Highlighting a brand’s or company’s focus on ecology and sustainability has become almost a ticket to access the most competitive markets. However, behind an apparent desire to showcase environmental commitment, there is often misleading or deceptive communication. In this article, we will specifically discuss this practice – known as greenwashing – exploring its mechanisms and how sustainability can be communicated accurately and ethically
The origins of Greenwashing
Greenwashing is a deceptive marketing practice that uses text, imagery and colors to suggest that a product or service is environmentallt sustainable in order to boost its market competitiveness – without the company or brand actually taking meaningful steps to reduce the enviromental impact of its products or services.
It can appear in many forms, from claims on packaging to color palettes, to descriptions in social media posts or on company websites. At first glance, it can be hard to detect because the methods and tools employed belogn to the realm of communication; for this reason, training oneself to recognized greenwashing is extremely importanto. Moreover, greenwashing can also creep into communications about sustainability aspects that are not backed by methodological reports or are referenced with incorrect regulatory standards.
This unethical behavior often arises as a rushed response by companies to the growing consumer interest in environmental issues. The pressure to align with this trend has, unfortunately, triggered shortcuts and mechanisms that lead companies to engage in fictitious, unethical communication. In reality, such practices conceal an organization’s failure to implement concrete policies to reduce its environmental footprint.
Greenwhishing and Greenhushing
In addition to the misleading communication that characterizes greenwashing, there are two other terms related to unethical practices in sustainability: greenwhishing and greenhushing.
Greenwhishing
It refers to a situation in which a company intentionally downplays or communicates its sustainability progress in an overly cautions ways to avoid criticism, judjment or accusations of greenwashing. In this case, the organization’s actual environmental efforts are not highlighted.
This can happen for various reasons: fear of receiving criticism, regulatory uncertainties or simply lacking complete data to demonstrate its impacts. But why is this practice viewed negatively? It can slow down progress toward a sustainable transition by reducing transparency and the opportunity to inspire other companies to adopt best practices.
It can be described as a form of strategic silence
Greenhushing
It refers to a kind of “cautious underreporting”: in this case, companies underestimate or communicate their environmental progress in an overly careful way. This often happens due to incomplete data, fear of not meeting targets or regulatory uncertainty. The risk, therefore, is missing the opportunity to inspire others and gain recognition for their efforts.
In short, greenhushing is a deliberate choice not to talk about sustainability, while greenwishing represents overly cautious communication that downplays actual progress.
Regulatory protection against greenwashing
On March 6 2024 the new anti-greenwashing decree was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which provides a rather detailed list of commercial practices that Member States must consider unfair and misleading.
In particular, compared to previous regulations, the list of commercial practices deemed unfair has been expanded, including:
- Promoting sustainability features of products and/or services as a consumer benefit when they are not directly related to the product, the company, or the production processes
- Using comparisons between their own products and those of competitors, or between different versions of theri producst, to h environmental, social or durability aspects in a partial or misleading way
- Employing sustainability labels without real certifications or not recognized by competent authorities
- Making generci environmental claims that suggest ecological excellence without concrete evidence
- Communicating the environmental impact of a product when the reduction strategy is based solely on greenhouse gas offsetting, without direct interventions in production processes
- Presenting legal obligations as if they were added value or exclusive benefits for the consumer
- Omitting information on software updates that could compromise the performance of a digital product
- Advertising an alleged benefit of a feature that actually reduces the product’s durability
- Providing information about a product’s durability without relying on realistic and standardized usage conditions
Conclusions
Greenwashing is certainly a significant challenge in today’s sustainability landscape. As consumer attention to environmental issues continues to grow, it’s essential for companies to respond with transparency and concrete action, avoiding misleading communication.
Moreover, the new European regulation represents an important step forward in countering these unlawful practices, as it provides clear and detailed guidelines for ethical and responsible communication.
However, the responsibility does not lie solely with companies and institutions: consumers must become increasingly informed and aware, able to recognize greenwashing strategies and reward companies that demonstrate genuine commitment to sustainability.
Through a collective and conscious approach, we can build a future in which sustainability becomes a tangible reality rather than an empty promise.
Do you want to integrate sustainability into your business processes?
