10 examples of greenwashing

Greenwashing means that a product is advertised as sustainable and ecological, even though it is not as sustainable as previously described. Companies want to improve their ecological image. They often spend more money on advertising than on production or the material.

Garments are then often presented as recycled or sustainable, even if, for example, only 10% of the material is made from recycled fabrics and 90% of the garment is not. Even the use of organic cotton, for example, does not make clothes sustainable per se.

Due to company seals or seals that hardly carry out any checks, it is often very difficult for consumers to understand whether they have fallen into the greenwashing trap or not. To remedy this situation, there is now a seal app that provides information about the various seals.

Another problem is that certain terms can simply be used freely and there are no restrictions. For example, the words "sustainable" and "natural" or "ecological" and "organic". Only the words "eco" or "organic" must be subject to certain standards. This means that any company or brand can describe itself as environmentally friendly, sustainable and ecological, even though it is not. With this wording, sustainability is not only a social development, but is also becoming a marketing strategy.

Of course, there are also more and more ethical and sustainable companies that not only advertise themselves as such, but also act in an environmentally conscious manner. The best way to find out is to check the brands' websites for facts and figures on materials, production and working conditions. Those who run their business sustainably usually also focus on transparency. If you are unsure, google the company or brand and the word "sustainability". There are often independent articles about the companies that reveal more.

Greenwashing therefore means advertising a product as more sustainable than it actually is for reasons of profit. But at what point can we speak of greenwashing? There are certain framework points and methods by which the phenomenon can be recognized.

• If the core business itself is harmful to the environment (e.g. cruises, coal mining, fast fashion)
• more money is spent on advertising than on environmental protection (e.g. Krombacher)
• lobbying is carried out to circumvent environmental protection and nature conservation. In other words, exerting influence on politics.
• Advertising with self-evident facts (e.g. simply complying with laws and regulations and advertising with them)

There are many different methods of greenwashing. We have identified the most common ones here.

• Highlighting features that are environmentally friendly but have little significance in view of other dirty product features. (e.g. the green Bahncard, which advertises green electricity. Long-distance trains now run on 100% green electricity - which is great - but the majority of the rail network, namely local transport, is still powered by coal).
• Claiming an environmentally friendly attribute without evidence and using vague formulations (e.g. natural flavors and green as an environmentally friendly description of a product, even if it is not environmentally friendly and is glossed over with these words without verifiable certification).
• Emphasizing a correct but completely irrelevant product characteristic. (e.g. spray cans advertised as "CFC-free", as this substance has long been banned in Germany).
• Claims of environmentally friendly characteristics that are false (e.g. false seals, such as the "certified organic" seal, although this seal does not officially exist and is therefore not subject to any regulations or controls).
• Green products that are nevertheless harmful (e.g. the whitewashing of environmentally harmful products such as organic meat).

But why do companies decide to engage in greenwashing in the first place?

There are advantages for the company in following the trend towards more sustainable business practices. Firstly, it can enhance the image of the brand. Because in times of Fridays for Future and global warming, sustainable consumption is becoming more and more present. People want to have a clear conscience when they consume and that is exactly what companies want to give them. In addition, this can legitimize a higher price for products and thus increase profits. Customers' willingness to pay increases as soon as they think they are doing something good by buying that product compared to conventional products. The last two advantages relate primarily to political and economic benefits. For example, there are weaker regulations if it is made credible that certain standards are met voluntarily. Politicians may respond more "generously" with certain regulations. They are less strictly controlled and can therefore unofficially break or circumvent climate protection regulations more easily.

Cruises have experienced a real boom in recent years. This type of vacation is becoming increasingly popular, especially with older people. But young people also like to be pampered on a cruise. However, the floating hotels are powered by heavy fuel oil, and organic waste and faeces are disposed of directly into the ocean. AIDA is therefore trying to advertise with green cruising, although only one of the 13 AIDA ships is powered by LNG (liquefied natural gas). AIDA wants to create an image for green cruises among consumers. Although LNG emits fewer pollutants, it is extracted using fracking, which is a highly questionable method. Similarly, the more sustainable filter systems that AIDA advertises for more sustainability are not an innovative, environmentally friendly measure by the company, but are necessary to comply with the limit values.

Further information at: T.Online, WDSF

Delfine Friendly is one of those seals that does not deliver what it promises. The seal is actually supposed to stand for the fact that no dolphins are caught or killed during fishing. This is often the case with tuna in particular, as tuna are part of the dolphin food chain. The probability of catching a dolphin in a school of tuna is very high. But in reality, thousands of dolphins die every year as by-catch and are simply thrown back into the sea afterwards. The seals provide little to no reliable controls. In addition, dolphins are seen as competition for tuna hunting, especially in Japan. The dolphins are therefore driven into shallow bays and killed there en masse.

More information: Greenpeace.

Shoes made from ocean plastic. This is the motto of Adidas in cooperation with Parley for the Ocean. It was later discovered that the shoes were not made from waste from the sea, but that Adidas used plastic waste collected from beaches and nature for its production. Which is also an important and good step to make products from it. Only then should this be communicated and not advertised to customers as ocean plastic. This implies that buying the shoes has helped to relieve the oceans of the masses of waste, which is clearly not the case here.

Because recycling collected plastic waste from the oceans is very time-consuming. The plastic is mixed with sand, gravel and algae from the sea. Cleaning and subsequent sorting is very complex, time-consuming and, above all, cost-intensive. Ocean plastic is therefore a very popular trap for greenwashing. Adidas responded to the accusations and claimed that by collecting the waste on the beaches, they prevent waste from entering the oceans. Although this is true, it doesn't make it Ocean Plastic.

