to position themselves as sustainable — but not all of them are telling the whole truth. From “carbon-neutral” flights to “conscious” fashion lines, countless brands are using environmental buzzwords to win over conscious consumers — while continuing business as usual behind the scenes.
This deceptive practice is called greenwashing, and it’s more common (and more damaging) than most people realize.
In this guide, you’ll discover:
The 7 sins of greenwashing — the tactics companies use to mislead you
30+ real-world examples from 2024 and beyond
How to spot greenwashing yourself so you can shop smarter
If you care about sustainability, this is the must-read guide that will change how you see every “green” label.
Definition of Greenwashing
The Cambridge Dictionary defines greenwashing as behavior or activities that make people believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it really is.
This encapsulates actions or practices undertaken by a company to create a false perception or belief among people that the company is actively and significantly contributing to environmental protection. In reality, the company might not be genuinely committed to eco-friendly practices or might engage in superficial efforts to appear environmentally responsible without making substantial, meaningful changes to benefit the environment.
What Is Greenwashing?
Greenwashing is the practice where companies make misleading or unsubstantiated claims about how environmentally friendly their products, services, or operations are. It’s a marketing tactic designed to appeal to consumers who care about sustainability—without making meaningful changes behind the scenes.
In other words, greenwashing happens when brands spend more time and money on promoting their "green image" than on minimizing their environmental impact.
The term originated in the 1980s, but its relevance has only grown. As consumers have become more eco-conscious, businesses have responded—not always with integrity. Today, greenwashing can be found in nearly every industry, from fashion to food to fuel.
These deceptive practices can be subtle, like using vague language ("all-natural," "eco-friendly") or suggestive visuals (leaves, green packaging), or more direct, such as false certifications or unverifiable carbon offset claims.
But why is greenwashing a problem? Because it erodes trust, misleads well-meaning consumers, and slows real environmental progress. It also creates an uneven playing field—where genuinely sustainable brands struggle to compete with those who only appear to be green.
The 7 Sins of Greenwashing: How Companies Mislead You
To understand how greenwashing works, it helps to break it down into patterns. Environmental marketing agency TerraChoice identified seven common strategies — or “sins” — that companies use to make their products or services appear more sustainable than they really are.
These deceptive techniques continue to dominate the marketplace in 2025, often hidden behind feel-good branding and vague claims. Here's how they work — and what to look out for.
1. The Hidden Trade-Off
A company highlights a single positive environmental feature while ignoring bigger negative impacts.
Example: A paper brand promotes its “sustainable forestry” practices, but its manufacturing process relies on fossil fuels and toxic chemicals.
Why it matters: It creates a false sense of responsibility while masking larger environmental harm.
2. No Proof
Claims are made without any accessible evidence or third-party certification to back them up.
Example: A laundry detergent brand claims to be “biodegradable” but provides no lab data or certification.
What to check: Look for legitimate, verifiable certifications like USDA Organic, EU Ecolabel, or GOTS.
3. Vagueness
The use of broad, undefined terms like “green,” “natural,” or “eco-friendly” without explanation.
Example: A skincare brand markets itself as “clean beauty,” but never explains what that means or which ingredients are excluded.
The risk: Vague language often sounds sustainable but says very little — intentionally.
4. Irrelevance
A company makes a truthful claim that’s technically accurate but completely meaningless in context.
Example: Labeling a product “CFC-free,” even though CFCs have been banned for decades.
Bottom line: These claims are meant to distract from more relevant environmental concerns.
5. The Lesser of Two Evils
A product is positioned as greener than alternatives, even though the entire category is problematic.
Example: “Organic cigarettes” or “fuel-efficient SUVs.” Yes, they may be slightly better — but still harmful.
Why it's misleading: It encourages consumption of harmful products by offering a “less bad” version.
6. Fibbing
Straight-up lies or fraudulent environmental claims.
Example: A product falsely claims certification by a non-existent organization, or makes up its own eco-label.
Watch for: Fake seals, unverifiable awards, or green claims that contradict industry reports.
7. False Labels
The use of graphics, colors, or design elements that imply certification or environmental friendliness — when none exists.
Example: Green leaves, recycled icons, or “eco” seals created by the company itself.
Why it works: These symbols play on visual cues we associate with sustainability, even if they mean nothing.
Understanding these seven greenwashing tactics is the first step toward becoming a more informed consumer. In the next section, we’ll show you how these sins show up in the real world — with over 30 brand examples from fashion, travel, personal care, and more.
Is Greenwashing Illegal?
