Email
\n <\/a><\/p>\n
Link<\/p>\n
\n Is water in a box really better for the environment<\/a>? What about sneakers labeled eco-friendly? How about green-accented soap bottles with plant visuals?\n <\/p>\n \n These words and images may look environmentally friendly, but they could also stem from a marketing strategy known as greenwashing. The practice occurs when companies sell the idea of \u201cgreen\u201d products while accomplishing little or nothing for the environment.\n <\/p>\n \n There is a growing market for products that minimize damage to the environment, according to Todd Larsen, executive codirector for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America, a nonprofit that certifies environmentally responsible businesses and promotes ethical consumption.\n <\/p>\n \n Forty-six percent of people said they are purchasing more sustainable products to help the environment in a 2024 PricewaterhouseCoopers survey<\/a> of 20,000 participants across 31 countries and territories.\n <\/p>\n \n Purchasing more sustainably is prevalent especially among younger people, Larsen said, leading some companies to engage in deceptive marketing practices that exploit consumer values.\n <\/p>\n \n Greenwashing misleads the public to \u201cbelieve that a company or other entity is doing more to protect the environment than it is,\u201d all while promoting false, distracting solutions to the climate crisis, according to the United Nations<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n The UN has identified several tactics commonly used in greenwashing: making unsubstantiated net-zero claims, in which a company says it balances the amount of greenhouse gas emissions with the amount it removes from the atmosphere; highlighting minor improvements in which a product meets minimum regulatory requirements; and emphasizing a single attribute while ignoring the product\u2019s or company\u2019s broader environmental impact.\n <\/p>\n \n Greenwashing occurs mostly when companies \u201covercommunicate or under-communicate\u201d on sustainability performance, according to Andreas Rasche, a professor of business in society at the Centre for Sustainability at Copenhagen Business School in Denmark. Misleading branding, vague claims and unregulated labels on products make it difficult for consumers who are aiming to reduce their environmental footprint <\/strong>to make informed decisions, Rasche said.\n <\/p>\n \n But not all greenwashing by companies is intentional, he said. Rather than outright deception, \u201cgreenwashing can be an outcome of poor management rather than a deliberate strategy,\u201d Rasche said. These companies may want to produce their products in ways more beneficial to the environment but may fall short internally, he added.\n <\/p>\n \n On the other hand, some companies overcompensate out of fear of appearing to greenwash through the practice of \u201cgreenhushing,\u201d which Rasche defines as individuals or organizations \u201cdeliberately not talking about sustainability despite them actually having a sustainable track record.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Buying sustainable products does not have to be an overwhelming endeavor. If something sounds too good to be true about being kinder to the planet, it probably is. When it comes to spotting green products, \u201ca lot of it is also about common sense,\u201d Rasche said.\n <\/p>\n \n Here are some red flags to watch out for to avoid greenwashing:\n <\/p>\n \n Overly vague claims: <\/strong>Look for terms such as eco-friendly, green or nontoxic without explanation.\n <\/p>\n \n Companies can essentially slap those terms onto a package without proof, according to <\/strong>Scott Faber, the Environmental Working Group\u2019s senior vice president for government affairs. <\/strong>With a lack of oversight, \u201cit\u2019s just another way to sell a story,\u201d Faber told CNN via email. EWG is a nonprofit research and advocacy group that focuses on consumer health, toxic chemicals and pollutants.\n <\/p>\n \n A newer term circulating is \u201cregenerative,\u201d Faber said, which companies often use to mean extending beyond sustainability to actively restoring, renewing or improving components of the environment and resources.\n <\/p>\n \n People should expect to see that term more frequently despite there being no widely accepted or legal definition of what it means, he said.\n <\/p>\n \n Unlike organic labeling, which is required to undergo audits and meet legal standards, \u201cmost claims that foods regenerate soil aren\u2019t tied to such standards and don\u2019t require third-party verification,\u201d Faber said.\n <\/p>\n \n Nature imagery:<\/strong> Visuals such as windmills, green packaging or leafy visuals, suggestive of sustainability, mean nothing if they omit evidence of any environmental claims, according to Faber.\n <\/p>\n \n No verification:<\/strong> No backup of a product\u2019s claims or credible third-party certification means those assertions might not be true.