You can find more information at GEO.

Better Cotton Initiative is a seal from which H&M, among others, obtains its cotton. It is supposed to be sustainable cotton. They want to campaign against child labor, slave labor and for fair working conditions on the plantations. However, this is not happening.

The documentary "Dirty Cotton" on ZDF documents the working conditions under which people have to work on cotton plantations, regardless of whether it is organic cotton or conventional cotton. H&M also advertises its Conscious collection with clothes made from recycled materials. In reality, just 0.2-0.6% of the entire collection is recycled. In addition, the working conditions in the fast fashion industry should not be ignored. Even if a top is made from 100% organic cotton, it is still far from sustainable if the seamstresses are not paid a wage that ensures their survival.

Information on this can be found at: Zeit.

Here, too, it's all about fishing. This logo does not mean that fishing is sustainable or environmentally friendly. The mere fact that MSC fisheries allow bottom trawling, which destroys the seabed and thus all the marine life that lives on it, makes the seal unacceptable. Bottom trawls destroy the environment instead of protecting it. The MSC also turns a blind eye to the issue of overfishing and bycatch. Although these are regulated according to the MSC, there is little or no monitoring of compliance with these regulations. Recently, however, it seems that the criticism has been heard. Comprehensive reforms have been announced.

You can find more information at NDR and Deutsche Stiftung Meeresschutz.

1 crate = 1 square meter of rainforest saved. Krombacher donated money to the WWF, which did not use the money for reforestation, but instead invested it in rangers and equipment in a North African national park. The brewery also spent many times more on marketing purposes than was donated.

You can find more information at TAZ.

Greenwashing runs through all kinds of campaigns at Nestle. Nestle stands for poor working conditions, exploitation and environmental pollution. Nestle has compiled a list of the world's most sustainable companies on its website, on which it has also listed itself.

They have also formulated targets for reducing their plastic packaging. Here, too, they are only complying with the specified laws on plastic packaging. They formulate their targets vaguely and rely on marketing for environmentally friendly measures, but these are formulated so imprecisely that they are far from being an environmentally friendly brand.

Further information at: Tagesschau, SZ.

Disposable bottles and large corporations that buy the water sources away from the local population. All of this is Coca Cola. Similar to Nestlé, Coca Cola buys local water sources and then fills the water into plastic bottles and sells it. This is also the case in Lüneburg, for example, where the third water source in a town was to be bought up for the product "Vio". The townspeople responded to this application by Coca-Cola with the petition "Our groundwater belongs to us - not to Coca-Cola".

But that's not all. Coca-Cola (and Nestlé) are among the main polluters of plastic waste in the environment. The company now wants to offer plastic bottles made from 25% ocean plastic to combat marine pollution. As we already know that we have to be careful with the term marine plastic and that a large proportion of plastic waste is caused by the large corporation, these intentions make little difference.

Further information can be found at NDR.

McDonald's does not necessarily stand for sustainability, organic and zero waste. Nevertheless, they advertise with green landscapes, regionality and quality meat. They also produce endless amounts of packaging waste. And yet they still want to be and remain affordable. How does that fit together? Not at all. Even if they make their logo and the design of their branches more natural and environmentally friendly, the fast food chain is not yet sustainable.

Further information at: Spreadtherevolution.

An RWE advertising campaign shows a giant trudging through the green landscape and placing wind turbines everywhere. After a short time, wind turbines can be seen everywhere and the giant looks at the landscape with satisfaction. This depiction gives RWE the impression of being a green company with vast amounts of renewable energy. However, at the time of the advertisement, the company obtained just 2% of its energy from renewable sources. And only 0.1% from wind turbines in total.

You can find more information at Utopia .

If you, as a private individual, don't want to fall for the empty promises of companies, but want to consume truly sustainable, fair products, you should do one thing above all: Inform yourself. With a short and targeted search, you can actually find out relatively quickly whether greenwashing is being practiced here or whether the products are really fair trade. To get an overview of the fashion industry, for example, you can look for various seals.

• The "Transparency Index" informs you about supply chains, production lines and the social and environmental impact of production.
• The Fair Wear Foundation monitors the treatment of factory workers and checks whether they receive a wage that ensures their survival and whether they can join trade unions.
• Certifications such as "Bluesign" check the health and safety of the environment in the production of textiles and "Cradle to Cradle Certified" are parts that are fully biodegradable and compostable or can be used repeatedly. The "Fair Trade Textiles Standard" also guarantees the protection of workers and checks the entire supply chain as well as the right to join trade unions.
• When buying organic cotton, you should look out for the "Global Organic Textile Standard" or "Organic Content Standards" seals. They monitor the entire supply chain and take a holistic approach.

When buying fruit and vegetables, you can pay attention to the origin of the products. As the term "regional" does not have a mileage limit, it is worth taking a second look at the actual origin of the product. You can also make sure that you primarily buy seasonal fruit and vegetables, as this automatically avoids long transportation routes.

Careful research has another advantage. The more attentive we become as consumers, the more difficult it is for companies to use tricks to present themselves as greener. Since this consumer deception is legally a gray area, the only way to take action against it is through proactive measures.

Last but not least, it is important to mention once again that every step towards sustainable production is a correct and important step. Even if the products are presented as more sustainable than they are, it is still a good start to produce products only partially sustainably rather than having them manufactured completely conventionally. Nevertheless, the necessary transparency and honesty about the product in question should not be lacking. To offset their carbon footprint, companies can also invest in climate protection projects, for example. You can find out exactly what the carbon footprint is and what you should bear in mind as a private individual in our magazine article.