Greenwashing itself isn't explicitly illegal in most jurisdictions, but it operates in a gray area of ethics and consumer protection. While there might not be direct laws against greenwashing, deceptive advertising or false claims can fall under consumer protection laws and regulations. However, this largely depends on the specific nature of the misleading information and the laws of the country or region. Greenwashing can lead to legal consequences if it violates existing advertising standards or laws related to false or misleading claims. As our world increasingly values transparency and ethical practices, the line between what's legal and what's seen as ethically responsible blurs, demanding not just compliance with the law, but a genuine commitment to truthfulness and environmental responsibility.
Real-Life Examples of Greenwashing (Updated for 2025)
Now that you know the seven sins of greenwashing, let’s explore how they show up in the real world. From fashion giants to airlines, major brands have faced backlash for misleading environmental claims. Below are 30+ examples of greenwashing organized by industry — all of which highlight how sustainability can be used more as a marketing tactic than a meaningful commitment.
Tech & Electronics
Although less frequently mentioned, tech companies are not immune to greenwashing — particularly around energy use and materials.
Samsung
Samsung has touted its use of “ocean‑bound plastic” in packaging for products like smartphones and TVs. While the initiative is commendable, independent reporting raises questions about its actual impact. Samsung’s 2023 sustainability report states that it incorporated recycled ocean-bound resin into certain product lines. However, critics caution that brands using small percentages of recycled plastic can distract from larger environmental issues, such as device longevity, repairability, and energy usage . The Verge notes that while almost 9% of plastic ever produced has been recycled, the majority still piles up in landfills or oceans — branding focused on “recycled” plastic risks being more marketing than solution.
Google has set a bold goal to run entirely on 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030—meaning nonstop renewable power. Yet a recent Kairos Fellowship report questions the credibility of this claim, noting that Google’s rapid emissions rise (1,515% from 2010 to 2024) outpaced claims of improvement. The company relies heavily on Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), which merely purchase renewable attributes and do not confirm actual energy usage. As the Guardian confirms, Google's Scope 2 emissions (from electricity) rose 820% in that period. While their sustainability messaging highlights REC matching, data‑center experts assert that Google still consumes energy from fossil‑based grids, making the narrative more hopeful than factual .
Microsoft
Microsoft aims to be “carbon negative by 2030,” intending to remove more CO₂ than it emits. Although this is a strong headline, it rests heavily on speculative technologies like carbon capture, which remain largely unproven at scale . Additionally, Microsoft continues partnerships with major fossil-fuel corporations—a contradiction to its green branding. This juxtaposition highlights how greenwashing can occur not through false claims, but by pairing eco-aspirations with conflicting actions.
Dell
Dell markets its laptops and packaging as using “recyclable materials” and supports take-back programs for end-of-life electronics . The company highlights ambitions like “for every metric ton sold, a metric ton will be reused or recycled”. However, critics point out that consumer electronics remain notoriously difficult to recycle due to mixed materials, embedded batteries, and specialized components. and there's limited transparency on what percentage truly enters circular streams. Research confirms that only about 9% of plastic is recycled globally . Moreover, Dell’s program appears to emphasize take-back logistics over product design for repairability, raising questions about the depth of its circular economy efforts .
Apple
Apple’s messaging positions its devices as environmentally progressive and carbon-neutral in operation. Nonetheless, critics argue this narrative overstates the company’s environmental leadership. Wired observed that many big-tech companies, including Apple, design devices that are difficult to repair and recycle, contributing to mounting electronic waste . The focus on carbon footprint tends to overlook broader lifecycle issues, such as resource extraction and planned obsolescence, making the company's “green” storyline incomplete and potentially misleading.
Travel & Aviation
Travel brands are increasingly under pressure to appear sustainable, but their carbon-heavy operations make truly green claims difficult to substantiate.
Delta
In the realm of wanderlust and globetrotting, there's an innate desire to explore and experience the world. But let's face the jet stream: achieving true carbon neutrality in air travel feels as elusive as catching a cloud. With airplanes guzzling fossil fuels and soaring CO2 emissions, the green credentials of flights are, well, up in the air. Yet, in this sky-high scenario, Delta Air Lines attempted the ultimate magic trick: selling the dream of carbon neutrality. Their napkin proclamations and billion-dollar pledges for carbon offsetting had a shiny allure. However, the reality on the tarmac looked starkly different when a class action lawsuit called them out for branding themselves as "the world's first carbon-neutral airline." It's a glaring reminder of the persuasive power of marketing and the urgent necessity for regulations against such greenwashing escapades. This case isn't just turbulence for Delta; it's a beacon signaling the need for truth in environmental claims.
RyanAir
In 2020, amidst the discomfort of cramped seats and those pesky mid-flight ads, Ryanair found itself in the spotlight once again, this time called out by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK. They boldly touted themselves as Europe’s “lowest emissions airline,” a claim that turned out to be more wishful thinking than reality. The ASA promptly slammed the brakes on these misleading ads. This saga with Ryanair serves as a glaring reminder, especially in industries like aviation, where eco-credentials are brandished like prized possessions, that not all claims take flight into truth. It's a cautionary tale urging extra scrutiny in the face of overstated green promises that might just be thin air.
