Просмотр кода страницы Английская Википедия:Greenwashing

{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}}
{{Short description|Use of the aesthetic of conservationism to promote organisations}}

[[File:VW Golf TDI Clean Diesel WAS 2010 8983.JPG|thumb|A [[Volkswagen]] [[Golf TDI]] in 2010, featuring the phrase "[[clean diesel]]." The company would later face scrutiny due to [[Volkswagen emissions scandal|an emissions scandal]].]]

{{Environment sidebar}}
{{Green politics sidebar|Related}}
{{Use dmy dates|cs1-dates=y|date=December 2023}}

'''Greenwashing''' (a [[compound word]] modeled on "[[Whitewash (censorship)|whitewash]]"), also called '''green sheen''',<ref>{{cite web |date=8 January 2011 |title=Season 5: It's Not Easy Being Green: Green Marketing |url= http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/ |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110804064419/http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/ |archive-date=4 August 2011 |access-date=30 July 2022 |publisher=CBC Radio}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=LP: 'The biggest environmental crime in history' |url= http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=209637 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130116004629/https://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=209637 |archive-date=16 January 2013 |access-date=11 September 2009 |website=libertypost.org}}</ref> is a form of [[advertising]] or [[marketing spin]] in which [[green PR]] and [[green marketing]] are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization's products, aims, and [[policies]] are [[environmentally friendly]]. Companies that intentionally take up greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pizzetti |first1=Marta |last2=Gatti |first2=Lucia |last3=Seele |first3=Peter |year=2021 |title=Firms talk, suppliers walk: Analyzing the Locus of Greenwashing in the blame game and introducing 'vicarious greenwashing' |url= https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=170 |pages=21–38 |doi=10.1007/s10551-019-04406-2 |s2cid=214383794}}</ref>

An example of greenwashing occurs when an organization spends significantly more resources on advertising being "green" than on environmentally sound practices.<ref name=":02">{{cite web |title=Greenpeace &#124; Greenwashing |url= http://www.stopgreenwash.org/ |access-date=7 July 2016 |website=stopgreenwash.org}}</ref> Greenwashing can range from changing the name or label of a product to evoke the [[natural environment]] (for example on a product containing harmful chemicals) to multimillion-dollar campaigns that portray highly-polluting energy companies as eco-friendly. Greenwashing covers up unsustainable corporate agendas and policies.<ref>{{cite web |last=Karliner |first=Joshua |date=22 March 2001 |title=A Brief History of Greenwash |url= http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=243 |access-date=23 March 2018 |website=corpwatch.org}}

* {{cite news |date=25 May 2011 |title=Top 10 Greenwashing Companies In America |newspaper=Huffington Post |url= https://www.huffpost.com/entry/top-10-greenwashing-compa_n_182724 |access-date=30 July 2022}}</ref> Highly public accusations of greenwashing have contributed to the term's increasing use.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Seele |first1=Peter |last2=Gatti |first2=Lucia |date=2015 |title=Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=239–252 |doi=10.1002/bse.1912}}</ref>

Many corporations use greenwashing to improve public perception of their brands. Complex corporate structures can further obscure the big picture.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Condon |first1=Madison |title=Climate Change's New Ally: Big Finance |url= https://perma.cc/K6LW-M5QJ |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://perma-archives.org/warc/20200922150955/http://bostonreview.net/science-nature/madison-condon-climate-change%E2%80%99s-new-ally-big-finance |archive-date=22 September 2020 |access-date=6 April 2022 |publisher=Boston Review}}</ref> Critics of the practice suggest the rise of greenwashing, paired with ineffective regulation, contributes to consumer skepticism of all green claims and diminishes the power of the consumer to drive companies toward greener manufacturing processes and business operations.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dahl |first=Richard |date=1 June 2010 |title=Greenwashing: Do You Know What You're Buying? |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |volume=118 |issue=6 |pages=a246–a252 |doi=10.1289/ehp.118-a246 |pmc=2898878 |pmid=20515714}}</ref>

Greenwashing has recently increased to meet consumer demand for environmentally-friendly goods and services. New regulations, laws, and guidelines by organizations such as the [[Committee of Advertising Practice]] mean to discourage companies from using greenwashing to deceive consumers.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thornton |first=Gabriella |date=18 May 2022 |title=New Environmental Claims Guidance from CAP, BCAP and the European Commission |url= https://marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/new-environmental-claims-guidance-from-cap-bcap-and-the-european-commission/ |access-date=5 November 2022 |website=marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com |language=en-GB}}</ref>

==Characteristics==

TerraChoice, an environmental consulting division of [[UL (safety organization)|UL]], described "seven sins of greenwashing" in 2007 to "help consumers identify products that made misleading environmental claims":<ref>{{cite web |title=Sins of Greenwashing |url= https://www.ul.com/insights/sins-greenwashing |publisher=UL Solutions |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref>

# "Hidden Trade-off": a claim that a product is "green" based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other critical environmental issues.
# "No Proof": a claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible information or a reliable third-party certification. 
# "Vagueness" is a poorly defined or broad claim that the consumer will likely misunderstand its meaning. "All-natural," for example, is not necessarily "green".
# "Worshipping False Labels": a claim that, through words or images, gives the impression of a third-party [[testimonial|endorsement]] where none exists. 
# "Irrelevance": a claim that may be truthful but unimportant or unhelpful to consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.
# "Lesser of Two Evils": a claim that may be true within the product category, but risks distracting consumers from the more significant environmental impact of the category.
# "Fibbing": a claim that is simply false.

The organization noted that by 2010, approximately 95% of consumer products in the U.S. claiming to be green were discovered to commit at least one of these sins.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/ |title=The Sins of Greenwashing |website=sinsofgreenwashing.org |date=2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140717143618/http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/ |archive-date=17 July 2014 |access-date=30 July 2022 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Gelles |first1=Jeff |title=Study: 'Greenwashing' mars 95% of 'green' items |url= https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/consumer/Cleaning_up_the_greenwashing.html |newspaper=The Philadelphia Inquirer |date=26 October 2010 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref>

==History==

[[Keep America Beautiful]] was a campaign founded by beverage manufacturers and others in 1953.<ref>{{cite web |title=Business-Managed Environment - Front Groups - Keep America Beautiful |url= https://www.herinst.org/BusinessManagedDemocracy/environment/fronts/KAB.html |website=herinst.org |date=2017 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref> The campaign focused on recycling and littering, diverting attention away from corporate responsibility to protect the environment. The objective was to forestall the regulation of disposable containers such as the one established by Vermont.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Abdelfatah |first1=Rund |title=The Litter Myth: Throughline |url= https://www.npr.org/transcripts/757539617 |website=NPR.org |date=5 September 2019 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref>

In the mid-1960s, the environmental movement gained momentum. This prompted many companies to create a new green image through advertising. [[Jerry Mander]], a former [[Madison Avenue]] advertising executive, called this new form of advertising "ecopornography."<ref>{{cite book |last=Black |first=Brian |url= https://archive.org/details/greatdebatesamer00blac |title=Great Debates in American Environmental History |publisher=Greenwood Press |year=2008 |isbn=9780313339301 |editor-last=Lybecker |editor-first=Donna L. |location=Westport |page= [https://archive.org/details/greatdebatesamer00blac/page/n171 147] |url-access=limited}}</ref>

[[File:Earth Day - Enact 1970.jpg|thumb|Earth Day 1970]]

The first [[Earth Day]] was held on 22 April 1970. This encouraged many industries to advertise themselves as being friendly to the environment. Public utilities spent $300 million advertising themselves as clean green companies. This was eight times more than the money they spent on pollution reduction research.<ref name="tglo2">{{cite web |date=6 July 2012 |title=Greenwashing 101 |url= http://thegreenlifeonline.org/greenwash101/ |access-date=7 July 2016 |website=thegreenlifeonline.org}}</ref><ref name="gfs2">{{cite web |date=22 March 2001 |title=Greenwash Fact Sheet |url= http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170207224534/http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=242 |archive-date=7 February 2017 |access-date=7 July 2016 |website=corpwatch.org}}</ref>

The term "greenwashing" was coined by New York [[environmentalist]] [[Jay Westerveld]] in a 1986 essay about the [[hospitality industry|hotel industry's]] practice of placing notices in bedrooms promoting reuse of towels to "save the environment." He noted that these institutions often made little or no effort toward reducing energy waste, although towel reuse saved them laundry costs. He concluded that often the fundamental objective was increased profit and labeled this and other profitable-but-ineffective "environmentally-conscientious" acts as "greenwashing".<ref>{{cite web |last=Motavalli |first=Jim |date=12 February 2011 |title=A History of Greenwashing: How Dirty Towels Impacted the Green Movement |url= https://www.aol.com/2011/02/12/the-history-of-greenwashing-how-dirty-towels-impacted-the-green/ |work=AOL |access-date=24 December 2023}}

* {{cite web |date=21 June 2008 |title=Grønvaskere invaderer børsen |trans-title=Greenwashers invade the market |url= http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080705195538/http://epn.dk/privatokonomi/investering/article1374993.ece |archive-date=5 July 2008 |access-date=11 December 2012 |website=epn.dk |publisher=Jyllands-Posten |language=da}}
* {{cite web |last=Hayward |first=Philip |date=1 February 2009 |title=The Real Deal? Hotels grapple with green washing |url= http://www.lodgingmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=FD212DB2AA944808BF5CE6519B2BCC06 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090205171221/http://www.lodgingmagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=FD212DB2AA944808BF5CE6519B2BCC06 |archive-date=5 February 2009|publisher=Lodging Magazine online}}
* {{cite web |last=Suryodiningrat |first=Meidyatama |date=28 August 2008 |title=Commentary: When CSR is neither profit nor public good |url= http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/28/commentary-when-csr-neither-profit-nor-public-good.html |url-access=subscription |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20211019174659/https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/08/28/commentary-when-csr-neither-profit-nor-public-good.html |archive-date=19 October 2021 |publisher=Jakarta Post online}}
* {{cite news |last1=Romero |first1=Purple |date=17 September 2008 |title=Beware of green marketing, warns Greenpeace exec |website=news.abs-cbn.com |url= https://news.abs-cbn.com/special-report/09/16/08/beware-green-marketing-warns-greenpeace-exec |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref>

