Greenwashing is a challenge that can quickly undermine trust in sustainable innovation. For green-tech start-ups, avoiding greenwashing is crucial - not just for maintaining credibility but for contributing meaningfully to the global sustainability transition.
The Natural Resources Defense Council defines greenwashing as misleading or deceptive marketing that portrays an organisation as more environmentally responsible than it truly is. While some instances are deliberate, many result from well-intentioned but poorly executed efforts.
The United Nations outlines some examples of greenwashing, including:
Greenwashing can take many forms, often making it difficult to spot. Understanding the types of greenwashing is essential for identifying and avoiding these practices. The following definitions are drawn from The Greenwashing Hydra by Planet Tracker.
Green Labelling: using misleading labels or terms like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘sustainable’ without concrete evidence. For example, in 2013, Pampers launched a line of ‘eco-friendly’ nappies called ‘Pure’ that were marketed as being made of ‘premium cotton’ and ‘plant-based’ materials. An investigation found that the nappies had many of the same synthetic materials as regular Pampers nappies, and the “plant-based” materials made up less than 1% of the nappies’ weight.
Green Lighting: focusing on minor sustainable actions to overshadow harmful practices. For example, major banks tend to state the importance of a net-zero global economy, despite the fact that they push billions of dollars into fossil fuel projects.
Green Shifting: placing responsibility on consumers instead of addressing corporate impacts. For example, a 2021 study on the language use of ExxonMobil found that although their internal communication and research often used phrases like ‘fossil fuels’, their public communications were focused on shifting blame onto ‘demand’, ‘energy efficiency’, and ‘consumers’.
Green Rinsing: regularly revising sustainability targets without meeting them. For example, in 2023 the UK conservative government pushed back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, despite making no progress.
Green Crowding: hiding behind group memberships to appear sustainable. For example, some companies join climate initiative groups without taking any meaningful action.
Green Hushing: deliberately underreporting sustainability efforts to avoid scrutiny. The key word here is deliberately; some companies may have legitimate reasons to wait before publicising their reports, or they may not be able to afford it. An example of green hushing would be the recent accusation that HSBC have downgraded some of their funds in a bid to avoid scrutiny of their sustainable investment claims.
Avoiding greenwashing is crucial for green-tech start-ups that need to build credibility and drive genuine environmental impact. In a sector where trust is a key driver of adoption, even a hint of greenwashing can have big consequences. For start-ups, ensuring that all claims are transparent, substantiated and reflective of real progress is essential for success.
When a green-tech startup is associated with greenwashing, it risks massive reputational damage. Especially in small, niche industries where communities are tight-knit, and word travels fast. For example, if a company promoting a ‘carbon-neutral’ product is later found to lack the proof necessary to back the claim, potential customers and investors may question the company’s integrity. This will lead them to consider how buying from or investing in this company will affect their own sustainability goals. For startups seeking funding or strategic partnerships, even unintentional greenwashing can deter investors and collaborators who prioritise credibility.
Greenwashing can also harm the very customers green tech startups aim to serve. Customers who feel misled by overstated claims may become sceptical of all green technologies. In the worst-case scenario, customers might abandon their efforts to adopt sustainable practices, believing that their trust will only be exploited. For example, if a waste management startup exaggerates its recycling capabilities but fails to deliver, businesses relying on its services might hesitate to explore alternative sustainable solutions in the future.
The broader impact of greenwashing extends to the global sustainability transition, too. When resources and attention are directed toward companies making exaggerated claims, genuinely sustainable start-ups may struggle to compete. For instance, a startup marketing biodegradable packaging that turns out to break down under only rare conditions could overshadow another startup offering genuinely compostable alternatives. Customers and stakeholders who feel disillusioned by greenwashing are less likely to support innovation, slowing the overall progress of green innovation.
Greenwashing also contributes to widespread scepticism about green claims, damaging the reputation of the entire industry. For a green-tech start-up, this means that even well-documented successes may face undue scrutiny as the key stakeholders become increasingly wary of environmental messaging. To counter this, startups must ensure that every claim is backed by data and communicated transparently, creating a foundation of trust that supports both their growth and the broader sustainability movement.
While green-tech startups play a crucial role in avoiding greenwashing, it’s important to recognise that the responsibility to call out greenwashing isn’t solely on your shoulders.