Lufthansa
In a verdict that took flight in March, the ASA slammed Germany's aviation giant, Lufthansa, for a misleading ad campaign that soared beyond truthfulness. The advertising watchdog scrutinized Lufthansa's claim of 'protecting its future' painted against a picturesque plane, cautioning that customers might misconstrue this as a green signal for eco-friendly flights. The ASA wasn't buying it, highlighting the lack of evidence showcasing significant environmental efforts, despite Lufthansa's lofty carbon-cutting goals for 2030 and a carbon-neutral dream by 2050. This ruling served as a turbulence warning, demanding Lufthansa to get grounded in truth, ensuring their environmental claims align with reality, and providing concrete proof to back their soaring promises.
Etihad
The ASA's finger-wagging at Etihad Airways over their Facebook ads shook up the narrative of their "louder, bolder approach to sustainable aviation." Much like Lufthansa, Etihad got called out for spinning claims that painted a rosier picture than the reality and failing to back up their assertions. Their ads boasted about bagging Airlineratings.com’s environmental airline of the year title, boasting about cutting single-use plastics and flying the sleekest, greenest planes in the sky to minimize their footprint. Yet, these noble efforts didn’t quite add up to the grand claim of "sustainable aviation." Etihad's ambitious goals of hitting net-zero emissions by 2050 and slashing 20% by 2025 were missing in action from their ads. The ASA's verdict? These ads fell short by not highlighting their long-term aspirations or spelling out their sustainability goals, leaving the term "sustainable aviation" floating without substantial evidence.
Food & Beverage
From plant-based packaging to carbon-neutral coffee, food companies have embraced sustainability messaging — but not always responsibly.
Unilever
Unilever faced the music in 2022 when the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK called them out for their unclear environmental claims surrounding Persil, the much-loved cleaning brand. As eco-concerned consumers multiplied, Unilever ramped up its green image, but their ‘Dirt is Good’ TV ads got the red card for making unsubstantiated boasts about being ‘kinder on the planet’. It’s the classic greenwashing play, spruced up with feeble scenes—a woman hashtagging #plantmoretrees and kids doing their bit with plastic garbage—but none of it truly explaining how Persil earned its eco-halo. The ASA took a jab at the ‘unclear’ nature of their claims, questioning what exactly Persil was kinder on the planet than—maybe bleach? Let’s face it, your regular laundry detergent can’t exactly moonlight as an environmental superhero. The moral? In a world craving authenticity, if you’re going to shout about your environmental deeds, you better back them up. Hashtags and flimsy scenes won’t cut it anymore.
Oatly
The clash between Oatly and the United Kingdom Advertising Standards Authority stirred quite a storm over unsubstantiated claims. Picture this: an ad comparing Oatly's milk to dairy milk in a showdown of carbon footprints. But as complaints flooded in, the evidence supporting those bold claims seemed as elusive as a myth. It's a classic case of greenwashing where promises don't match the proof. The kicker? The ad boldly declared a 73% reduction in CO2 emissions, but the ASA saw through the haze. Turns out, that eye-catching stat was only for one Oatly product, not the whole lineup, a fact the ad failed to make crystal clear. Oatly’s response? A nod toward needing to fine-tune their scientific storytelling. This clash reminds us: in the world of advertising, truth isn’t just in the eye of the beholder; it's in the evidence presented.
Quorn
In 2020, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) caught Quorn Foods red-handed for their advertising claims surrounding the Thai Wonder Grains lunch pot. Promoted as a solution to combat climate change by purportedly aiding in reducing carbon footprints, the advert left a glaring question unanswered: who exactly was benefiting from this claim? It appeared that the company's assertion of carbon footprint reduction was aimed at Quorn Foods themselves, not the everyday consumer trying to make eco-conscious choices. The ASA investigation revealed the ad’s misleading nature, pointing out the impossibility of verifying whether this new product genuinely lessened Quorn's carbon footprint. It's a telling example of how companies can blur the lines between their environmental responsibilities and clever marketing, leaving consumers to navigate the complexities of genuine sustainability.
Innocent
Amidst the flurry of green-tinted marketing strategies, 2022 brought a showdown between reality and manufactured eco-friendliness. Enter Plastic Rebellion, the watchdog unmasking deceitful endeavors within the greenwashing landscape. In the UK, Innocent Drinks found themselves under scrutiny for their dissonant actions. Nestled under Coca Cola's umbrella, a giant in plastic pollution, Innocent's embrace of single-use plastic clashed starkly with their whimsical TV commercials. Picture this: cute critters serenading about recycling and saving the planet, an attempt to cloak a contradictory reality in a facade of environmental benevolence. The sheer audacity! It's the epitome of greenwashing, a farcical attempt that would've been laughable if it weren't for the catastrophic implications of plastic pollution. Fortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) intervened, banishing these ludicrous ads into oblivion after Plastic Rebellion sounded the alarm. Yet, it beckons a question: in the quest for authenticity, did the PR wizards truly believe their charade would fly?