In 1991, a study published in the "Journal of Public Policy and Marketing" ([[American Marketing Association]]) found that 58% of environmental ads had at least one deceptive claim. Another study found that 77% of people said a company's environmental reputation affected whether they would buy its products. One-fourth of all household products marketed around Earth Day advertised themselves as being green and environmentally friendly. In 1998, the [[Federal Trade Commission]] created the "Green Guidelines", which defined terms used in environmental marketing. The following year, the FTC found the Nuclear Energy Institute's environmentally clean claims invalid. The FTC did nothing about the ads because they were out of the agency's jurisdiction. This caused the FTC to realize they needed new, clear, enforceable standards. In 1999, the word "greenwashing" was added to the "Oxford English Dictionary".<ref name= "tglo2"/><ref name= "gfs2"/>

Days before the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Greenpeace released the Greenpeace Book on Greenwash, which described the corporate takeover of the UN conference and provided case studies of the contrast between corporate polluters and their rhetoric. Third World Network published an expanded version of that report, "Greenwash: The Reality Behind Corporate Environmentalism."

In 2002, during the [[World Summit on Sustainable Development]] in Johannesburg, the Greenwashing Academy hosted the Greenwash Academy Awards. The ceremony awarded companies like [[BP]], [[ExxonMobil]], and even the [[Federal government of the United States|U.S. Government]] for their elaborate greenwashing ads and support for greenwashing.<ref name= "tglo2"/><ref name= "gfs2"/>

==Examples ==

=== Fashion industry ===

{{See also|Environmental impact of fashion|Sustainable fashion}}

* Kimberly Clark's claim of "Pure and Natural" diapers in green packaging. The product uses organic cotton on the outside but uses the same petrochemical gel inside as before. Pampers also claims that "Dry Max" diapers reduce landfills by decreasing the amount of paper fluff in the diaper, but also a way to trim product and to save money in producing Pampers.<ref>{{cite web |date=26 May 2010 |title=The True Story Of Pampers Dry Max Part 1 The Diaper Wars |url= http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/the-true-story-of-pampers-dry-max-part-1-the-diaper-wars/ |access-date=5 November 2022 |website=zrecommends.com|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100526014140/http://www.zrecommends.com/detail/the-true-story-of-pampers-dry-max-part-1-the-diaper-wars/ |archive-date=26 May 2010}}</ref>
* In January 2020, the Fur Free Alliance noted that the "WelFur" label, which advocated for animal welfare on fur farms, is run by the fur industry and is aimed at European fur farms.<ref>{{cite web |title=Four Paws and Fur Free Alliance warn against 'WelFur' animal welfare label |url= https://www.four-paws.org/our-stories/press-releases/four-paws-and-fur-free-alliance-warn-against-welfur-animal-welfare-label |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Four Paws International}}</ref>
* Clothing company [[H&M]] came under fire for greenwashing their manufacturing practices as a result of a report published by "[[Quartz News]]".<ref>{{cite web |last=Stern |first=Matthew |title=H&M Case Shows How Greenwashing Breaks Brand Promise |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/retailwire/2022/07/13/hm-case-shows-how-greenwashing-breaks-brand-promise/ |date=13 July 2022 |work=Forbes |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref>

=== Food industry ===

* In 2009, [[McDonald's]] changed the color of its European logos from yellow-and-red to yellow-and-green; a spokesman explained that the change was "to clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation of natural resources."<ref>{{cite web | title=McDonald's rolling out green logo in Europe |url= https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34111784 |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=NBC News|date= 23 November 2009 }}</ref> In October 2021 McDonald's was accused of greenwashing after announcing its pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.<ref>{{cite web |date=5 October 2021 | title=McDonald's Rebuked for Greenwashing Climate Pledge |url= https://www.ecowatch.com/mcdonalds-greenwashing-2655223811.html |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=EcoWatch}}</ref>
* In 2018, in response to increased calls to ban plastic straws, [[Starbucks]] introduced a lid with a built-in drinking straw that contained more plastic by weight than the old straw and lid together (though it can be recycled, unlike its predecessor).<ref>{{cite web |date=23 July 2018 |title=Starbucks is banning straws – but is it really a big win for the environment? |url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jul/23/starbucks-straws-ban-2020-environment |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=the Guardian}}</ref>

=== Automobile industry ===

* The [[Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom)|UK Advertising Standards Authority]] upheld complaints against major vehicle manufacturers, including [[Suzuki]], [[SEAT]], [[Toyota]], and [[Lexus]] who made false claims about their vehicles.<ref>{{cite web |title=ASA Adjudication on Suzuki GB plc |url= http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46368.htm |publisher=Advertising Standards Authority |location=UK |date=10 June 2009 |archive-url= https://archive.today/20120718134656/http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_46368.htm |archive-date=18 July 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
* Volkswagen [[Volkswagen emissions scandal|fitted their cars]] with a "defeat device" that activated only when a car's emissions were being tested to reduce polluting emissions. In normal use, by contrast, the cars were emitting 40 times the allowed rate of nitrogen oxide.<ref>{{cite news |date=22 September 2015 |title=Volkswagen: The scandal explained |language=en-GB |first=Russell |last=Hotten |work=BBC News |location=UK |url= https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772 |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref> Forbes estimates that this scandal cost Volkswagen [[US$]]35.4 billion.<ref>{{cite news |last=Team |first=Trefis |title=The Domino Effect Of Volkswagen's Emissions Scandal |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/09/28/the-domino-effect-of-volkswagens-emissions-scandal/ |date=28 September 2015 |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Forbes}}</ref> Other automakers [[Diesel emissions scandal|also cheated]] on emissions systems.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shekhtman |first1=Lonnie |title=Volkswagen effect: Are other car companies cheating on emissions? |url= https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2015/0921/Volkswagen-effect-Are-other-car-companies-cheating-on-emissions |work=Christian Science Monitor |date=21 September 2015 |access-date=24 December 2023 }}</ref>
* In November 2020, [[Aston Martin]], [[Robert Bosch GmbH|Bosch]], and other brands were discovered to have funded a report which downplayed electric vehicles' environmental benefits with misleading information about the {{CO2}} emissions produced during the manufacture of electric cars, in response to the UK announcing that it would ban the sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines from 2030.<ref name= "theguardian.com">{{cite news |date=2 December 2020 |title=Aston Martin in row over 'sock puppet PR firm' pushing anti-electric vehicle study |url= http://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/dec/02/aston-martin-pr-firm-anti-electric-vehicle-study |access-date=5 November 2022 |first=Jillian |last=Ambrose |work=the Guardian |location=UK}}</ref> The greenwashing scandal became known as [[Astongate]] given the relationship between the British automotive manufacturer and Clarendon Communications, a shell company posing as a public relations agency which was set up to promote the report, and which was registered to James Michael Stephens – the Director of Global Government & Corporate Affairs at Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd.<ref name= "theguardian.com"/>
* Calling the next provisionally approved [[European emission standards]] for light and medium vehicles "Euro 7" instead of "Euro 6f" could be considered greenwashing because of unchanged pollutant limits.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://epha.org/ngo-call-to-rename-euro-7-for-cars-to-euro-6f/ |title=NGO call to rename Euro 7 for cars to Euro 6f - EPHA |publisher=European Public Health Alliance |date=7 December 2023 |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.electrive.com/2023/12/19/eu-lawmakers-take-watered-down-euro-7-deal-one-step-further/ |title=EU lawmakers take watered-down Euro 7 deal one step further |first=Nora |last=Manthey |work=electrive |location=Germany |date=19 December 2023 |access-date=24 December 2023}}</ref>
* Calling [[start-stop system]]s "micro" hybrid.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://guide.autoscout24.ch/fr/mobilite-electrique/entrainement-hybride/|title=Hybride et plug-in: les différences|first=Isaline|last=Muelhauser|date=19 August 2022|website=AutoScout24 Magazine}}</ref>
* [[Mild hybrid|"Mild" or "smart" hybrids]].<ref>{{cite web|date=21 July 2021|first=Olly|last=Frankland|title=The rise of the mild hybrid – a steppingstone technology or greenwash? - Regen|url=https://www.regen.co.uk/the-rise-of-the-mild-hybrid-a-steppingstone-technology-or-greenwash/}}</ref>
* Calling [[hybrid vehicle]]s "self charging" or "fueled by petrol, driven by electric".<ref name=" toyota">{{cite news|url= https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/03/toyota-accused-of-greenwashing-in-greenpeace-complaint-filed-to-accc |title=Toyota accused of greenwashing in Greenpeace complaint filed to ACCC|first=Lisa|last=Cox|date=3 March 2023 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/motoring-electric-vehicles.html |title=Motoring: Hybrid and electric vehicles |author=((Advertising Standards Authority; Committee of Advertising Practice)) |website=asa.org.uk}}</ref>
*The fleet of [[PHEV]]s underperforms on emissions reductions.<ref>{{Cite web|url= https://www.autoevolution.com/news/transport-environment-accuses-phevs-of-performing-greenwashing-once-again-210201.html |title=Transport & Environment Accuses PHEVs of Performing Greenwashing Once Again |first=Gustavo Henrique |last=Ruffo |date=11 February 2023 |website=autoevolution.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite tech report |url=https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/PHEV-white-paper-sept2020-0.pdf |title=Real-world usage of plug-in – hybrid electric vehicles |first1=Patrick |last1=Plötz |first2=Cornelius |last2=Moll |first3=Georg |last3=Bieker |first4=Peter |last4=Mock |first5=Yaoming |last5=Li |publisher=International Council on Clean Transportation |date=September 2020 |access-date=9 March 2024}}</ref> Although they would have more potential if properly used.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Plötz |first1=P. |last2=Funke |first2=S. A. |last3=Jochem |first3=P. |last4=Wietschel |first4=M. |title=CO2 Mitigation Potential of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles larger than expected |journal=Scientific Reports |date=28 November 2017 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=16493 |doi=10.1038/s41598-017-16684-9 |language=en |issn=2045-2322|doi-access=free |pmid=29184118 |pmc=5705705 }}</ref>
* The true [[environmental footprint of battery electric cars]] is called into question.<ref>{{cite journal|url= https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192201755X |title=The governance of manufacturers' greenwashing behaviors: A tripartite evolutionary game analysis of electric vehicles |first1=Changyu |last1=Liu |first2=Yadong |last2=Song |first3=Wei |last3=Wang |first4=Xunpeng |last4=Shi |date=1 March 2023 |journal=Applied Energy |volume=333 |pages=120498 |via=ScienceDirect |doi=10.1016/j.apenergy.2022.120498|bibcode=2023ApEn..33320498L |s2cid=255284635 }}</ref>
* [[Fuel cell vehicle]]s powered by non-green hydrogen.<ref name="toyota"/>

