Greenwashing, otherwise known as the green sheen, refers to a process of selective disclosure that obscures poor environmental performance with positive communication [2] [3].
As sustainability becomes a major selling point – with 67% of European consumers considering the use of sustainable materials an important purchasing factor – green marketing has surged [4].
The term ‘green labels’ refers to all the different environmental claims companies can make about their products – think ‘sustainable’, ‘energy efficient’, ‘recyclable’, ‘ethically sourced’ or ‘carbon neutral’ [5]. The problem is that green labels are still not regulated through any coherent international or universally recognised standard. As a result, nearly half of all environmental labels and claims result in greenwashing [1, 6].
This article shows consumers how to spot misleading ‘green labels’ across different sectors. In the fashion industry, brands like H&M promote ‘sustainable’ collections whose sourcing and production are fundamentally at odds with such claims [4]. In carbon offsetting, companies overvalue carbon credits while programmes create harmful consequences for communities in the global majority.
The fashion industry
The fashion industry has an enormous environmental footprint. The production of clothes emits 1.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually – more than the emissions of maritime shipping and international flights combined [7]. The industry also requires significant water use, puts pressure on the land and is associated with chemical pollution and waste dumping. It is estimated that one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned every second, and roughly 20% of global water pollution is related to the dyeing and treatment of textiles [8].
In the last decade, the annual per-person textile consumption has, on average, doubled from 7kg to 13 kg [9]. This is largely attributed to the growth of fast fashion.
Though fast fashion brands have introduced eco-conscious or recycled lines, these collections fail to address the underlying problem: an inherently unsustainable model of production and disposal.
H&M’s Conscious collection and ‘sustainable’ materials
H&M launched its ‘conscious’ line in 2013, claiming the clothes contained at least 50% recycled, organic, or Tencel Lyocell fibres [10]. The launch of the line was accompanied by a glossy green photoshoot of flowers and foliage.
However, contradicting reports from the brand itself stated that H&M’s Conscious Collection includes a higher percentage of synthetics than its primary collection, including about 10% more polyester [4], a fossil fuel derivative that takes up to 200 years to break down [7].
Recycled fabrics are also not inherently sustainable. As Alexa et al point out, their production and degradation can still be environmentally damaging, and H&M provides little information about water or land use [3].
Even organic materials like cotton are extremely resource-intensive, requiring around 20,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram [4].
A further issue is that terms like ‘sustainable’ and ’biodegradable’ lack standard definitions, allowing companies to use vague, unverified labels with no third-party oversight [4].
Ultimately, H&M’s shift to recycled materials does little to address the industry’s broader environmental impact, and consumers should stay alert to these signs of greenwashing.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsets represent tradable tokens equivalent to one tonne of CO₂. Effectively, they enable companies to compensate for their emissions by purchasing reductions achieved elsewhere [11].
Many major fossil-fuel producers, carmakers, and tech firms rely on carbon credits, not just to offset their emissions but also as a way to market their products.
For example, Apple recently lost a case in a German court after marketing the Apple Watch as ‘carbon neutral’. In reality, the company reduced only 75% of emissions associated with production and covered the remaining 25% with questionable carbon credits [12]. Shell – the largest buyer of carbon credits between 2020 and 2022 – faced similar criticism for its ‘Drive Carbon Neutral’ scheme, which claimed to offset carbon emissions from customers’ fuel but made no changes to fuel production [11,13].
The lucrative investment in carbon credits by these large companies has created an industry that is now valued at roughly US$950 billion, with 12.5 billion tonnes of credits trading [10]. Despite its scale, the sector is largely unregulated which has resulted in numerous issues [12].
Offsetting schemes often pay communities in the Global South to plant or maintain forests. While proponents argue these programmes fund nature-based climate solutions, there is substantial evidence that points to the environmental, social, and economic harms endured by the communities involved. There is also considerable doubt as to the ability of the projects to meet carbon offsetting targets [14] [15].
Trees for Global Benefit
Trees for Global Benefit is one such carbon-offset programme. Launched in 2003, it described itself as an “innovative forest-based restoration initiative” that would increase biodiversity, improve livelihoods, and support climate adaptation and mitigation [15]. It also promised economic benefits through payments to farmers for tree planting.
Run by Ecotrust, the project planted 2.3 million trees through contracts with over 15,000 Ugandan farming households [15].
However, interviews conducted by a Global Forest Coalition member in Hoima and Kikuube revealed major problems. Payments were often delayed, and food scarcity increased as farmers lost land for crops. Contracts were written in English, leaving many participants unable to understand the 25-year terms. Women were frequently uncompensated, as payments went to male landowners, and farmers who missed targets due to drought received nothing [15].
Trees for Global Benefit denies any wrongdoing and continues to run the programme [16].
A different investigation found that over 90% of rainforest offsets certified by the largest verifier were effectively worthless ‘phantom credits’ [17].
Conclusion
By analysing examples of greenwashing in both the fashion industry and in carbon-offsetting schemes, this article highlights the importance of scrutinising environmental claims. Understanding the mechanisms and signs of greenwashing helps consumers to avoid misleading products and make more ethical, informed choices.