Keurig
In 2022, Keurig found itself in hot water with the Competition Bureau in Canada, and it wasn't over their coffee temperature settings. Nope, it was their recycling claims that got them in trouble. They made it sound like recycling their single-use plastic coffee pods was as easy as pie—just pop off the top, toss it in the recycling bin, and voila! But here's the kicker: most recycling centers didn't accept these pods, leaving Canadians scratching their heads with a coffee pod conundrum. Even in the provinces where they were accepted, the instructions missed the mark. Toronto ended up with 90 tonnes of rejected pods in their recycling bins, talk about a recycling mess! Keurig got hit with a $3 million fine and a stern order to set the record straight on their packaging. Turns out, recycling isn't always a simple sip-and-go affair.
Personal Care & Household Products
Greenwashing is rampant in products we use daily — from soaps to shampoo to home cleaners.
Amazon
Amazon's "Aware" range, marketed as a beacon of sustainability, faced a damning revelation when The Telegraph dug into its environmental claims. Unveiling the ugly truth, these supposedly eco-friendly products arrived swathed in single-use plastic, traversing thousands of miles to reach their destinations. Amazon's defense rested on a "carbon-neutral" stance, attributing it to offsetting measures. Yet, the company's grand promises of steering toward a more sustainable future were met with skepticism. Baroness Jenny Jones, a Green Party peer, minced no words, labeling Amazon's campaign as "greenwashing on a grotesque scale." She scoffed at the attempt to coat individually plastic-wrapped items from distant corners of the globe with a veneer of green while casting doubt on the efficacy of offsetting strategies. Amazon's checkered past regarding environmental impact only added fuel to the fire. In 2021, the tech giant confessed to emitting a staggering 71.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, surpassing the carbon output of entire nations like Austria, Israel, and Singapore, not to mention around 150 others. This marked a staggering 40% surge from their 2019 emissions of 51.2 million tonnes, casting a shadow on their claimed commitment to sustainability.
Hefty
In a tale that unraveled in 2021, the spotlight fell on Hefty Recycling Bags, facing a pointed call-out by Lisabeth Hanscom. These bags boldly proclaimed their prowess, boasting they could handle any recyclable thrown their way. Yet, this claim didn't withstand scrutiny. In a class-action lawsuit, it was revealed that not only were these bags non-recyclable themselves, but they were also transforming potentially recyclable items into landfill fodder. The very promise of eco-friendliness crumbled under the weight of reality, with these bags accused of being no better, perhaps even worse, than your standard bin liners. This legal saga hinges on more than just claims—it strikes at the heart of California's anti-greenwashing laws, questioning the integrity of branding in the realm of environmental responsibility.
Windex
Back in 2019, Windex found itself in a bit of a mess with its packaging claims, proudly touting that its bottles were crafted entirely from recycled ocean plastic. However, as waves of scrutiny crashed in, it became evident that their claims were more soap suds than substance. This situation unfolded as a classic example of greenwashing, where the reality behind the claims failed to hold water .Environmental groups and consumers swiftly called foul, pointing out the discrepancy between the marketing pitch and reality. Responding to the uproar, Windex tweaked its messaging, now specifying that they use ocean-bound plastic waste, sourced before it hits the waves. Yet, even this shift drew skepticism from some environmentalists who argue that relying on ocean-bound plastic doesn't resolve the larger issue of plastic pollution. The case illuminates the fine line between eco-friendly claims and genuine sustainable practices, sparking a broader conversation about the real impact behind green marketing tactics.
Ikea
In a shocking revelation that shook the environmental world, IKEA, known as a titan in furniture retail, faced accusations of greenwashing in 2020. The Swedish giant, consuming a staggering 1% of the world's wood annually, fell under scrutiny when Earthsight delved into their practices. An exhaustive 18-month investigation uncovered a disturbing truth: IKEA's beech chairs were crafted from wood illegally sourced from the delicate forests of the Ukrainian Carpathians, a sanctuary for endangered lynx and bears. The plot thickens as these wooden wonders boasted certification from the esteemed Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a beacon of eco-credentials in the timber industry. The unsettling twist? Despite FSC's prestigious stamp, the council greenlit the very wood entangled in this controversy, casting shadows over the credibility of a once-revered global timber authority.
Fashion & Apparel
The fashion industry is one of the biggest offenders when it comes to greenwashing. With rising consumer demand for eco-conscious clothing, many fast fashion brands have responded — but not always honestly.