=== Oil Industry ===

* A 2010 advertising campaign by Chevron was described by the [[Rainforest Action Network]], [[Amazon Watch]], and [[The Yes Men]] as greenwash. A spoof campaign was launched to pre-empt Chevron's greenwashing.<ref>{{cite web |date=3 December 2010 |title=Massive Chevron Ad Campaign Derailed, Media Slapstick Follows |url= http://ucimc.org/content/massive-chevron-ad-campaign-derailed-media-slapstick-follows |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101203100811/http://ucimc.org/content/massive-chevron-ad-campaign-derailed-media-slapstick-follows |archive-date=3 December 2010 |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=Urbana Champaign Independent Media Center}}</ref>
* In 1985, the [[Chevron Corporation]] launched one of the most famous greenwashing ad campaigns. Chevron's "People Do" advertisements were aimed at a "hostile audience" of "societally conscious" people. Two years after the campaign's launch, surveys found people in California trusted Chevron more than other oil companies to protect the environment. In the late 1980s, The [[American Chemistry Council]] started a program called [[Responsible Care]], which shone a light on the environmental performances and precautions of the group's members. The loose guidelines of responsible care caused industries to adopt self-regulation over government regulation.<ref name="gfs2" /><ref name="tglo2" />
* [[BP]] was also reported to have engaged in such conduct in the 2010s.<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.sustainability-beat.co.uk/2023/09/15/bp-greenwashing/ |title=Is BP's latest campaign nothing more than 'sophisticated greenwashing'? |first=Ria |last=Kakkad |work=The Sustainability Beat |location=UK |date=15 September 2023 |access-date=8 December 2023}}</ref>

=== Political campaigns ===

[[File:Recycling bus, in front of bags of free coal.jpeg|thumb|Municipal bus encouraging recycling in the city of [[Samsun]] in 2022, in front of bags of free coal from another part of the Turkish government. The same party controls this municipality and the national government, and the [[Green Party (Turkey)|Green Party]] is barred from [[2023 Turkish general election|the 2023 election]].<ref>{{cite web|url= https://bianet.org/yazi/stalled-for-two-years-turkiye-s-green-party-can-t-cut-through-ankara-s-red-tape-268975 |title=Stalled for two years, Türkiye's Green Party can't cut through Ankara's red tape |website=bianet.org}}</ref>]]

* In 2010, environmentalists stated&nbsp;the [[Presidency of George W. Bush|Bush Administration's]] "[[Clear Skies Initiative]]" actually weakened air pollution laws.<ref>{{cite web |date=3 February 2010 |title=Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy "The Greenwashing Of The Bush Anti-Environmental Record On The President's Earth Day Visits To Maine And Florida" |url= http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200404/042604a.html |access-date=5 November 2022 |website=leahy.senate.gov |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100203121457/http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200404/042604a.html |archive-date=3 February 2010}}</ref> Similar laws were issued under President Macron of France as "simplifying ecology rules" that were criticized on similar grounds while still being referred to by his government as "ecology laws".<ref>{{cite news |date=2 September 2020 |title=Des ONG dénoncent un "détricotage systématique" du droit de l'environnement |language=fr |newspaper=Le Monde |url= https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2020/09/02/des-ong-denoncent-un-detricotage-systematique-du-droit-de-l-environnement_6050631_3244.html |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref>
* "Clean Coal," an initiative adopted by several platforms for the 2008 U.S. presidential election, cited [[carbon capture and storage]] as a means of reducing carbon emissions by capturing and injecting carbon dioxide produced by coal power plants into layers of porous rock below the ground. According to [[Fred Pearce]] 's Greenwash column in [[The Guardian]], [[Coal pollution mitigation|clean coal]] is the "ultimate climate change oxymoron… pure and utter greenwash".<ref>{{cite web |date=26 February 2009 |title=Greenwash: Fred Pearce on why 'clean coal' is the ultimate climate-change oxymoron |url= http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/26/greenwash-clean-coal |access-date=5 November 2022 |work=the Guardian}}</ref> In 2017, Australia's then Treasurer [[Scott Morrison]] used "Clean Coal" as the basis to suggest clean energy subsidies be used to build new coal power plants.<ref>{{Cite news |date=1 February 2017 |title=Clean energy cash could fund new coal plants, Morrison says |language=en-AU |work=ABC News |url= https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-02/clean-energy-money-could-fund-coal-power-stations-morrison-says/8234118 |access-date=5 November 2022}}</ref>
* The renaming of "[[Tar Sands]]" to "Oil Sands" (Alberta, Canada) in corporate and political language reflects an ongoing debate between the project's adherents and opponents. This semantic shift can be seen as a case of greenwashing in an attempt to counter growing public concern about the environmental and health impacts of the industry. While advocates claim that the shift is scientifically derived to better reflect the use of the sands as a precursor to oil, environmental groups argue that it is simply a means of cloaking the issue behind friendlier terminology.
* In 2021, [[Saudi Arabia]]n [[Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia|Crown Prince]] [[Mohammed bin Salman]] announced a tree planting campaign in the desert as part of the plan to reach [[carbon neutrality]] by 2060. The plan was criticized as a greenwashing attempt by some climate scientists.<ref name="Holleis 2021 k741">{{cite web | last=Holleis | first=Jennifer | title=Saudi Arabia: Greenwashing or real change? | website=DW | date=2021-11-04 | url=https://www.dw.com/en/cop26-saudi-arabias-climate-strategy-greenwashing-or-genuine-transformation/a-59704908 | access-date=2023-08-24}}</ref><ref name="Dhahran 2022 k805">{{cite magazine | last=Walt | first=Vivienne | title=Inside Top Oil Exporter Saudi Arabia's Plan to Go Green | magazine=Time | date=2022-09-01 | url=https://time.com/6210210/saudi-arabia-aramco-climate-oil/ | access-date=2023-08-24}}</ref><ref name="Kennedy 2021 n270">{{cite web | last=Kennedy | first=Robert | title='Dangerous and delusional': Critics denounce Saudi climate plan | website=Al Jazeera | date=2021-10-26 | url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/26/green-or-greenwashing-saudi-arabias-climate-change-pledges | access-date=2023-08-24}}</ref>
* Some environmental activists and critics condemned the [[2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference|2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26)]] as greenwashing.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Commentary: COP26 protesters are right about 'greenwashing' |url= https://fortune.com/2021/11/11/greenwashing-cop26-climate-change-protest-carbon-emissions-gregor-robertson-nexii/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=Fortune}}</ref> They also condemned [[COP28]], which is purported ted to have the highest carbon footprint of all COP events. In May 2023, a [[Wikipedia]] user who identified themselves as an employee of [[ADNOC]] [[Sultan Al Jaber#2023 greenwashing accusations|was alleged to suggest edits to the Wikipedia article of]] [[Sultan Al Jaber]], president of [[COP28]], which presented Al Jaber as a supporter of the climate movement.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Stockton |first1=Ben |title=Cop28 president's team accused of Wikipedia' greenwashing' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/30/cop28-president-team-accused-of-wikipedia-greenwashing-sultan-al-jaber |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=30 May 2023 |location=London}}</ref> In June 2023,  Dr Marc Owen Jones of [[Hamad Bin Khalifa University]] noted that a large number of apparent fake Twitter profiles were used to defend Al Jaber's COP28 presidency.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Carrington |first=Damian |last2= |first2= |date=2023-06-08 |title=Army of fake social media accounts defend UAE presidency of climate summit |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/08/army-of-fake-social-media-accounts-defend-uae-presidency-of-climate-summit |access-date=2023-06-08 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/30/uae-cop-has-biggest-carbon-footprint-of-any-climate-summit/ | title=UAE's Cop28 has 'biggest carbon footprint' of any climate summit |first=Emma |last=Gatten |work=The Telegraph |location=UK |date=2023-11-30 |access-date=2023-12-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/al-gore-slams-cop28-climate-summit-host-uae-says-its-emissions-soared-2023-12-03/ |title=Al Gore slams COP28 climate summit host UAE, says its emissions soared |first=Valerie |last=Volcovici |work=Reuters |date=2023-12-04 |access-date=2023-12-08}}</ref>

=== Business slogans ===

[[File:Emirates A380 2.JPG|right|thumb|The [[Airbus A380]] described as "A better environment inside and out."]]