Increasingly, governments and regulatory bodies are stepping in to enforce stricter standards around environmental messaging, helping to ensure that businesses across all industries are held accountable for their claims. For startups, understanding these regulations can provide a clear framework for developing honest and transparent communications.
In the UK, the Green Claims Code offers guidance to businesses on how to avoid misleading consumers. This code highlights that broad terms like “green” or “sustainable” are often misleading without specific evidence. It requires businesses to substantiate claims with data, ideally backed by independent scientific analyses. For example, if a green-tech startup markets its product as “carbon neutral,” it must account for the entire lifecycle of the product and any offsetting measures used. Claims must be meaningful—stating a 1% reduction in emissions as a significant achievement, for instance, would not meet these standards.
Across the EU, the Green Claims Directive further standardises environmental messaging. This directive aims to prohibit vague claims such as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” unless they are supported by independently verified, significant environmental performance data. It also bans claims that reflect only legal compliance or standard practices, such as calling a product “recyclable” if it simply meets existing standards. For example, a company claiming to produce “rainforest-friendly” packaging must provide verifiable evidence that exceeds EU legal requirements, ensuring that customers are not misled.
In the USA, similar efforts are underway with the Green Guides, which are being updated to address modern concerns around greenwashing. These regulations aim to clarify the definitions and requirements for environmental claims, helping consumers make informed decisions while holding businesses accountable.
For green-tech startups, these regulatory frameworks act as a safety net, guiding how to responsibly communicate your sustainability efforts. Regulation doesn’t just curb bad practices - it levels the playing field, making it harder for companies to exaggerate their claims and easier for genuinely sustainable businesses to shine.
Identifying greenwashing requires a keen eye for detail and a healthy level of scepticism. While the presence of red flags doesn’t always confirm greenwashing, they should prompt further scrutiny and caution.
One of the most telling indicators is a lack of evidence to support environmental claims. For example, a company may claim that it is ‘carbon neutral’ without providing any data or methodology to back up that claim. Similarly, a new green-tech solution might be described as ‘carbon positive’ or the ‘best solution on the market’ without any supporting research or verification. Without tangible proof, such claims are, at best, questionable and, at worst, deliberately deceptive.
Another common tactic is overemphasising a specific area of sustainability to distract from broader negative impacts - this is an example of green lighting. For instance, a company may focus heavily on a tree-planting initiative while neglecting to disclose its overall carbon footprint or its failure to reduce emissions in other areas. Or a construction firm might spotlight one low-carbon product while failing to acknowledge that most of its offerings are carbon-intensive. These strategies shift attention to isolated positives, painting an incomplete and misleading picture of a company’s overall environmental performance.
Misleading statistics can also signal potential greenwashing. Graphs and data visualisations are often manipulated to create an impression of progress that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. For example, a chart might start at a high baseline, such as 1,500,000 instead of 0, without including a break symbol, making differences between data points appear disproportionately large. Fine print and vague references can further obscure the truth, so it’s essential to critically evaluate the presentation of data and its context.
Vague language is another hallmark of greenwashing. Terms like ‘green,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ or ‘sustainable’ are often used without clear definitions or evidence. For example, a company might claim its meat substitute is ‘clean and healthy for the planet’ without explaining the basis of this statement or providing supporting data. Unsubstantiated claims like these should be cautiously approached until further details are provided.
Using green imagery or logos without substantiating credentials is another typical red flag. Companies might decorate single-use plastic products with plant imagery or incorporate wind turbines in marketing materials to imply sustainability. However, without concrete evidence to back these visuals, the claims lack substance and may be misleading.
Some companies may also claim sustainability improvements that simply comply with legal or industry standards. For instance, a company might highlight that its product is packaged in recyclable bottles when most bottles are already recyclable. Similarly, portraying legally required transparency on environmental impact as a voluntary commitment to sustainability exaggerates the company’s efforts and misleads consumers.
Another tactic involves commissioning research that appears independent but is funded by the company itself. This practice can create the illusion of unbiased validation. For example, suppose a solar panel manufacturer promotes a study claiming its product is the most efficient but fails to disclose that it funded the research. In that case, the credibility of the claim is undermined. Always consider the source of any “independent” research and the potential biases involved.
Finally, consider whether the company is controlled or funded by organisations with unsustainable practices. While this doesn’t automatically indicate greenwashing, it’s worth examining the relationships. For instance, the Alliance to End Plastic Waste included multiple top single-use plastic producers as members, many of whom failed to support meaningful policies to reduce plastic pollution.