H&M
In the fashion industry, the allure of sustainability often masks a murkier reality, and H&M’s case in the 2021 report by the Changing Markets Foundation is a glaring example. This isn't just your run-of-the-mill greenwashing; this is a staggering 96% of their claims failing to live up to their eco-friendly facade. It’s not just a small fib; it's a virtual sea of deception. The report shines a piercing light on the misleading claims made by major fashion brands, unmasking the industry’s penchant for dressing up insincere commitments in the cloak of 'conscious' or 'sustainable' fashion. It’s a wakeup call, urging us to reconsider where we spend our fashion dollars, reminding us that beneath the glossy facade, there might just be a trail of broken eco-promises.
Amidst the glitz and glamour of the fashion industry, SHEIN’s latest strategic move seems like a step toward aligning with modern ethical standards. Hiring an Environmental, Social, and Governance officer gives off the air of commitment to sustainability, yet peeling back the layers reveals a different story. SHEIN, known for its lightning-fast fashion turnover, attempts to cloak itself in the shroud of eco-consciousness while its core model thrives on exploiting both labor and the environment, leaving this announcement feeling more like a hollow echo. It's a scene playing out across the fashion landscape—the big names, from Zara to ASOS, making grand pledges toward sustainability. Consumers, especially the environmentally concerned Gen Z, demand more from the brands they support, pushing for genuine action against the climate crisis. SHEIN’s move may seem like a nod in the right direction, but convincing a savvy and discerning audience will require more than just smoke and mirrors.
Zara
Step into Zara's world of "efficient stores," where promises of 100% energy efficiency echo through their marketing. They tout systems that regulate water and energy usage, sleek Eco-Efficient Store Manuals, and an apparent dedication to minimizing their operational footprint. But hold on a second. What about the bigger picture? Behind these glossy claims lies a gap in their environmental narrative. While they champion energy efficiency within their stores, the shadows of their supply chain loom large. Textile waste during manufacturing remains unchecked, and despite setting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets, evidence of progress is scant. Let's face it: Zara's rapid fashion turnover, fueled by trendy styles and frequent new arrivals, inherently clashes with environmental harmony. Energy-efficient stores might be a start, but they're no silver bullet for the deeper issues entrenched in their business model.
Boohoo
Boohoo's headline-grabbing move—snagging Kourtney Kardashian as the face of their sustainability push during New York Fashion Week—stirred more controversy than applause, especially in the circle of fashion's eco-watchdogs. Susannah Jaffer, the trailblazing mind behind Zerrin, Singapore's hub for sustainable fashion, minced no words in her LinkedIn takedown: "Greenwashing strikes again, courtesy of Boohoo, one of the kings of ultra fast-fashion. Any eco-campaign that turns a blind eye to the harsh realities of their supply chain? That's textbook greenwashing, plain and simple." Zerrin spotlighted Boohoo's 'green' collection, highlighting the less-than-green truth behind the recycled materials paraded by the brand. As Jaffer put it, those recycled fibers might tout sustainability, but their recycling complexity and inability to break down easily were glaring gaps in Boohoo's green narrative. Moreover, she underscored the bitter truth that this collection's production hardly offsets Boohoo's flood of thousands of monthly items—still churned out from wallet-friendly, planet-unfriendly materials. Jaffer's parting shot? “The most eco-friendly move Kourtney could've made? Saying 'no'. But let's face it, money talks louder than sustainability.
Finance
As sustainability becomes a key concern for investors and consumers alike, financial institutions have increasingly embraced green branding. However, many banks and investment firms have been accused of exaggerating their environmental commitments — often through vague ESG claims, selective reporting, or funding fossil fuel projects behind the scenes. These examples reveal how greenwashing isn’t limited to products — it’s also deeply embedded in financial marketing and investment strategies.
HSBC
Imagine strolling past bus stops adorned with promises of a greener future, only to discover that behind the facade lies a different reality. HSBC, a financial giant, found itself in the spotlight when its adverts boasting bold environmental commitments were pulled off stage. With posters proclaiming ambitions to finance a trillion dollars for transitioning to net zero and planting millions of trees, the bank painted a verdant picture. However, the Advertising Standards Authority unveiled the brushstrokes of deception, ruling that these ads implied a wholesome environmental effort that HSBC wasn't truly delivering. While celebrating their eco-friendly initiatives, the bank conveniently turned a blind eye to its significant support for industries driving greenhouse gas emissions. It's a stark reminder that behind every glossy campaign lies a crucial lesson in corporate integrity and the cost of overlooking inconvenient truths.