* "Clean Burning Natural Gas" — When compared to the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, natural gas is only 50% as dirty. Producing natural gas through [[fracking]] and distribution by a pipeline may lead to methane emissions into the atmosphere. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse agent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bittman |first=Mark |date=2013-09-25 |title=Is Natural Gas' Clean'? |url= https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/is-natural-gas-clean/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs}}</ref> Despite this, natural gas is often presented as a cleaner fossil fuel in environmental discourse. In practice, it balances the intermittent nature of solar and wind energy.<ref>{{cite web |date=2009-04-25 |title=Natural Gas: Safer Cleaner Energy That Pays For Itself |url= http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/May/Pages/NaturalGasSaferCleanerEnergyThatPaysForItself.aspx |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=nationaldefensemagazine.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090425062131/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2009/May/Pages/NaturalGasSaferCleanerEnergyThatPaysForItself.aspx |archive-date=2009-04-25 }}</ref> It can be considered a useful "transitional technology" towards hydrogen as hydrogen can already be blended in and eventually be used to replace it, inside [[Hydrogen economy|gas networks initially conceived for natural gas-use]].
* [[First-generation biofuel]]s are said{{according to whom|date=December 2022}} to be better for the environment than fossil fuels, but some (such as palm oil) [[Palm oil#Environmental|contribute to deforestation]] (which contributes to global warming due to release of {{CO2}}). Higher-generation biofuels do not have these particular issues, but have contributed significantly to deforestation and habitat destruction in Canada due to rising corn prices, which make it economically worthwhile to clear-cut existing forests in agricultural areas.
* An article in [[Wired (magazine)|Wired magazine]] highlighted slogans that suggest environmentally benign business activity: the [[Comcast]] Ecobill has the motto "PaperLESSisMORE," but Comcast uses large amounts of paper for direct marketing.<ref name=":2"/>
* The [[Poland Spring]] (from the American city of Poland) eco shape bottle is touted as "A little natural does a lot of good," although 80% of beverage containers go to landfills.<ref name=":2"/>
* The [[Airbus A380]] airliner is described as "A better environment inside and out" even though air travel has a high environmental cost.<ref name=":2">{{cite magazine |last=Hagerman |first=Eric |title=Little Green Lies—How Companies Erect an Eco-Facade |magazine=Wired |url= https://www.wired.com/2008/10/st-greenmarketing/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |issn=1059-1028}}</ref>
* The multinational oil company formerly known as [[BP|British Petroleum]] launched a rebranding campaign in 2000, revising the company's acronym as "Beyond Petroleum." The campaign included a revised green logo, advertisements, a solar-paneled gas station in Los Angeles, and clean energy rhetoric across media to strategically position itself as the 'greenest' global oil company. The campaign became the center of public controversy due to the company's hypocrisy around lobbying efforts that sought permission to drill in protected areas and its negligent operating practices that led to severe oil spills—most notably the Prudhoe Bay pipeline rupture in 2006 and the [[Deepwater Horizon explosion|Gulf of Mexico rig explosion]] in 2010<ref>{{cite journal |last=Furlow |first=Nancy E. |date=2010 |title=Greenwashing in the New Millenium |url= http://www.m.www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/jabe106/FurlowWeb.pdf |journal=Journal of Applied Business and Economics |volume=10 |issue= |pages=22–25}}</ref>

=== ESG ratings ===

* [[MSCI]]’s upgrade of the company [[McDonald's|McDonald’s]], which produce emissions comparable to an entire mid-size EU country like Portugal, by eliminating the significance of emissions from 5% to 0% and highlighting a new recycling initiative (installing bins in some locations). After closer inspection, it turned out that the regulatory pressures in France pushed fast-food companies including McDonald’s to do such recycling measures.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Simpson |first1=Cam |last2=Rathi |first2=Akshat |last3=Kishan |first3=Saijel |date=2021-12-10 |title=Sustainable Investing Is Mostly About Sustaining Corporations |language=en |work=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2021-what-is-esg-investing-msci-ratings-focus-on-corporate-bottom-line/ |access-date=2023-12-31}}</ref>
* [[Volkswagen]]. The company had an ESG rating higher than its peer average, even though in September 2015, the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) sanctioned Volkswagen with over 25$ billion in fines for using a “defeat device”, causing the vehicles produced from 2009 to 2015 to pollute at higher much rate than advertised.<ref>El-Hage, J. (2021). Fixing ESG: Are Mandatory ESG Disclosures the Solution to Misleading ESG Ratings?. ''Fordham J. Corp. & Fin. L.'', ''26'', pp368</ref>
* [[TotalEnergies|Totalenergies]] was sued for claiming it can reach net zero objective by 2050 while increasing fossil fuel activities<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/environmental-groups-sue-totalenergies-over-climate-marketing-claims-2022-03-03/ |title=Environmental groups sue TotalEnergies over climate marketing claims |first1=Simon |last1=Jessop |first2=Gloria |last2=Dickie |first3=Benjamin |last3=Mallet |work=Reuters |location=US |date=2022-03-03 |access-date=2024-01-20}}</ref> is rated A- on climate by the [[Carbon Disclosure Project|CDP]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cdp.net/en/responses/19257/TotalEnergies |title=TotalEnergies |publisher=CDP |location=UK |access-date=2024-01-20}}</ref>

== Consequences ==

=== Lack of integrity ===
By using greenwashing, companies can present their business as more ecologically sustainable than it is. According to a policy report, greenwashing includes risks such as: misleading advertisements and public communications, misleading ESG credentials, false or deceiving carbon credit claims.<ref name="lse-corruption">{{cite tech report |last1=Chan |first1=Tiffanie |last2=Ford |first2=Laura |last3=Higham |first3=Catherine |last4=Pouget |first4=Shirley |last5=Setzer |first5=Joana |title=Corruption and integrity risks in climate solutions: an emerging global challenge |url=https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Corruption-and-integrity-risks-in-climate-solutions.pdf |publisher=London School of Economics and Political Science |date=October 2023 |access-date=2024-01-01}}</ref>

After a profound legal analysis, the Corruption and integrity risks in climate solutions report shows that regulations are significantly weaker for misleading ESG credentials than for climate washing and advertising standards. Despite imposed obligations, ESG rating agencies or ESG auditors are not regulated in any of the reviewed jurisdictions. Factors such as the lack of oversight by such third-party environmental service providers, the opacity of internal scoring methodologies, and the lack of alignment and consistency around ESG assessments can create opportunities for misleading or unsubstantiated claims, and in the worst cases, bribery, or fraud.<ref name="lse-corruption"/>

=== Psychological effects ===
Greenwashing is a relatively new area of research within psychology, and there is little consensus among studies on how greenwashing affects consumers and stakeholders. Because of the variance in country and geography in recently published studies, the discrepancy between consumer behavior in studies could be attributed to cultural or geographic differences.

==== Effect on consumer perception ====
Researchers found that consumers significantly favor genuinely environmentally friendly products over their greenwashed counterparts.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Jeonggyu |last2=Bhatt |first2=Siddharth |last3=Suri |first3=Rajneesh |date=12 December 2017 |title=When consumers penalize not so green products |journal=Psychology & Marketing |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=36–46 |doi=10.1002/mar.21069 |issn=0742-6046}}</ref> A survey by LendingTree found that 55% of Americans are willing to spend more money on products they perceive to be more sustainable and eco-friendly.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sherrier |first=Julie |title=55% Would Spend More on Eco-Friendly Products While Willing to Boycott Less-Green Companies |url= https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/study/consumers-would-spend-more-on-eco-friendly-products/ |access-date=2022-11-05 |work=LendingTree |language=en-US}}</ref>

Consumer perceptions of greenwashing are also found to be mediated by the level of greenwashing they are exposed to.<ref name= "osf.io">{{cite journal |last1=Torelli |first1=Riccardo |last2=Balluchi |first2=Federica |last3=Lazzini |first3=Arianna |date=2019-08-14 |title=Greenwashing and environmental communication: Effects on stakeholders' perceptions |url= https://osf.io/download/5da728a7fcf91f001020a654/ |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=407–421 |doi=10.1002/bse.2373 |issn=0964-4733 |hdl=11380/1197669 |s2cid=202310493|hdl-access=free }}</ref> Other research suggests that few consumers notice greenwashing, particularly when they perceive the company or brand as reputable. When consumers perceive green advertising as credible, they develop more positive attitudes towards the brand, even when the advertising is greenwashed.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Özsoy |first1=Tufan |last2=Avcilar |first2=Mutlu Yüksel |date=2016 |title=An Investigation Of The Effects Of Consumers' Environmental Attitudes On Perceptions Of Green Ads And Attitudes Toward The Brand |url= https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=586058 |journal=Journal of Academic Research in Economics |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=7–37}}</ref>

Other research suggests that consumers with more green concern are more able to tell the difference between honest green marketing and greenwashed advertising; the more green concern, the stronger the intention not to purchase from companies from which they perceive greenwashing advertising behavior. When consumers use word-of-mouth to communicate about a product, green concern strengthens the negative relationship between the consumer's intent to purchase and the perception of greenwashing.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Zhang |first1=Lu |last2=Li |first2=Dayuan |last3=Cao |first3=Cuicui |last4=Huang |first4=Senhua |date=June 2018 |title=The influence of greenwashing perception on green purchasing intentions: The mediating role of green word-of-mouth and moderating role of green concern |journal=Journal of Cleaner Production |language=en |volume=187 |pages=740–750 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.201 |s2cid=158188201}}</ref>

Research suggests that consumers distrust companies that greenwash because they view the act as deceptive. If consumers perceive that a company would realistically benefit from a green marketing claim being true, then it is more likely that the claim and the company will be seen as genuine.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Foreh |first1=Mark R. |last2=Grier |first2=Sonya |date=2003 |title=When Is Honesty the Best Policy? The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism |url= https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_15 |journal=Journal of Consumer Psychology |language=en |volume=13 |issue=3 |pages=349–356 |doi=10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_15 |issn=1532-7663}}</ref>

