By Kate Quiambao and Paolo Velilla

In a world where the effects of global warming are becoming increasingly evident, many consumers are starting to become more and more conscious of their personal carbon footprint. The fight against climate change is a global effort, and common people should be knowledgeable of the type of impact it’s causing on the world. This growing global awareness for the environment has led to people rethinking their own purchasing habits, which in turn has prompted some of the largest corporations in the world to do what they do best: spent billions of dollars in marketing to make people believe that they are trying to fight an issue they may or may not have played a systemic role in causing. Yet, what is greenwashing, and why is it so much more dangerous apart from supposedly harmless marketing and packaging labels?

The idea of greenwashing originates from the term whitewashing; where a person or entity would deliberately attempt to cover up incriminating information. Whitewashing in the business world comes in many shapes and forms, and in the specific case of greenwashing, is when an entity would attempt to divert the public’s attention from their environmentally harmful practices by branding themselves as something that does the complete opposite. Companies are starting to become more and more aware of the fact that consumers are starting to care more about the environment, as studies have shown that 75% of millennials prefer spending on brands considered sustainable. People are looking for products that minimize their carbon footprint. This new consumer demand has resulted in companies attempting to appeal to these consumers, not through action, but through superficial marketing.

A usual greenwashing attempt usually involves vague marketing messages, and packaging that shares themes of sustainability. From “organic” labeling to green colored boxes, all of these characteristics plant the idea of environmentalism in the minds of consumers. These labels, however, are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, as without any proof of action, these marketing terms hold as much weight as a pinky promise. After all, there are real certifications and ways to prove that your company has done something good for the planet, and companies tend to proudly show off whatever projects they have done or carbon goals they have reached. So, when an entity is actively deciding not to reveal any specific data or verification of their good deeds, it’s most likely because they’ve done nothing.

With the lack of transparency comes the lack of accountability, as they advertise environmentally friendly processes without committing to them, continuously deceiving consumers into believing that they’re  apparently responsible customers once they buy from these brands. Instead of taking real action against the problem they’ve created, these polluters have taken the easy way out, and the consumer must hold these corporations accountable for their actions and look past the smoke and mirrors. Unfortunately, this marketing gimmick has spread its way across various industries, with some of the most recognizable brands in the world getting in on the action, or the lack thereof.

As consumers are acquainted with the sense of urgency to buy eco-friendly products, fashion retailers use greenwashing to obtain higher profit margins. These brands often display a facade, seemingly attempting to adopt sustainable practices to cover for the high carbon footprint in their supply chains, inhumane working conditions, and other unsustainable approaches. Some cases of greenwashing in the fashion industry include the biggest retailers in the world, such as H&M, Zara, and Uniqlo among others. Nike, known as the largest retailer for athletic shoes, have been long scrutinized by various environmentalists due to pressing concerns in labor and sustainability. Just like H&M and Uniqlo, Nike has been modeled to acquire the lowest cost of labor possible, which also gains them multiple violations and complaints on labor rights. In addition, its proposed campaign, “Move to Zero,” claiming Nike’s journey toward zero carbon and waste, has been receiving criticism given that Chief Sustainability Officer Noel Kinder himself admitted that the targets the company had set for itself were not completely realistic. Similarly, Uniqlo uses cheap materials such as rayon, polyester, nylon, and elastane that require large amounts of water and energy, as well as intensive chemical processes in order to produce clothing, neglecting the thought of how these processes release dangerous chemicals that affect air and waterways.

Further, the water bottle industry has been one of the largest contributors to the planet’s plastic problem, with Coca-Cola and PepsiCo being rated as the top plastic polluters year after year. However, in recent years there have been many attempts from companies like Coke to position themselves as a company fighting against the problem they caused. In July of last year, the brand introduced recyclable PET bottles to many of its products, such as Dasani and Sprite, including a new clear look. Greenpeace and their USA Plastics Project Lead Kate Melges described Coke’s new bottles as “yet another blatant greenwashing attempt from one of the world’s worst plastic polluters,” emphasizing the fact that roughly only 9% of plastic waste from the past 8 years had actually been recycled, and that making recyclable bottles is only a fraction of the battle. With recent news telling that the company is serving as the official sponsor for COP27, at this rate, COP28 might as well be sponsored by Shell.

Another industry known for its contribution to the pollution crisis is the world of meat and dairy. Meat in particular has shown to have double the pollution of plant-based food, responsible for 57% of all emissions caused by food production, but that hasn’t stopped various parts of these industries from posing themselves as something else, mostly to prevent potential scrutiny from animal rights organizations. Labels on egg cartons are a case study in how misleading marketing terms can overlap with real certification. Apart from the obvious marketing terms such as “farm fresh” or “all-natural”, terms such as “cage-free” or “vegetarian diet” have painted the illusion of well treated animals, but it isn’t that simple. “Cage-free” does not mean that the animals were free from cruelty, and “vegetarian-diets” aren’t as beneficial to the chickens as it might seem, as unlike humans, such diets do have a negative effect on chicken.

In the cosmetic industry, large companies such as L’Óréal, Head & Shoulders, Bondi Sands, and SKKN by Kim have also been called out due to their sustainability claims that were not entirely authentic. L’Óréal was criticized for its claim about advertising products that are made from 100% recycled plastic bottles, yet the Changing Markets Foundation flagged that the caps of the bottles produced are actually not made from waste materials. Likewise, Head & Shoulders marked their Ocean Clean Bottle as recyclable while they were still in the process of actually making their bottle caps recyclable. These strategies have constantly been misleading consumers into buying their products, giving an impression that they are doing more to protect the environment than they are.

Perplexing as it is, climate action indeed entails a collective effort from our society. This then calls us to become climate conscious consumers, inclined to consume adequately and, most importantly, with intent. Seemingly foreign to consumers, to combat this deceptive advertising also means to speak with our wallets to show greenwashers that we are not simply duped by their tricks. As for the companies, it is just called for that they effectively convey their environmental initiatives merely by terminating the use of vague and misleading language, as well as renouncing the need for perfection and staying honest about publishing information instead.

Yet, the blame must not be placed on consumers alone, as consumers may also be considered victims to greenwashing tactics. Beyond our personal lives, we must more so take part in demanding complete transparency among companies, as most of the problems caused by greenwashing are rooted in lack of transparency in much needed sustainability reports.