Deutsche Bank
A thunderous echo rattled the financial world when police raided the offices of Deutsche Bank's investment powerhouse, DWS, in Germany. It's a tale teeming with allegations of misleading "green" investments, marking a potential milestone in the fight against greenwashing by a major multinational corporation. The accusation? DWS allegedly overstated its commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles, asserting that over half of its colossal $900 billion assets adhered to these criteria in its 2020 annual report. Asoka Woehrmann, the helm of DWS, swiftly stepped down in the wake of the raid, defending the company's intentions by emphasizing the time it takes to realize such ambitious goals. Yet, amidst the fervor, this saga reminds us that the journey towards genuine sustainability isn't always a straightforward path. The case continues to unfold, casting a piercing light on the complex intersection of finance, ethics, and environmental responsibility.
Active Super
In a world where financial giants wave the sustainability flag, the recent finger-pointing by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) at Active Super (AS) is a wake-up call. Imagine, a superannuation fund praised for its ethical investments, now under the ASIC microscope for alleged greenwashing tactics. AS, once celebrated for its commitment to responsible investments and hailed as a leader in the ESG arena, now faces scrutiny over investments contradicting its public promises. With ASIC uncovering holdings in businesses deemed detrimental to both people and the planet, including those in Russia despite earlier vows, it's a stark reminder of the blurry line between financial interests and genuine sustainability. While AS scrambles to scrub off misleading claims, this investigation unveils a deeper narrative about the accountability and integrity expected from financial powerhouses. As the case unfolds, it's a sharp reminder that when money talks, honesty often takes a back seat.
DBS
In a LinkedIn post that stirred up a whirlwind of controversy, Piyush Gupta, the CEO of Southeast Asia's largest bank, DBS, found himself in hot water. Defending the bank's decision to continue financing coal power until 2039 in regions like Indonesia due to energy poverty, Gupta's speech drew sharp criticism. Claiming the move was a "difficult moral decision," Gupta's words clashed with DBS's advertising slogan of being "More like an eco-warrior, less like a bank." Impact investors and climate experts erupted with outrage, accusing the bank of using energy poverty as an excuse for delaying climate action. While DBS has made strides in climate action, setting interim net-zero targets, it's been a rough year for their marketing. Earlier, they faced heat for gender stereotyping in an ad, despite Gupta's earlier boasts about the bank's gender equality efforts featured in the Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index.
Oil & Energy Sector
Few industries have a larger environmental footprint than oil and gas — yet some of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies have launched aggressive sustainability campaigns in recent years. These efforts often highlight renewable energy investments or low-carbon initiatives, while downplaying the continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Below are several examples where green messaging didn’t align with reality.
Volkswagen
Volkswagen's "Clean Diesel" campaign stands as a striking example in the realm of greenwashing lore. Picture this: sleek ads touting eco-friendly diesel cars with promises of lower emissions and stellar fuel efficiency. Yet, behind the scenes, a scandal of monumental proportions brewed. In a plot twist that rocked the automotive world, it was uncovered that Volkswagen had orchestrated an emissions-testing ruse. Their vehicles, equipped with covert software, duped the tests while spewing out pollutants far beyond permissible limits on the open road. This revelation shattered the facade of Volkswagen's green persona, shining a glaring light on the murky truth behind their touted environmental consciousness. The fallout? A stark reminder of the dire need for independent scrutiny and unyielding transparency when it comes to scrutinizing the green claims of corporate giants.
Shell
Ah, the year 2020—the year Shell's greenwashing antics got the internet buzzing. Gaslighting the masses about environmental responsibility, Shell, responsible for a hefty chunk of global CO2 emissions, had the audacity to pose a Twitter question on emission reduction. Seriously? The backlash was swift and savage, with just 199 responses, yet it sparked a wildfire of criticism, even catching the attention of heavyweights like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg.
This incident? Just the tip of the greenwashing iceberg. Karma, however, had its say. An EU court laid down the law, mandating Shell to slash their carbon emissions by a staggering 45% by 2030, setting a groundbreaking precedent for corporate emissions reduction. And surprise, surprise—Shell’s no stranger to greenwashing sagas. It took an entire year, but another case surfaced, leaving us wondering: Shell and greenwashing—seems like a never-ending saga, doesn’t it?
Shell (again)
In a bold move, the gas and oil giant rolled out a glitzy marketing blitz in June 2022, splashing billboards across Bristol and flooding screens with YouTube ads and TV commercials. Shell aimed to cast itself as a beacon of clean energy, touting e-vehicle charging stations and proudly boasting about powering thousands of homes with 100% renewable electricity. Yet, hidden behind the flashy claims was a sobering truth – these billboards were spinning a narrative that conveniently omitted the bigger picture. Adfree Cities saw through the smoke and mirrors, calling foul on Shell's selective storytelling. While the company dipped its toes into clean energy, the lion's share of its business still churned out a whopping 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions last year alone. Despite a distant net-zero goal for 2050, the reality painted a different, less eco-friendly tale. It took a year for the campaign to be banned, but the lingering question remains: when will stricter regulations truly crack down on these misleading fossil fuel narratives?