Consumers' willingness to purchase green decreases when they perceive the green attributes compromise the product quality, making greenwashing potentially risky, even when the consumer or stakeholder is not skeptical of the green messaging. Words and phrases often used in green messaging and greenwashing, such as "gentle," can lead consumers to believe the green product is less effective than a non-green option.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Newman |first1=George E. |last2=Gorlin |first2=Margarita |last3=Dhar |first3=Ravi |date=2014-10-01 |title=When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements |journal=Journal of Consumer Research |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=823–839 |doi=10.1086/677841 |issn=0093-5301}}</ref>

==== Attributions of greenwashing ====
[[Ecolabel|Eco-labels]] can be given to a product from an external organization and the company itself. This has raised concerns because companies can label a product as green or environmentally friendly by selectively disclosing positive attributes of the product while not disclosing environmental harms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lyon |first1=Thomas P. |last2=Montgomery |first2=A. Wren |date=2015-03-23 |title=The Means and End of Greenwash |journal=Organization & Environment |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=223–249 |doi=10.1177/1086026615575332 |issn=1086-0266 |s2cid=154964909}}</ref> Consumers expect to see eco-labels from both internal and external sources but perceive labels from external sources to be more trustworthy. Researchers from the University of Twente found that uncertified or greenwashed internal eco-labels may still contribute to consumer perceptions of a responsible company, with consumers attributing internal motivation to a company's internal eco-labeling.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gosselt |first1=Jordy F. |last2=van Rompay |first2=Thomas |last3=Haske |first3=Laura |date=March 2019 | title=Won't Get Fooled Again: The Effects of Internal and External CSR ECO-Labeling |url= https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/wont-get-fooled-again(d4019f45-91be-4d30-8720-46bf3db1e8f0).html |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=155 |issue=2 |pages=413–424 |doi=10.1007/s10551-017-3512-8 |issn=0167-4544 |s2cid=157638391}}</ref> Other research connecting attribution theory and greenwashing found that consumers often perceive green advertising as greenwashing when companies use green advertisements, attributing the green messaging to corporate self-interest. Green advertising can backfire, particularly when the advertised environmental claim does not match a company's environmental engagement.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nyilasy |first1=Gergely |last2=Gangadharbatla |first2=Harsha |last3=Paladino |first3=Angela |date=December 2014 |title=Perceived Greenwashing: The Interactive Effects of Green Advertising and Corporate Environmental Performance on Consumer Reactions |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=125 |issue=4 |pages=693–707 |doi=10.1007/s10551-013-1944-3 |issn=0167-4544 |hdl-access=free |s2cid=154101047 |hdl=11343/282809}}</ref>

==== Implications for green business ====
Researchers working with consumer perception, psychology, and greenwashing note that companies should "walk the walk" regarding green advertising and behavior to avoid the negative connotations and perceptions of greenwashing. Green marketing, labeling, and advertising are most effective when they match a company's environmental engagement. This is also mediated by the visibility of those environmental engagements, meaning that if consumers are unaware of a company's commitment to sustainability or environmentally-conscious ethos, they cannot factor greenness in their assessment of the company or product.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Berrone |first1=Pascual |last2=Fosfuri |first2=Andrea |last3=Gelabert |first3=Liliana |date=August 2017 |title=Does Greenwashing Pay Off? Understanding the Relationship Between Environmental Actions and Environmental Legitimacy |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |language=en |volume=144 |issue=2 |pages=363–379 |doi=10.1007/s10551-015-2816-9 |issn=0167-4544 |s2cid=152869329}}</ref>

Significant exposure to greenwashing can make a consumer indifferent to or generate negative feelings toward green marketing. Genuinely green businesses must work harder to differentiate themselves from those who use false claims. Consumers may also react negatively to valid sustainability claims because of negative experiences with greenwashing.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Szabo |first1=Szerena |last2=Webster |first2=Jane |date=2020-02-28 |title=Perceived Greenwashing: The Effects of Green Marketing on Environmental and Product Perceptions |url= https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0 |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=171 |issue=4 |pages=719–739 |doi=10.1007/s10551-020-04461-0 |issn=1573-0697 |s2cid=213799479}}</ref>

==Deterrence==

Companies may pursue [[environmental certification]] to avoid greenwashing through independent verification of their green claims. For example, the [[Carbon Trust]] Standard launched in 2007 with the stated aim "to end 'greenwash' and highlight firms that are genuine about their commitment to the environment."<ref>{{cite news |date=24 June 2008 |title=Carbon Trust aims to end 'greenwash' by launching company standard |newspaper=The Guardian |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/jun/24/carbonemissions.carbonfootprints |access-date=22 July 2014}}</ref>

There have been attempts to reduce the impact of greenwashing by exposing it to the public.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106166&catId=100583&tid=100008 |title=Green Watch |website=choice.com.au |access-date=2009-09-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20090509231624/http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?id=106166&catId=100583&tid=100008 |archive-date=2009-05-09 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The Greenwashing Index, created by the [[University of Oregon]] in partnership with EnviroMedia Social Marketing, allowed the public to upload and rate examples of greenwashing, but it was last updated in 2012.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ |title=Greenwashing Index |publisher=Greenwashing Index |access-date=2009-09-11 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120905220638/http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ |archive-date=2012-09-05 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Research published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2011 shows that Sustainability Ratings might deter greenwashing. Results concluded that higher sustainability ratings lead to significantly higher brand reputation than lower sustainability ratings. This same trend was found regardless of the company's level of [[corporate social responsibility]] (CSR) communications. This finding establishes that consumers pay more attention to sustainability ratings than CSR communications or greenwashing claims.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Parguel |first=Beatrice |date=2011 |title=How Sustainability Ratings Might Deter "Greenwashing": A Closer Look at Ethical Corporate Communication |url= https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/3237630/CR_383-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1667430801&Signature=bGsB57AlmW7WNaBw5yIK0pRpgUlqLV-j3gG8haEbrDTnIT1Pg5H9u8eV89hDYPUS4O~kU9sIoFf1m6c8GvPNPoribEOHR9OIsYsFXkh01XCpr6SJMtN~mSW4S8gwAS1DiKwtElvBOOhpHbWwRNJeg6jqKw~xfZEqAxoh4qHgNSQylB7MKcJmG-OS9Ou3mPKUG-zeYb4topLeQmYC9UimAJN7ObfQlMBmQvYfk2fzLqu-WHa7pYlzv-jg0gLXTSvnQ9koCnS9FtlYziq5OwcVOXIiRwYeUXF8oUmaoW5mPkb-NE3K8LX57tqtUPzxVlYXwC-bEDEiohcLRNWVEVvFmg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA |journal=Journal of Business Ethics |volume=102 |issue=1 |pages=15–28 |doi=10.1007/s10551-011-0901-2 |s2cid=53485873 |via=JSTOR}}</ref>

The World Federation of Advertisers released six new guidelines for advertisers in 2022 to prevent greenwashing. These approaches encourage credible environmental claims and more sustainable outcomes.&nbsp;<ref>{{Cite web |last=Advertisers |first=World Federation of |date=2022-04-04 |title=Global Guidance on Environmental Claims 2022 |url= https://wfanet.org/knowledge/item/2022/04/04/Global-Guidance-on-Environmental-Claims-2022 |access-date=2022-11-05 |website=wfanet.org |language=en}}</ref>

==Regulation==

Worldwide regulations on misleading environmental claims vary from criminal liability to fines or voluntary guidelines.

===Australia===

The Australian [[Trade Practices Act]] punishes companies that provide misleading environmental claims. Any organization found guilty of such could face up {{AUD|6 million|link=yes}} in fines.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/12/16/nurofen-fine-misleading-claims-australia-increased-35-million/ |title=Nurofen fine over misleading claims in Australia increased to £3.5 million |agency=France Presse Agence |date=16 December 2016 |newspaper=Telegraph |access-date=23 March 2018}}</ref> In addition, the guilty party must pay for all expenses incurred while setting the record straight about their product or company's actual [[environmental impact]].<ref name=Naish>{{cite journal|last=Naish |first=J. |year=2008 |title=Lies...Damned lies...And green lies |journal=Ecologist |volume=38 |issue=5 |pages=36–39}}</ref>

===Canada===

Canada's [[Competition Bureau]] along with the [[Canadian Standards Association]] discourage companies from making "vague claims" about their products' environmental impact. Any claims must be backed up by "readily available data."<ref name=Naish/>

===European Union===

The [[European Anti-Fraud Office]] (OLAF) handles investigations that have an environmental or sustainability element, such as the misspending of EU funds intended for green products and the counterfeiting and smuggling of products with the potential to harm the environment and health. It also handles [[illegal logging]] and smuggling of precious wood and timber into the EU ([[wood laundering]]).<ref>{{cite news |title=Criminals increasingly targeting EU green funds, says anti-fraud agency |url= https://www.euronews.com/2020/09/10/criminals-increasingly-targeting-eu-green-funds-says-anti-fraud-agency |work=euronews |agency=Reuters |date=10 September 2020 |access-date=15 November 2022}}</ref>

In January 2021, the European Commission, in cooperation with national [[consumer protection]] authorities, published a report on its annual survey of consumer websites investigated for violations of EU consumer protection law.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Green EU trade marks. Analysis of goods and services specifications, 1996-2020 |url=https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/reports/2021_Green_EU_trade_marks/2021_Green_EU_trade_marks_FullR_en.pdf |journal=European Union Intellectual Property Office |issue=ISBN 978-92-9156-299-2}}</ref> The study examined green claims across a wide range of consumer products, concluding that for 42 percent of the websites examined, the claims were likely false and misleading and could well constitute actionable claims for unfair commercial practices.<ref name=":0" />