Manipulated Statistics: In 2021, Aspiration, a green fintech company, faced criticism for misleading claims about its environmental impact. The company advertised that it had planted 35 million trees through its programme that rounded up card transactions to fund tree planting. However, the fine print revealed that this figure referred to trees planned to be planted, not those already in the ground. By the time of the claim, only 12 million trees had been planted. Additionally, Aspiration stated it had ‘5 million passionate members,’ but this figure included anyone who had signed their terms and conditions in preparation for opening an account. In reality, only 600,000 accounts were actively in use at the time.
Vague Language Around Targets: In 2018, Nestlé announced its “ambition” to make all its packaging 100% recyclable or reusable by 2025. While the statement seemed progressive, it lacked measurable goals, a timeline, or a clear strategy to ensure implementation. Critics noted that the lack of detail made the commitment difficult to track or hold accountable. By 2020, Nestlé was named one of the top global plastic polluters for the third consecutive year in the Break Free From Plastic report, further calling into question the company’s progress and sincerity in addressing its plastic waste.
Lack of Evidence: In 2019, H&M launched a clothing line called “Conscious,” marketed as an eco-friendly alternative within their broader fast-fashion offerings. However, the company failed to provide clear or significant information about what made the line sustainable. The Norwegian Consumer Authority criticised H&M for misleading marketing, highlighting that the claims lacked sufficient evidence to back their environmental benefits. The incident underscored the importance of providing transparent and credible information when making sustainability claims.
Green Labelling and Green Shifting: In 2022, a Persil advertisement in the UK was banned for greenwashing. The ad claimed the company’s new cleaning product was “kinder to our planet” but failed to provide evidence showing how it was more sustainable than previous products. Additionally, the ad’s call to action - encouraging individuals to ‘roll up our sleeves and get dirty’ through activities like tree planting and beach cleanups - implied that responsibility for solving environmental issues rested with consumers rather than the corporations contributing to the problem, such as those producing plastic bottles that end up as waste. The lack of substantiated claims, combined with this deflection of responsibility, made the ad a clear example of both green labelling and green shifting.
If there’s one thing you take away from this resource, it should be that to avoid greenwashing; you need to back up every claim with credible data and documentation. Whether it’s a reduction in emissions or the use of sustainable materials, ensure that your statements are supported with verifiable evidence.
It’s equally important to be specific and transparent in your messaging. Ambiguous terms like ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’ lack substance without context. Instead, focus on measurable details. For example, rather than saying, ‘our lab-grown meat is sustainable,’ you could say, ‘our lab-grown meat produces 67% less CO2e emissions during manufacturing than real meat alternatives’ and provide a source for the comparison.
When making environmental claims, you should also consider the broader impact of the company or product. Avoid cherry-picking data that creates a misleading narrative. For example, a logging company should not frame itself as sustainable just because it uses electric vehicles for transportation while failing to address the deforestation it causes. Instead, be clear about which part of your operations is being discussed and its overall contribution to sustainability.
Comparisons with competitors should always be fair and contextual. For instance, if you’re highlighting lower emissions in a vehicle, compare small cars with other small cars rather than skewing the comparison against large vehicles. This ensures your audience can accurately understand how your product stacks up in the proper context.
You should also set specific sustainability targets with precise deadlines and communicate them transparently. Vague commitments like ‘We aim to be a net-zero company’ lack accountability. A better approach is to outline specific goals, such as, ‘We are committed to achieving net zero in scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions by 2040, with offsets accounting for no more than 50% of our baseline emissions.’ Specificity not only adds credibility but also helps stakeholders track progress and hold you accountable.
Before publishing any content, take a moment to evaluate it critically. Ask yourself these key questions: Does the content exaggerate environmental benefits? Could it omit or distract from negative impacts? Are the claims vague or unsupported? Does it shift responsibility to others, such as consumers or third parties, in a way that isn’t entirely legitimate? If the answer to any of these is yes, pause and reconsider. Adjust the content to align with transparent and substantiated messaging.
Finally, if you’re ever unsure, seek a second opinion. Speaking to a colleague, sustainability team member, or external expert can provide valuable insights and help ensure your claims stand up to scrutiny.
To help you evaluate your messaging further, access our greenwashing messaging checker. This tool will help you score your messaging for potential greenwashing.
This article is not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be taken as such. For legal and regulatory compliance matters, make sure to always seek advice from qualified professionals.
