91% of consumers today believe at least some brands engage in greenwashing. That’s not cynicism that’s experience. People have been promised recycled packaging, carbon neutrality, and “eco-conscious” collections for over a decade, often with nothing but a leaf logo to back it up.
In an internal review carried out by the EU, it emerged that more than half of all green marketing claims made by companies were either misleading or completely baseless, while close to 40% lacked any substantiation whatsoever. In the apparel industry alone, almost 60% of all sustainability claims do not have any substantiating proof behind them.
This is the environment in which your sustainability message finds itself as soon as it goes public.
Why Brands Keep Getting It Wrong
The fundamental problem is not intention, it’s rather vagueness. Companies typically use broad and generic terms such as clean, responsible, green or eco-friendly, thinking that these types of descriptions will provide them with some sort of protection from litigation. However, it is the use of vague terminology that has created distrust with many consumers who might otherwise believe in their commitment to sustainability.
Moreover, businesses engage in “cherry-picking,” wherein they may reduce their packaging waste by 20 percent and then promote the company as being “committed to a sustainable future” in all areas, while ignoring the fact that they have not changed their emissions or have unethical methods for sourcing their products upstream. Although they have accurately reported reliability for an achievement through their 20 percent reduction in packaging waste, they have created a false sense of reliability for the majority of the company’s products and services.
Regulators were finally on the case. The EU Green Claims Directive bans generic environmental claims outright from late 2025. Fines are real. Vanguard Investments Australia was made to pay $12.9 million for making inflated claims about one of its funds’ ESG credentials; Deutsche Bank’s DWS paid $25 million to the SEC. Volkswagen’s emissions fraud is estimated at $35 billion. The era of greenwashing without consequences is drawing to a close.
What Honest Sustainability Communication Actually Looks Like
- Say what you did, not what you believe.
“We believe in a greener future” communicates nothing. “We reduced Scope 1 emissions by 18% in 2024, verified by [third party]” communicates everything. Specificity is credibility. Data from your actual carbon accounting, lifecycle assessments, or supply chain audits gives your claims a spine.
- Show the work and the gaps.
Brands that acknowledge where they’re still falling short consistently build more trust than those who present a perfect green record. Share the milestones, yes but also the unfinished chapters. Consumers are far more forgiving of honest progress than polished fiction.
- Get third-party verified.
Labels like B Corp, Fair Trade, or Carbon Trust don’t just add credibility, they signal accountability to an external standard. With 2025’s regulatory environment demanding audit-ready disclosures, third-party verification is quickly shifting from “nice to have” to table stakes.
- Keep messaging consistent across every channel.
A sustainability report that claims net-zero ambitions while your Instagram runs a “guilt-free shopping” campaign is a greenwashing lawsuit waiting to happen. Map your claims across all touchpoints like social, PR, packaging, annual reports and make sure they tell the same story, backed by the same data.
- Be specific about scope.
If your recycled materials claim applies only to the outer packaging, say so. If your carbon offset covers only direct operations, not the supply chain, say so. Partial truths dressed as whole truths are where most brands trip.
The Bigger Picture
The New York University Stern Center for Sustainable Business found that attaching a credible sustainable indicator to a core product message expanded average brand reach by some 23 percentage points. It’s about time. Honest communication on sustainability is right and, by good business practices, smart.
Long-term wins will not go to those brands with the loudest green marketing. Such will go only to those whose claims can be directly substantiated.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What’s the difference between greenwashing and greenhushing?
Greenwashing entails exaggeration or falsification of sustainability claims, while greenhushing entails not talking at all about genuine sustainability efforts due to fear of being scrutinized. Neither practice builds trust. The perfect balance is achieved through accurate, credible and detailed reporting on sustainability progress.
Q: Can small businesses make sustainability claims without expensive certifications?
Certainly. It’s not necessary for an organization to be a B Corp in order to be honest about their activities. Detail your efforts in switching energy suppliers, reducing plastic use, partnering with ethical local companies with dates and figures. Honesty is a scalable practice regardless of budget constraints.
Q: How do I know if my claim crosses into greenwashing territory?
Ask yourself whether you can support this claim with documented information. Ask whether your claim is valid for the entire company or just a portion of it. Ask whether a critical reporter would notice that there is a discrepancy between what you say and how you really operate.