In the context of escalating concerns regarding the authenticity of corporate ecological sustainability claims, greenwashing has emerged as a significant issue and poses a real challenge on [[sustainable finance]] regulations gaps. ESMA outlined the correlation between the growth of ESG-related funds and greenwashing. The exponential rise of funds integrating vague ESG-related language in their names started since the [[Paris Agreement]] (2015), and is effective to deceivingly attract more investors.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |date=2 October 2023 |title=ESG names and claims in the EU fund industry |url=https://www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-10/ESMA50-524821-2931_ESG_names_and_claims_in_the_EU_fund_industry.pdf}}</ref>

The 2020-2024 agenda of [[DG FISMA]] concern about greenwashing concile two objectives: increasing capital for sustainable investments and bolstering trust and investor protection in European financial markets.<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 2020 |title=Strategic Plan 2020 2024 |url=https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2020-10/fisma_sp_2020_2024_en.pdf}}</ref>

The European Union struck a provisional agreement to mandate new reporting rules for companies with over 250 staff and a turnover of {{euro|40 million}}. They must disclose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) information, which will help combat greenwashing. These requirements go into effect in 2024.<ref>{{cite news |last=Jones |first=Huw |date=2022-06-22 |title=EU agrees deal on company disclosures to combat greenwashing |language=en |work=Reuters |url= https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/eu-agrees-deal-company-disclosures-combat-greenwashing-2022-06-21/ |access-date=2022-11-05}}</ref> The European Commission has introduced a proposal of [[Regulation of ESG rating in the European Union|ESG regulation]] aimed at bolstering transparency and integrity within ESG rating in 2023.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/eu-proposes-greater-regulatory-scrutiny-esg-ratings-providers-2023-06-13/ |title=EU proposes new shake-up of ESG ratings agencies |first1=Julia |last1=Payne |first2=Tommy |last2=Wilkes |work=Reuters |location=US |date=2023-06-14 |access-date=2024-01-20}}</ref>

===Norway===

[[Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman|Norway's consumer ombudsman]] has targeted automakers who claim their cars are "green," "clean," or "environmentally friendly," with some of the world's strictest advertising guidelines. Consumer Ombudsman official Bente Øverli said: "Cars cannot do anything good for the environment except less damage than others." Manufacturers risk fines if they fail to drop misleading advertisements. Øverli said she did not know of other countries going so far in cracking down on cars and the environment.<ref>{{cite letter|url= http://www.forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2857/1/2857_1.pdf |first=Bente |last=Øverli |date=2007-03-09 |title=Use of environmental claims in the marketing of vehicles – in relation to the Marketing Control Act |access-date=April 21, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101123183503/http://forbrukerombudet.no/asset/2857/1/2857_1.pdf |archive-date=November 23, 2010 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4028677 |title=Prove 'clean, green' ads, Norway tells automakers |first=Alister |last=Doyle |work=Motoring |location=South Africa |date=2007-09-11 |access-date=2009-09-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071212111053/http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4028677 |archive-date=2007-12-12 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/norway_says_car.php |title=Greenwash Watch: Norways Says Cars Neither Green Nor Clean |work=treehugger |location=US |first= Lloyd |last=Alter |date=2007-09-06 |access-date=2009-09-11 |archive-date=2011-05-18 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110518210605/http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/norway_says_car.php |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0671323420070906 |title=Norways Says Cars Neither Green Nor Clean |website=reuters.com |date=2007-09-06 |access-date=2009-09-11 |first=Alister |last=Doyle }}</ref>

=== Thailand ===

The Green Leaf Certification is an evaluation method created by the [[ASEAN|Association of Southeast Asian Nations]] (ASEAN) as a metric that rates the hotels' environmental efficiency of environmental protection.<ref name=":03"/> In Thailand, this certification is believed to help regulate greenwashing phenomena associated with green hotels. [[Eco hotel]] or "green hotel" are hotels that have adopted sustainable, environmentally-friendly practices in hospitality business operations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rahman |first1=Imran |last2=Park |first2=Jeongdoo |last3=Chi |first3=Christina Geng-qing |date=2015-08-10 |title=Consequences of "greenwashing": Consumers' reactions to hotels' green initiatives |url= https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2014-0202/full/html |journal=International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management |language=en |volume=27 |issue=6 |pages=1054–1081 |doi=10.1108/IJCHM-04-2014-0202 |issn=0959-6119}}</ref> Since the development of the tourism industry in the ASEAN, Thailand superseded its neighboring countries in inbound tourism, with 9 percent of Thailand's direct GDP contributions coming from the travel and tourism industry in 2015.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Yaping |last2=Li |first2=Yinchang |last3=Parkpian |first3=Parnpree |date=2018-02-01 |title=Inbound tourism in Thailand: Market form and scale differentiation in ASEAN source countries |url= https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026151771730167X |journal=Tourism Management |language=en |volume=64 |pages=22–36 |doi=10.1016/j.tourman.2017.07.016 |issn=0261-5177}}</ref> Because of the growth and reliance on tourism as an economic pillar, Thailand developed "responsible tourism" in the 1990s to promote the well-being of local communities and the environment affected by the industry.<ref name=":03">{{Cite journal |last=Mishra |first=Prajna Paramita |date=2016-02-26 |title=How Green are Our Hotels? Evidence from Thailand |url= https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425315619050 |journal=Environment and Urbanization ASIA |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=132–148 |doi=10.1177/0975425315619050 |bibcode=2016EnUrA...7..132M |s2cid=155825130 |issn=0975-4253}}</ref> However, studies show the green hotel companies' principles and environmental perceptions contradict the basis of corporate social responsibilities in responsible tourism.<ref name=":03" /><ref>Baxter, Glenn, and Panarat Srisaeng. "An Assessment of the Environmentally Sustainable Hotel Operation: The Case of Centara Hotels & Resorts, Thailand." "Journal of Sustainable Tourism Development" 3, no. 2 (2021): 1-33. Harvard</ref> Against this context, the Green Leaf Certification issuance aims to keep the hotel industry and supply chains accountable for corporate social responsibilities regarding sustainability by having an independent international organization evaluate a hotel and rate it one through five leaves.<ref>Satchapappichit, Sruangporn, Noor Azmi Hashim, and Zolkafli Hussin. "Factors influencing adoption of green practices by small and medium sized hotels in Thailand." "Journal of Business Management and Accounting" 3 (2020): 61-78.</ref>

===United Kingdom===

The [[Competition and Markets Authority]] is the UK's primary competition and consumer authority. In September 2021, it published a Green Claims Code to protect consumers from misleading environmental claims and businesses from unfair competition.<ref name="CMA">{{cite web |title=Making environmental claims on goods and services |url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims/environmental-claims-on-goods-and-services |website=gov.uk |access-date=24 February 2022}}</ref>

===United States===

The [[Federal Trade Commission]] (FTC) provides voluntary guidelines for environmental marketing claims. These guidelines give the FTC the right to prosecute false and misleading claims. These guidelines are not enforceable but instead were intended to be followed voluntarily:

<blockquote>

*Qualifications and disclosures: The Commission traditionally has held that to be effective, any qualifications or disclosures such as those described in these guides should be sufficiently clear, prominent, and understandable to prevent deception. Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are appropriately clear and prominent.<ref name=gft>{{cite web|url= http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm |title=Part 260 — Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims |access-date=November 17, 2008 |url-status=deviated |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20081117145015/http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm |archive-date=November 17, 2008 }}</ref>
*Distinction between benefits of product, package, and service: An environmental marketing claim should be presented in a way that makes clear whether the environmental attribute or benefit being asserted refers to the product, the product's [[packaging]], a service, or to a portion or component of the product, package or service. In general, if the environmental attribute or benefit applies to all but minor, incidental components of a product or package, the claim need not be qualified to identify that fact. There may be exceptions to this general principle. For example, if an unqualified "[[recyclable]]" claim is made and the presence of the incidental component significantly limits the ability to recycle the product, then the claim would be deceptive.<ref name=gft/>
*Overstatement of environmental attribute: An environmental marketing claim should not be presented in a manner that overstates the environmental attribute or benefit, expressly or by implication. Marketers should avoid implications of significant environmental benefits if the benefit is, in fact negligible.<ref name=gft/>
*Comparative claims: Environmental marketing claims that include a comparative statement should be presented in a manner that makes the basis for the comparison sufficiently clear to avoid consumer deception. In addition, the advertiser should be able to substantiate the comparison.<ref name=gft/>

</blockquote>

The FTC announced in 2010 that it would update its guidelines for environmental marketing claims in an attempt to reduce greenwashing.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.greencleancertified.com/green-cleaning-health/green-watch/FTC-Reviews-Guidelines-for-Green-Claims/ |title=FTC Reviews Guidelines for Green Claims |website=greencleancertified.com |date=15 June 2016 |access-date=7 July 2016}}</ref> The revision to the FTC's Green Guides covers a wide range of public input, including hundreds of consumer and industry comments on previously proposed revisions, offering clear guidance on what constitutes misleading information and demanding clear factual evidence.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |title=Green trademarks and the risk of greenwashing |url= https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2022/04/article_0006.html |work=WIPO Magazine}}</ref>

According to FTC Chairman [[Jon Leibowitz]], "The introduction of environmentally-friendly products into the marketplace is a win for consumers who want to purchase greener products and producers who want to sell them." Leibowitz also says such a win-win can only operate if marketers' claims are straightforward and proven.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/greenguides.shtm |title=FTC Issues Revised "Green Guides" |work=U.S. Federal Trade Commission |date=2012-10-01 |access-date=2016-07-07}}</ref>

In 2013, the FTC began enforcing these revisions. It cracked down on six different companies; five of the cases concerned false or misleading advertising surrounding the [[biodegradability]] of plastics. The FTC charged ECM Biofilms, American Plastic Manufacturing, CHAMP, Clear Choice Housewares, and Carnie Cap, for misrepresenting the biodegradability of their plastics treated with additives.<ref name=":1">{{cite web|url= http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/communications/jennifer-elks/ftc-cracking-down-misleading-unsubstantiated-biodegradab|title=FTC Cracking Down on Misleading, Unsubstantiated Biodegradability Claims |work=Sustainable Brands |date=7 November 2013 |access-date=2016-04-06}}</ref>

The FTC charged a sixth company, AJM Packaging Corporation, with violating a commission consent order prohibiting companies from using advertising claims based on the product or packaging being "degradable, biodegradable, or photodegradable" without reliable scientific information.<ref name= ":1"/> The FTC now requires companies to disclose and provide the information that qualifies their environmental claims to ensure transparency.