Petronas
Petronas took a swing at greenwashing its oil and gas endeavors in an ad that had heads turning and the ASA hitting the brakes. Picture this: a heart-tugging voiceover delivered by a child, acknowledging the global energy surge and subtly suggesting that Petronas was part of the environmental puzzle. But wait, there's more! The ad dared to claim Petronas as a forward-thinking eco-warrior, paving the way for a sustainable future. The ASA, however, wasn't buying it. They called out the ad's clever spin, stating it misled viewers into thinking Petronas was already on the green track, slashing emissions and diving into renewables. Reality check? Petronas pumped out a staggering 54 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in just one year, as per its own report. The ASA slammed the brakes on the ad, ordering Petronas to steer clear of such misleading maneuvers in the future. It's a reminder that slick marketing won't fly when it comes to glossing over hard facts about environmental impact.
Repsol
Repsol's attempt to paint its fossil fuel endeavors with a green brush played out vividly in an advertisement flaunted on The Financial Times’ website. In a bold assertion, the Spanish oil giant touted its strides in developing biofuels and synthetic fuels, pitching a narrative of achieving net-zero emissions. A sleek car graced the ad with the tagline “Renewable fuels for more sustainable mobility.” However, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) stepped in, highlighting the misleading nature of the ad. It suggested Repsol was heavily invested in these eco-friendly fuels, conveniently masking the minuscule impact they make compared to the colossal carbon footprint stemming from its extensive oil and gas fields spanning 40,660 acres. The staggering 171 million tonnes of greenhouse gases the company was accountable for in 2021 speak volumes, surpassing the emissions of entire nations like the Philippines, the Netherlands, or Nigeria. This rebuke also underscored Repsol's failure to explicitly clarify that its green fuels formed just a fraction of its strategy towards achieving net-zero emissions.
Other Notable Cases
While many greenwashing incidents come from well-known industries like fashion and aviation, misleading environmental claims can be found across nearly every sector. The following examples highlight additional brands and campaigns that have drawn criticism for presenting a greener image than their practices support. These cases further show how greenwashing can take many forms — from overstated carbon goals to deceptive packaging.
Verra
In a staggering revelation that shook the climate protection landscape, it's been uncovered that a whopping 94% of rainforest carbon credits certified by Verra, the world's largest certifier, seemingly did zilch for our climate. A probing investigation by The Guardian, alongside German powerhouse Die Zeit and non-profit SourceMaterial, pulled back the curtain on Verra's rainforest protection program, exposing a colossal failure in safeguarding these critical ecosystems. Out of a claimed 94.9 million credits—each supposedly slashing a tonne of carbon emissions—only a mere 5.5 million credits made any tangible dent in reducing carbon. Shockingly, Verra stands accused of inflating the peril to these forests by a mind-blowing 400%, painting a rosier picture of their conservation efforts than reality. This bombshell revelation raises serious doubts about whether big players like Disney, Shell, Gucci, easyJet, and even the iconic band Pearl Jam have genuinely offset their carbon footprint as claimed, sending reverberations through the realm of environmental responsibility. Amidst the uproar, Verra vehemently contests these eye-opening findings, sparking a contentious debate about the true impact of their environmental commitments.
FIFA
FIFA's promise of a carbon-neutral 2022 World Cup in Qatar fell far short of reality. Our deep dive into the tournament's carbon footprint uncovered a staggering truth: a whopping 4.67 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, marking this event as the most environmentally damaging World Cup to date. Outcries against FIFA's misleading assertions echoed from various quarters, prompting investigations by fairness watchdogs across the UK, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The Swiss Fairness Commission, after a rigorous probe, validated five complaints against FIFA's claims. Their verdict was damning: FIFA couldn't substantiate its carbon-neutral boast, failing to provide any evidence during the investigation. To debunk the allegations, FIFA needed to demonstrate complete carbon offsetting—essential for a claim of carbon neutrality. Sadly, they couldn't muster any proof, leaving their declaration of a green World Cup in shambles.
Michelin
Michelin, renowned not just for its top-notch tires but also for its prestigious restaurant guide, made headlines in 2015 with a grand pledge: to revive 90,000 hectares of Indonesian land ravaged by illegal logging. This ambitious endeavor, seen as the company's flagship sustainability initiative, involved planting rubber trees. However, a recent investigation led by non-profit Mighty Earth and Paris-based Voxeurop has cast a stark light on this seemingly noble project. What was financed by a hefty sum of US$95 million in green bonds turned out to be a monoculture rubber plantation. Shockingly, this plantation replaced vital habitats for orangutans, tigers, and elephants, bulldozed by Michelin's local partner, Royal Lestari Utama. The stark disparity between promise and reality unveils a troubling tale of environmental degradation cloaked as a sustainability effort.
