Wieteke Dupain

Types of Greenwashing 🌎 Greenwashing is not a single tactic but a spectrum of actions that mislead stakeholders on sustainability performance. Recognizing the differences helps separate credible strategies from superficial claims. Green-crowding occurs when companies hide in collective initiatives. Industry groups move at the pace of their slowest member, commitments lack accountability, and action is deferred until regulations force change. Green-lighting highlights small positives to overshadow larger negatives. A company may promote one eco-friendly product line while its core business continues to pollute, or publicize donations while expanding harmful activities. Green-shifting transfers responsibility to others instead of fixing internal operations. Marketing campaigns point at consumer behavior or supply chains, shifting the carbon burden away from the company itself. Green-labelling uses misleading words, images, or badges. Terms such as “eco” or “natural” appear without standards, packaging uses green visuals to suggest sustainability, and certifications lack credible verification. Green-rinsing manipulates targets before results can be measured. Climate pledges are updated with new baselines, near-term milestones disappear, and reports are reset to make progress appear stronger than it is. Green-hushing conceals or downplays sustainability information. Companies avoid disclosing targets, keep impact data internal, and underreport achievements to reduce external scrutiny. Each of these tactics represents a different way of distorting sustainability communication. Some emphasize positives, others delay accountability, while others avoid transparency altogether. The diversity of tactics shows that greenwashing is not always obvious. It can be embedded in industry pledges, product claims, marketing strategies, or reporting practices. Stakeholders need to understand these patterns to evaluate whether sustainability actions are credible or designed to mislead. Labels, commitments, and reports require scrutiny beyond surface-level messaging. Regulators are increasingly addressing these practices. From disclosure standards to advertising rules, frameworks are evolving to close gaps that enable greenwashing. For companies, credibility will depend on transparent reporting, measurable progress, and alignment between claims and actual performance. Anything less risks falling into one of these six categories. #sustainability #business #sustainable #esg #greenwashing

186

23 commentaren

I got to talk to the FT’s Sustainable Views on the corporate ‘retreat’ from sustainability in this interesting (free to read!) piece, where I argue that the most credible corporations are clearly acknowledging the limits of single company action, and pivoting to a more focused strategy, targeting issues where the company has both legitimacy and direct leverage. Unilever first shaped this approach in early 2024, but others have since moved in a similar direction. I also try to contextualize whether the retreat is partly about dropping unrealistic goals, which were all the rage back in 2015. “The Trump-driven backlash is certainly convenient, because everybody was setting overly ambitious goals 10 years ago that they’re now missing,” Alison Taylor, clinical professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, tells Sustainable Views. “Having an excuse to basically drop disclosure is very convenient.” A March 2025 study found that around 40 per cent of companies that had set 2020 emissions targets either missed or abandoned them altogether. BP, PepsiCo and Royal Bank of Canada have all abandoned or postponed various climate targets since the start of 2025. In May, PepsiCo said it was “refining” its sustainability goals to focus on regenerative agriculture, water usage and plastic packaging. This is not necessarily a bad thing, Taylor adds. “I would much rather see more sober, restrained disclosures. Companies like PepsiCo admitting they failed, but now doubling down on areas [where] they can drive change is really interesting,” she says. She suggests companies should “focus on four things where you have legitimacy and leverage, rather than 40 things”. Other potential drivers for the change of focus include: fiscal tensions; trade tensions; shifting regulations; concerns about legal risks; concerns about unrealistic corporate target setting; and companies’ thinking on sustainability generally maturing.” In June, Aberdeen chair Douglas Flint criticised asset managers for making “ridiculously extravagant claims” that sustainable finance could save the world. Other executives have fired similar shots at the sustainability crowd: that the early-2020s bubble was too focused on morality and not enough on performance. But NYU Stern’s Taylor says this is a “false narrative” designed to “distract from the real issues”. The bigger issue, she says, is that the excitement around sustainability was based on a series of assumptions. These included that the western liberal 20th century consensus would remain in place; that organisations such as the UN would remain fit for purpose; and that regulations were heading broadly in the same direction across the world. “That theory of change is now looking very vulnerable,” she adds. https://lnkd.in/dnzyNACR

92

21 commentaren

Great opening session this morning from John Elkington & Marga Hoek at ESG Summit Europe (now Futura). - Marga reminded us of world overshoot day is getting closer and closer to the start of the year: not enough focus on this narrative - Circular economy opportunities: buisnesses can become less reliable on large economies/complex supply chains and the challenges that come with it e.g. tariffs - John highlighted that we need to remember we will see an abundance of companies failing, whether that is a sustainability start up or a sustainability transformation project, and that is ok! We don’t have all the answers on how to fix the worlds biggest issues - several solutions that we build, with good intentions, will fail. Don’t give up hope because of this. - “The future is not something wait for, it’s something we design and build now” - We have a very strong focus on the negative side of sustainability this year, how certain governments have backtracked and so on, but let’s not forget how countries such as China are demonstrating sustainability as a huge competitive advantage for an abundance of sectors.

31