Skip to content

The perils of greenwashing

  • by JW

Greenwashing could be a catalyst for a shift in public perception of climate and climate advocacy. “Greenwashing can get people talking about climate change and encourage climate action.” [Scot Scoop]

Keep America Beautiful makes consumers feel guilty about ‘their’ littering as if the littering is the root of the pollution problem, while H&M tries to make shoppers feel better about themselves to resolve their cognitive dissonance. [Earth Day]


The notion of ‘greenwashing’ has been with us for a long time now – and more and more supposedly ‘green actions’ are being called out. For example, questions have been asked as to whether plastics can really become part of the circular economy or whether ‘responsible’ mining is possible. And Dr James Dyke of Exeter University has stated that ‘the idea of net zero carbon is a dangerous trap‘ as it is simply another example of greenwashing.

This month there have been several greenwashing stories – from the propane industry trying to rebrand the fuel as renewable, to the EU banning ‘misleading’ environmental claims that rely on offsetting, to banks facing increased greenwashing and climate litigation.

Today, a piece from the student news site Scot Scoop looks at lifting the mask on greenwashing:

Starbucks. Volkswagen. Coca-Cola. These are all companies that say they’re going green. However, their apparent efforts may be no more than a coat of green paint. Underneath the green facade, many companies continue to pollute. In countless lawsuits, there have been allegations that companies have misrepresented their environmental impact. For instance, in Earth Island Institute v. BlueTriton BrandsBlueTriton Brands was sued for claiming to be sustainable and trying to reduce plastic pollution while engaging in environmentally harmful acts.

Greenwashing could be a catalyst for a shift in public perception of climate and climate advocacy. “Greenwashing can get people talking about climate change and encourage climate action,” Thompson said.

And in the month before Earth Day, the project’s website looks very deeply into Greenwashing: How Industries Lie to You. Here are the first couple of sections:

If you regularly consume product advertisements or shopper news, you have most likely come across the word “sustainability.” Consequently, depending on your news intake, you also may have come across the word “greenwashing” and seen brands you know and love be accused of it. If you’re not sure what these terms mean or how they’re relevant to consumers — here’s a guide!

What is greenwashing? 

Greenwashing happens when products or practices are falsely advertised as environmentally friendly or “green.” Companies may invest money in making themselves seem green without actually making their products more sustainable. When this happens, consumers may think they’re making an environmentally conscious choice when they are, in fact, being deceived.

Concern for the environment is on the rise, and greenwashing allows producers to adapt accordingly without facing setbacks in the market. Consumers are willing to pay more to live a more sustainable lifestyle, which renders them targets for unethical advertising tactics. Companies use deceitful advertising to make their products seem eco-friendly in order to make more money and build up their brand’s public image.

How It Works: Firstly, Guilt

Perhaps the earliest and most famous greenwashing example that had nationwide impact and disseminated the phenomenon of consumer guilt was The Crying Indian TV advertisement, which aired on Earth Day, 1971.

A man who appears to be Native American features in this advert, shedding a tear about pollution and waste caused by irresponsible public littering. Accomplished American author Ginger Strand said that this ad, paid for by Keep America Beautiful (KAB), struck “greenwash gold.” The organization’s name doesn’t exactly scream “industry friendly,” but in reality, KAB is backed by the soda and beer industries, which are the single-use plastic producers responsible for the same litter being cried over in the commercial. 

Strand wrote that the ad shifted the Indigenous person’s weariness of littering from a rejection of consumerism to a rebuke of individual laziness. In other words, the ad placed environmental responsibility on consumers instead of producers, causing a radical shift in the course of environmentalism. This transfer of blame was as effective as it was because it created a sense of guilt and shame for the audience, motivating them to take individual action instead of holding corporations accountable for polluting the environment.

Overall, the Crying Indian ad was perceived as pro-environment, despite advancing a counterproductive and outright deceptive agenda. This encapsulates the core theme of greenwashing, which has evolved since the 70s —  it is constantly reforming and reshaping to fit the culture in which it operates, all while doing little if anything to achieve sustainable outcomes. 

The Crying Indian – full commercial – Keep America Beautiful – YouTube

Second: Cognitive Dissonance

One of the areas of consumerism that plays a critical role in contemporary culture is fast fashion. As more and more environmental and humanitarian injustices in the fast fashion industry have come to light, greenwashing has quickly adjusted to conserve the profits of the producers...

Take, for example, H&M. They launched their Conscious Collection — representing less than a quarter of the clothes they produced — as a “green” initiative on a small scale in 2010 and then expanded to their Spring 2019 collection. However, they didn’t provide adequate information about what made their line sustainable. 

After being called out by The Norwegian Consumer Authority for misleading and ambiguous claims regarding their Conscious Collection, H&M disclosed that Conscious clothing consists of at least 50% “sustainable materials.” They also set a company goal of using 100% sustainable materials by 2030

The “sustainable materials” claim, however, remains vague, especially considering that there is no industry standard for what makes a source or material “sustainable.” According to H&M, cotton and recycled polyester count as sustainable. Whereas cotton is a less problematic textile optionpolyester – even when recycled – is still made from oil-based plastics, sheds plastic microfibers and does not biodegrade, thus accumulating in landfills. 

However, even if H&M reached its sustainable materials goal by 2030, its business model would still be unsustainable. Why? Because they produce 3 billion clothing garments per year. As if that weren’t enough, they also strive to double their sales by 2030. With an unsustainable fast fashion model such as this, any sustainability claims made ought to be called out as greenwashing.

Similar to the Crying Indian commercial, the fashion industry puts the environmental responsibility on the consumer rather than themselves. H&M is simply offering a “sustainable” option, rather than pursuing initiatives and practices that would make them a sustainable company. “Just look for the green hangtag!” the brand suggests. 

The difference between these two examples lies in how they make consumers feel — KAB makes consumers feel guilty about ‘their’ littering as if the littering is the root of the pollution problem, while H&M tries to make shoppers feel better about themselves to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Nonetheless, both approaches successfully greenwash, and neither outcome results in any impactful steps toward sustainability.