Nowadays, the threat of climate change is weighing on many people’s conscience, and the desire to live more sustainably is becoming increasingly more common across different generations. With this sentiment, the demand for environmentally friendly consumer goods is increasing faster than ever and as companies are reacting, some are engaging in unethical operations. Greenwashing, i.e. the practice of making claims about the environmental methods of a company or the environmental sustainability of a product or service, which are either unable to be substantiated or actively misleading, is spreading across every industry sector, evolving and adapting to an ever-changing market. New greenwashing tactics are primarily employed by fashion, food, energy and B2B procurement industries. The damage they cause goes beyond creating mistrust with regards to brand’s reputation, this practice, in fact, exacerbates the general public’s skepticism towards the concept of environmentally friendly business, leaving people feeling disillusioned and deceived.
Why and how does greenwashing still manage to fool us? These false claims thrive not only due to innovative marketing strategies but also by taking advantage of the way our brains are wired. By understanding and studying the process through which we draw conclusions, they are able to exploit human psychology. One of the most effective psychological mechanisms behind greenwashing’s success is the affect heuristic (Slovic, Finucane, Peters & MacGregor, 2002), i.e. a cognitive bias in which individuals rely on their immediate feelings and emotions rather than objective information when making decisions. This leads to quick but potentially inaccurate judgments, especially under conditions of uncertainty. It frequently occurs that consumers, when analyzing the characteristics of a product’s environmental impact, deliberate based on feelings perceived when purchasing from a specific brand. For instance, the arising of positive emotions at the sight of green packaging, images of nature, or words like “clean” and “natural” can act as a signal that something is environmentally friendly. Therefore, people may purchase the item considering it eco-sustainable, without seeking for proper verification.
What are the tactics companies use to manipulate consumers’ perception? What means and strategies do they incorporate in their marketing campaigns? “Nobody wants to be caught out as a liar, and no company wants to be caught out as a greenwasher.” (Hoepner, 2024). In order to deceive the public opinion, brands have to resort to increasingly sophisticated means and strategies, with the purpose of diverting the attention from their actual environmental impacts and carbon footprints. According to Hoepner, there are numerous greenwashing tactics, ranging from the more obvious disclosure of misleading information to the more subtle attention deflection and attention reduction. Specifically, attention deflection is implemented by diverting the blame or the attention in a way that highlights the company’s sustainability efforts. This is achieved through the employment of greenshifting or greenlighting practices, where, respectively, the blame for polluting is put on a third party or the spotlight is placed on a small, sometimes irrelevant, green initiative which yields no significant results. Attention reduction, instead, implies that a company discloses a limited amount of information concerning its green production methods, and mostly focuses on big and ambitious ideas without providing the supporting data or implemented practices.
Rampant examples of greenwashing schemes can be found across different sectors. In the fashion industry, for example, many brands claim the sustainability of their apparel without providing data to support their statements and in many cases their carbon footprint has actually increased over the past decade. As Tonti notes in his article, “Despite a recent rise in products being described as sustainable and pledges to curb emissions, according to the World Resources Institute, the fashion sector’s environmental footprint is expected to grow by 60% by 2030”. One renowned example among numerous low-range clothing brands is the claim that their garments are made from recycled polyester, when, in reality, this material cannot be reused again at the end of its life cycle. Other major polluting sectors include banking, agriculture and livestock farming, which often advertises themselves as net zero, i.e. being carbon neutral, which implies lowering emissions and compensating for unavoidable ones with carbon offset programs like reforestation and carbon removal technologies. However, these claims often prove to be unsubstantiated, considering that carbon offset programs are prohibitively expensive and their effectiveness is difficult to measure accurately. Furthermore, it is not enough for companies to present truthful financial statements, they must also ensure full transparency regarding their overall environmental impact. For instance, according to a recent analysis by the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, only 3% of the total emissions of multinational JBS (the world’s largest meat-packer) come from their offices and slaughterhouses, while the rest is produced mainly by their cattle suppliers. Banks face a similar issue, as the emissions of their portfolios are 700 times larger than those generated by their offices.
What’s the difference between greenwashing and regular deceptive marketing? To begin with, greenwashing is not just a form of misinformation, but it also hinders a genuine ecological transition, causing both ethical and environmental harm. Moreover, once greenwashing is unveiled, the damage on the brand’s reputation is often insurmountable. In their study of Canadian companies, researchers Walker and Wan found a negative relationship between symbolic environmental action (greenwashing) and financial performance, while substantive action does not appear to affect financial performance. They hypothesize that these results are due to whether or not stakeholders’ expectations are met: if they are fulfilled the firm is not rewarded for merely meeting the standard, whereas symbolic actions may be perceived as an attempt to cover up the lack of substantive actions. In fact, stakeholders often perceive the symbolic actions of firms in visibly polluting industries negatively, ultimately leading to financial repercussions for the company. Moreover, the study suggests that the consumers’ and stakeholders’ aversion triggered by greenwashing, drives them to punish the firm more harshly than they would reward it for taking substantive actions.
To conclude, greenwashing succeeds by manipulating human psychology, capitalizing on cognitive biases as well as people’s ignorance or inattention, in order to create the illusion of environmental responsibility and progress and ultimately affecting not only everyday consumers but also corporate buyers. The consequences go beyond the distortion of products and services, since they undermine the urgent and unavoidable efforts towards a real and widespread ecological transition. Addressing this societal issue, which has repercussions on corporate reputations and companies’ finances and that creates cynicism towards truly eco-sustainable business practices, requires structural reforms and gradual long-term objectives. By aligning regulations through international institutions and by promoting awareness education around sustainability verification, we can begin to dismantle greenwashing and foster genuine environmental accountability.
References
Dutta-Powell, R., Rhee, J.J. and Wodak, S., 2022. Two interventions for mitigating the harms of greenwashing on consumer perceptions. Journal of Business Ethics
Janz, F., Jordanow, S., Heidenreich, S. and Schäfer, J., 2023. Shades of green deception: An empirical examination into the consequences of greenwashing of innovations. Journal of Cleaner Production.
Walker, K. and Wan, F., 2012. The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(2), pp.227–242.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. and MacGregor, D.G., 2007. The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), pp.1333–1352.
Tonti, E. (2023) Fashion brands grapple with greenwashing: ‘It’s not a human right to say something is sustainable’. The Guardian.
Doe, J. and Smith, J., 2023. Too good to be true: the greenwashers’ box of tricks. Financial Times.
Tabuchi, H., 2022. The greenwashing of climate change: how companies use false claims to mislead consumers. The New York Times.
Mundy, S. (2025) ‘Corporate buyers still fall for green marketing puff, study finds’, Financial Times
Bloomfield, A. (2022) ‘The newest form of greenwashing is poised to meet its match’, Forbes
Andreoni, M. (2022) ‘Spot the greenwashing’, The New York Times
Sengupta, S. (2022) ‘How greenwashing fools us’, The New York Times
B.BIAS 