=== China ===

The issue of green marketing and [[consumerism]] in China has gained significant attention as the country faces environmental challenges. According to "Green Marketing and Consumerism in China: Analyzing the Literature" by Qingyun Zhu and Joseph Sarkis, China has implemented environmental protection laws to regulate the business and commercial sector. Regulations such as the Environmental Protection Law and the Circular Economy Promotion Law contain provisions prohibiting false advertising (known as greenwashing).<ref>Zhu, Qingyun, and Joseph Sarkis. n.d.[https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Business/WP1-2015_Green_Marketing.pdf https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/Business/WP1-2015_Green_Marketing.pdf.] Retrieved 2023-05-05.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Circular Economy Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China (Chinese and English Text) {{!}} Congressional-Executive Commission on China |url= https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/circular-economy-promotion-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-chinese |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=cecc.gov}}</ref> The [[Government of China|Chinese government]] has issued regulations and standards to regulate green advertising and labeling, including the Guidelines for Green Advertising Certification, the Guidelines for Environmental Labeling and Eco-Product Certification, and the Standards for Environmental Protection Product Declaration. These guidelines promote transparency in green marketing and prevent false or misleading claims. The Guidelines for Green Advertising Certification require that green advertising claims should be truthful, accurate, and verifiable.<ref>{{cite web |title=China Issues Green Product Certification Implementation Rules |url= https://www.packaginglaw.com/news/china-issues-green-product-certification-implementation-rules |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=packaginglaw.com}}</ref> These guidelines and certifications require that eco-labels should be based on scientific and technical evidence, and should not contain false or misleading information. The standards also require that eco-labels be easy to understand and not confuse or deceive consumers. The regulations that are set in place for greenwashing, green advertising, and labeling in China are designed to protect consumers and prevent misleading claims. The issues of the climate crisis, sustainability, and greenwashing in China remain critical and require ongoing attention. The implementation of regulations and guidelines for green advertising and labeling in China aims to promote transparency and prevent false or misleading claims.

In efforts to stop this practice, in November 2016, the General Office of the State Council introduced legislation to promote the development of green products, encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices, and mention the need for a unified standard for what was to be labeled green.<ref>{{cite web |title=Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Developing a Unified Standard, Certification and Identification System of Green Products |url= http://www.lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=25771&lib=law |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=lawinfochina.com}}</ref> This was a general plan or opinion on the matter, with no specifics on its implementation, however with similarly worded legislation and plans out at that time there was a push toward a unified green product standard.<ref>{{cite web |title=哪些重要文件提到了"统一绿色产品标准认证标识体系"？ - 工作动态 |url= http://www.chinagreenproduct.cn/GPIA/front/view-5fd465da763c4e858449508e861c394b-fe7c0d8c32a142c1beba04a74e617bdd.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=chinagreenproduct.cn}}</ref> Until then, green products had various standards and guidelines developed by different government agencies or industry associations, resulting in a lack of consistency and coherence. One example of guidelines set then was from the Ministry of Environmental Protection of China (now known as the Ministry of Ecology and Environment). They issued specifications in 2000, but these guidelines were limited and not widely recognized by industry or consumers. It was not until 2017, with the launch of GB/T (a set of national standards and recommendations), that a widespread guideline was set for what would constitute green manufacturing and a green supply chain.<ref>{{cite web |title=5项绿色产品认证领域认证认可行业标准通过审查 - 工作动态 |url= http://www.chinagreenproduct.cn/GPIA/front/view-5fd465da763c4e858449508e861c394b-c37f04eff94b434bb5df9992994ec6bd.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=chinagreenproduct.cn}}</ref><ref name= "auto">{{cite web |title=国家标准化管理委员会关于印发 《2023年全国标准化工作要点》的通知 |url= https://www.sac.gov.cn/xw/tzgg/art/2023/art_80c53d6e4b064ec0b64b3a1e2980fe3e.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=sac.gov.cn}}</ref> Expanding on these guidelines in 2019 the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) created regulations for Green Product Labels, which are symbols used on products to mark that they meet certain environmentally friendly criteria, and certification agencies have verified their manufacturing process.<ref>{{cite web |title=FAO.org |url= https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC186129/ |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=fao.org}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=绿色产品标识使用管理办法 - 工作动态 |url= http://www.chinagreenproduct.cn/GPIA/front/view-5fd465da763c4e858449508e861c394b-88244c707c544492992937ba0c804371.html |access-date=2023-05-05 |website=chinagreenproduct.cn}}</ref> The standards and coverage for green products have been increasing as time passes, with changes and improvements to green product standardization still occurring in 2023.<ref name= "auto"/>

In China, the Greenpeace Campaign focuses on the pain point of air pollution. The campaign aims to address the severe air pollution problem prevalent in many Chinese communities. The campaign has been working to raise awareness about air pollution's health and environmental impacts, advocate for more robust government policies and regulations to reduce emissions, and encourage a shift toward clean and renewable energy sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How Greenpeace campaigns in China |url= https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/how-greenpeace-campaigns-china |access-date=3 June 2023 |work=Greenpeace Aotearoa |language=en-US}}</ref> "From 2011 to 2016, we linked global fast fashion brands to toxic chemical pollution in China through their manufacturers. Many multinational companies and local suppliers have stopped using toxic and harmful chemicals. They included Adidas, Benetton, Burberry, Esprit, H&M, Puma, and Zara, among others." The Greenpeace Campaign in China has involved various activities, including scientific research, public education, and advocacy efforts. The campaign has organized public awareness events to engage both consumers and policymakers, urging them to take action to improve air quality. "In recent years, [[Chinese Communist Party]] general secretary [[Xi Jinping]] has committed to controlling the expansion of coal power plants. He has also pledged to stop building new coal power abroad". The campaign seeks to drive public and government interest towards more strict air pollution control measures, promote more clean energy technology, and contribute to health, wellness, and sustainability in China. Mainly though, the health of Chinese citizens is at the forefront of this issue, as air pollution has been a critical issue in the nation. The article emphasizes that China has prioritized putting people front and center on environmental issues. China's Greenpeace campaigns and those in other countries are a part of their global efforts to address environmental challenges and promote sustainability.

== Related terms ==

"[[Bluewashing]]" is a term that describes deceptive marketing that overstates a company's commitment to responsible social practices. It focuses mainly on economic and community factors.

[[Carbon emission trading]] can be similar to greenwashing in that it gives an environmentally-friendly impression, but can be counterproductive if carbon is priced too low, or if large emitters are given "free credits." For example, [[Bank of America]] subsidiary [[MBNA]] offers "Eco-Logique" [[MasterCard]]s that reward Canadian customers with [[carbon offsets]] when they use them. Customers may feel that they are nullifying their [[carbon footprint]] by purchasing goods with these, but only 0.5% of the purchase price goes to buy carbon offsets; the rest of the [[interchange fee]] still goes to the bank.<ref name="CashingIn">{{cite web |date=13 November 2009 |title=Cashing in on the Environmental |url= http://www.climatechangecentral.com/publications/enerclick/january-2008/cashing-environmental-cow |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130115222626/http://www.climatechangecentral.com/publications/enerclick/january-2008/cashing-environmental-cow |archive-date=15 January 2013 |access-date=2 December 2017 |publisher=Climate Change Central}}</ref>

=== Greenscamming ===

"'Greenscamming'" describes an organization or product taking on a name that falsely implies environmental friendliness. It is related to both greenwashing and [[greenspeak]].<ref>[[Sharon Beder]]: "Greenwashing." In: John Barry, E. Gene Frankland (Eds.): "International Encyclopedia of Environmental Politics". London 2002, p. 253-54</ref> This is analogous to [[aggressive mimicry]] in biology.<ref name= "Washington Cook">{{cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate change denial: heads in the sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |date=2011 |publisher=Earthscan |isbn=9781849713368 |location=London |pages=72–75 |author-link=John Cook (Australian author)}}</ref><ref name= "Ehrlich">{{cite book |last1=Ehrlich |first1=Paul R. |title=Betrayal of science and reason: how anti-environmental rhetoric threatens our future |last2=Ehrlich |first2=Anne H. |date=1996 |publisher=Island Press |isbn=9781559634847 |location=Washington, D.C. |page=16 |author-link=Paul R. Ehrlich |author-link2=Anne H. Ehrlich}}</ref>

Greenscamming is used in particular by industrial companies and associations that deploy [[astroturfing]] organisations to try to dispute scientific findings that threaten their business model. One example is the [[climate change denial|denial of man-made global warming]] by companies in the [[Fossil fuel|fossil energy sector]], also driven by specially-founded greenscamming organizations.{{citation needed|date=March 2022}}