Ocean Cleanup
Since 2013, The Ocean Cleanup has been on a mission to tackle the monstrous Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Led by Boyan Slat, a visionary Dutch former aerospace engineering student, the project aimed to scoop marine plastic out of the sea using innovative technology. However, their efforts faced a storm of skepticism in February when a video depicting plastic debris being pulled from the ocean stirred controversy. Critics, including fishermen and marine experts, raised eyebrows at the suspiciously pristine appearance of the retrieved garbage, questioning its legitimacy after years in the open waters. They demanded answers: where was the telltale biofoul? Slat defended the remarkably clean plastic, attributing its condition to the Pacific's low nutrient levels and intense exposure to ultraviolet light, factors inhibiting organic growth. Amidst the debate, The Ocean Cleanup found itself navigating a sea of doubt, defending its methods against a tide of disbelief.
Coldplay
The soaring melodies of Coldplay may captivate arenas worldwide, but behind their quest for a greener tour, controversy brewed. In a bid to ease their guilt over carbon-heavy travels, the band unveiled measures to shrink their environmental footprint. Among these initiatives, a dance floor harnessing fan enthusiasm to generate electricity stood out. Yet, it was Coldplay's liaison with Finnish oil giant Neste that stirred the most fervent backlash. Neste boasted about sustainable biofuels, but the shadows of deforestation loomed. Friends of the Earth revealed a chilling truth: Neste's palm oil suppliers razed 10,000 hectares of forests between 2019 and 2020. Critics scorned the band's partnership, branding it as a mere facade to cloak Neste's tarnished reputation. Despite pleas to sever ties, Coldplay remained intertwined with the oil company, sparking fervent debate over genuine environmental commitment versus convenient alliances.
How to Spot Greenwashing Yourself
As greenwashing becomes more sophisticated, it's not always easy to tell what's genuine and what's just clever marketing. Many brands know exactly which words and colors to use to give their products a “green” glow—without changing much about their environmental impact.
Here’s how to spot greenwashing and protect yourself from misleading eco-claims.
Look out for vague or unregulated terms
Words like "eco-friendly," "green," "non-toxic," "natural," or "sustainable" sound promising—but without context, they're often meaningless. These terms aren't regulated in most countries, so companies can use them freely without meeting any specific criteria.
What to look for instead: Clear, verifiable claims such as “made from 100% recycled materials” or “certified by GOTS” provide more reliable information.
Check for third-party certifications
True sustainability claims are usually backed by independent verification. Labels like:
These certifications require companies to meet specific environmental or ethical standards. If there’s no third-party backing, question the claim.
Watch for hidden trade-offs
A product may boast about one sustainable feature while hiding a larger negative impact. For example, a brand might promote compostable packaging while still relying on fossil fuel–based production methods or unethical labor.
A single green feature doesn’t make a product truly sustainable. Look at the full picture—including sourcing, labor, packaging, and disposal.
Investigate the company’s overall track record
If a major fast fashion brand suddenly promotes a “conscious” line, ask yourself: what about the rest of their operations? A truly sustainable brand applies those values across their business, not just in one curated product collection.
Check their website for sustainability reports, supply chain transparency, and long-term commitments—not just trendy campaigns.
Beware of green aesthetics with no substance
Design tricks like kraft-paper packaging, green leaves, or earthy color palettes can give products a natural vibe—but that’s just surface-level marketing. This is called "green labeling" and often has no connection to the product’s actual impact.
Don’t be swayed by visuals. Always read the label or look deeper into what’s being claimed.
Search for scientific evidence or disclosures
If a company claims their product is “biodegradable in 60 days,” they should be able to show proof. Look for links to lab testing, third-party analysis, or life cycle assessments (LCAs). If you can’t find these, it may be a red flag.
Ask questions and do your research
When in doubt, look the brand up. See if watchdog groups, environmental organizations, or news outlets have reported on them. Consumer awareness is growing, and brands are being held accountable more often than before.
By applying these simple checks, you can avoid falling for empty green claims and support companies that are genuinely working toward a better planet. You don’t need to be perfect—just informed.
Conclusion
Greenwashing isn’t just a marketing trick — it’s a barrier to real progress. When companies mislead consumers with vague claims, fake logos, or selective truths, they undermine the trust needed to build a truly sustainable future.
By understanding the 7 sins of greenwashing, recognizing real versus fake eco-labels, and learning from real-world examples, you’re already better equipped than most shoppers to see through the noise. But staying informed is an ongoing process.
Don’t take sustainability claims at face value. Read the label. Look up certifications. Question what isn’t being said. And most importantly, support brands that are transparent, accountable, and committed to doing better — not just appearing greener.
Every mindful purchase you make sends a clear message: honesty and sustainability matter. And when enough of us demand better, the industry will have no choice but to respond.