One reason to establish greenscamming organizations is that openly communicating the benefits of activities that damage the environment is difficult. Sociologist Charles Harper stresses that marketing a group called "Coalition to Trash the Environment for Profit" would be difficult. Anti-environment initiatives, therefore, must give their [[front organization]]s deliberately deceptive names if they want to be successful, as surveys{{citation needed|date=July 2021}} show that environmental protection has a social consensus. However, the danger of being exposed as an anti-environmental initiative entails a considerable risk that the greenscamming activities will backfire and be counterproductive for the initiators.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Harper |first1=Charles L. |title=Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues |date=2012 |publisher=Prentice Hall |isbn=9780205820535 |edition=5th |location=Boston |pages=244–256}}</ref>

Greenscamming organizations are active in organized [[climate denial]].<ref name= "Washington Cook"/> An important financier of greenscamming organizations was the oil company [[ExxonMobil]], which financially supported more than 100 climate denial organizations and spent about 20 million U.S. dollars on greenscamming groups.<ref name= "Washington Cook 75">{{cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |title=Climate change denial: heads in the sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |date=2011 |publisher=Earthscan |isbn=9781849713368 |location=London |page=75 |author-link=John Cook (Australian author)}}</ref> [[James Lawrence Powell]] identified the "admirable" designations of many of these organizations as the most striking common feature, which for the most part sounded very rational. He quotes a list of climate denial organizations drawn up by the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]], which includes 43 organizations funded by [[Exxon]]. None had a name that would lead one to infer that climate change denial was their "raison d'être". The list is headed by [[Africa Fighting Malaria]], whose website features articles and commentaries opposing ambitious [[climate mitigation]] concepts, even though the dangers of [[malaria]] could be exacerbated by [[global warming]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Powell |first1=James Lawrence |title=The inquisition of climate science |date=2011 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=9780231157186 |location=New York |pages=93–94 |author-link=James Lawrence Powell}}</ref>

==== Examples ====

Examples of greenscamming organizations include the [[National Wetlands Coalition]], Friends of Eagle Mountain, The Sahara Club, The Alliance for Environment and Resources, The Abundant Wildlife Society of North America, the [[Global Climate Coalition]], the National Wilderness Institute, the Environmental Policy Alliance of the [[Center for Organizational Research and Education]], and the [[American Council on Science and Health]].<ref name= "Ehrlich"/><ref>See also: Jen Schneider, Steve Schwarze, Peter K. Bsumek, Jennifer Peeples: "The Hypocite's Trap." In: "Under Pressure" (Palgrave Studies in Media and Environmental Communication). Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2016, {{doi|10.1057/978-1-137-53315-9_5}}</ref> Behind these ostensible environmental protection organizations lie the interests of business sectors. For example, oil drilling companies and real estate developers support the National Wetlands Coalition. In contrast, the Friends of Eagle Mountain is backed by a mining company that wants to convert open-cast mines into landfills. The Global Climate Coalition was backed by commercial enterprises that fought against government-imposed climate protection measures. Other Greenscam organizations include the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness, backed by the nuclear industry; the Wilderness Impact Research Foundation, representing the interests of loggers and ranchers; and the American Environmental Foundation, representing the interests of landowners.<ref name="Harper">{{cite book |last1=Harper |first1=Charles L. |title=Environment and society: human perspectives on environmental issues |date=2012 |publisher=Prentice Hall |isbn=9780205820535 |edition=5th |page=245}}</ref>

Another Greenscam organization is the Northwesterners for More Fish, which had a budget of $2.6 million in 1998. This group opposed conservation measures for endangered fish that restricted the interests of energy companies, aluminum companies, and the region's timber industry and tried to discredit environmentalists who promoted fish habitats.<ref name="Ehrlich" /> The [[Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change]], the National Environmental Policy Institute, and the [[Information Council on the Environment]] funded by the [[coal industry]] are also greenscamming organizations.<ref name="Washington Cook 75" />

In Germany, this form of mimicry or deception is used by the "European Institute for Climate and Energy" (EIKE), which suggests by its name that it is an important scientific research institution.<ref>Michael Brüggemann: ''Die Medien und die Klimalüge. Falsche Skepsis und echte Leugnung.'' In: Volker Lilienthal, [[Irene Neverla]] (Eds.): ''„Lügenpresse“: Anatomie eines politischen Kampfbegriffs''. Cologne 2017, p. 137–157, p. 143/44 and 150.</ref> In fact, EIKE is not a scientific institution at all, but a [[lobby organization]] that neither has an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website.<ref name="Rahmstorf">See [[Stefan Rahmstorf]], [[Hans Joachim Schellnhuber]]: ''Der Klimawandel: Diagnose, Prognose, Therapie.'' C.&nbsp;H. Beck, 7th. Edition 2012, {{ISBN|978-3406633850}}, p. 85.</ref>

==See also==

{{Portal|Environment}}
{{Div col|colwidth=15em}}<!---♦♦♦ Please keep the list in alphabetical order ♦♦♦---> 
*[[Astongate]]
*[[Climate bond|Climate bond (green bond)]]
*[[Coca-Cola Life]]
*[[Conspicuous conservation]]
*[[Dieselgate]]
*[[Ecodesign]]
*[[Ecolabel]]
*[[EMAS (company)|EMAS]]
*[[Ethics of philanthropy]]
*[[False advertising]]
*[[Farm to fork]]
*[[Fossil fuels lobby]]
*[[Gasoline additive]]s
*[[Green brands]]
*[[Green marketing]]
*[[Green parking lot]]
*[[Greenscamming]]
*[[Green transition]]
*[[Reputation laundering]]
*[[Sportswashing]]
*[[Sunshine unit]]
{{div col end}}

==References==

{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==

*Catherine, P. (n.d). Eco-friendly labelling? It's a lot of 'greenwash'. Toronto Star (Canada), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
* {{cite book |last1=Clegg |first1=Brian |title=Ecologic : the truth and lies of green economics |date=2009 |publisher=Eden Project |location=London |isbn=978-1-905811-25-0}}
* {{cite journal | last1 = Dobin | first1 = D | year = 2009 | title = Greenwashing harms entire movement | journal = Lodging Hospitality | volume = 65 | issue = 14| page = 42 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Greer |first1=Jed |last2=Bruno |first2=Kenny |title=Greenwash : the reality behind corporate environmentalism |date=1996 |publisher=Third World Network |location=Penang, Malaysia |isbn=983-9747-16-9}}
*Jenny, D. (n.d). New reports put an end to greenwashing. Daily Telegraph, The (Sydney), Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
*Jonathan, L. (n.d). Why 'greenwash' won't wash with consumers. Sunday Times, The, Retrieved from Newspaper Source database.
* {{cite book |last1= Lubbers |first1= Eveline |title=Battling big business: countering greenwash, infiltration, and other forms of corporate bullying |date=2002 |publisher=Common Courage Press |location=Monroe, Me |isbn=1-56751-224-0}}
* {{cite journal |last1=Nelson |first1=Robert H. |title= Environmental Religion: A Theological Critique |journal=Case Western Reserve Law Review |date=10 March 2004 |volume=55 |pages=51 |url= https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214083104.pdf |access-date= 11 March 2021 |publisher=Social Science Research Network |language=en |ssrn = 2211873}}
* {{cite journal |last1= Priesnitz |first1= W. |title= Greenwash: When the green is just veneer |journal=Natural Life |date=2008 |issue=121 |pages=14–16 |via= GreenFILE database}}
* {{cite journal |last1= Seele |first1= Peter |last2= Gatti |first2= Lucia |title= Greenwashing Revisited: In Search of a Typology and Accusation-Based Definition Incorporating Legitimacy Strategies |journal= Business Strategy and the Environment |date= 2017 |volume= 26 |issue= 2 |pages= 239–252 |doi= 10.1002/bse.1912 |url= http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bse.1912/abstract |access-date= 5 December 2015 |language=en | issn = 1099-0836 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Tokar |first1=Brian |title=Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash |date=1997 |publisher=South End Press |location=Boston, MA |isbn=0896085589}}
* {{cite web |title=Beyond Disclosure: Driving Performance & Trust in ESG |date=2023 |url=https://www.scc.ca/en/about-scc/publications/general/beyond-disclosure-driving-performance-trust-esg |publisher=Standards Council of Canada}}
* {{cite journal |title=Greenwashing culprits to be foiled ahead of business summit |journal=European Environment & Packaging Law Weekly |date=2009 |issue=159 |pages=28 |via= GreenFILE database|issn=1750-0087}}
* [http://encyclopedia.uia.org/en/problem/178833 Greenscamming. The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential].
* [https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/new-global-rules-aim-clamp-down-corporate-greenwashing-2023-06-26/ New rules aim to clamp down on corporate greenwashing] [[Reuters]]. June 26, 2023.

==External links==

{{Commons category|Greenwashing}}

{{Wiktionary}}

*[https://rec.cmc.edu/ Roberts Environmental Center] - ratings of corporate sustainability claims.
*{{HowStuffWorks|greenwashing|How Greenwashing Works}}
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20080410075016/http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007931.html Greenwashing in Popular Culture and Art]
*[http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/ What is Greenwashing, and Why is it a Problem?"]
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20110113214156/http://www.cbc.ca/ageofpersuasion/episode/season-5/2011/01/08/its-not-easy-being-green-green-marketing/ Streaming audio of a 2011 radio program on the subject of Green Marketing/Greenwashing]—from [[CBC Radio]].
* [https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy/green-claims_en Green claims, European Commission].

{{Environmentalism}}
{{Environmental social science}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Greenwashing| ]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Green politics]]
[[Category:Public relations terminology]]
[[Category:Deception]]
[[Category:Environmental social science concepts]]
[[Category:1980s neologisms]]
[[Category:Propaganda]]
{{Навигационная таблица/Портал/Английская Википедия}}
[[Категория:Английская Википедия]]
[[Категория:Википедия]]
[[Категория:Статья из Википедии]]
[[Категория:Статья из Английской Википедии]]