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cCompanies should really substantiate in what way their product actually is green. So that could be a trusted certification, like USDA (US Department of Agriculture) organic,\u201d Green America\u2019s Larsen said. \u201cOr they could have information on their website where they go into detail about things like their supply chain and how it\u2019s truly green, and they actually are showing you information that\u2019s verifiable.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Homemade labels<\/strong> that lack verification:<\/strong> Check if a company provides transparent information about its practices online.\n <\/p>\n \n Claims that defy logic: <\/strong>What about a carbon-neutral airline? Carbon-neutral means achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by balancing \u201cthose emissions so they are equal to, or less than, the emissions removed,\u201d according to the United Nations<\/a>. Ask yourself, \u201cIs this actually possible?\u201d Rasche advised. \u201cCan an airline at this point in time really be carbon-neutral?\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Doing your homework about a product, especially one you buy a lot, can be worth it.\n <\/p>\n \n Experts advise looking for certifications, questioning unsubstantiated language and visuals, and conducting an online search for a product and company to learn about how goods are made and whether there is evidence for what the company says.\n <\/p>\n \n Faber suggests asking yourself a series of questions: Who is verifying the claim? Is the claim specific or too general to be proven? What\u2019s missing? Is the packaging more prominent than the product?\n <\/p>\n \n The \u201cwhat\u2019s missing\u201d question is often the most important to ask, Faber said. \u201cA cereal box might brag about recycled packaging but still use pesticide-laced oats,\u201d he said. \u201cA meat company might call their beef \u2018regeneratively raised\u2019 without saying anything about antibiotic use.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n Experts also recommend turning to the US Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s list of more than 100 ecolabels<\/a> recommended for consumers on its website<\/a>. Ecolabels are marks on products that show they meet specific environmental standards.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cIt\u2019s a bit of work, but on the other hand, you\u2019re really learning about the products you\u2019re purchasing, and you can feel better about those products,\u201d Larsen said. \u201cYou can tell other people what you learned about those products and encourage them to purchase them as well.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n The United Nations also suggests consumers<\/a> consider a product\u2019s entire life cycle \u2014 from the extraction of raw materials to its disposal \u2014 while taking into account potential environmental consequences from the packaging materials.\n <\/p>\n \n There is also the option to buy secondhand goods, a double win by granting new life for products and preventing further landfill waste or emissions.\n <\/p>\n Greenwashing and groceries<\/p>\n \n Spotting greenwashing in the food industry<\/a> requires a little bit of work, too. You can identify deceptive packaging and vague labels, and there are additional clues in ingredient lists to see how processed a product may be.\n <\/p>\n \n When it comes to packaging, \u201cif a product screams \u2018natural\u2019 in bold letters but the ingredient list reads like a chemistry textbook, that\u2019s a red flag,\u201d Faber noted. \u201cThese claims are often designed to cover up ingredients linked to serious health harms.\u201d Such ingredients include potentially harmful additives like <\/strong>food dyes<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n He pointed to the Environmental Working Group\u2019s Food Scores<\/strong><\/a>, which can help consumers \u201csee past the front-of-pack claims and understand what\u2019s really in their food.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n An effective way to avoid misleading marketing of food is to make your own meal or snack without unhealthy additives. And although not always feasible, Larsen suggests going straight to the source when possible by speaking with a farmer at a farmers market to learn about growing practices and products.\n <\/p>\n \n In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has Green Guides<\/a> designed as guidance for marketers to avoid making environmental claims that are deceptive or could mislead consumers. However, there is a lack of strong legal enforcement for them and federal oversight beyond that guidance, according to Larsen and Rasche.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cWhile the Green Guides are just that, guides and not rules or regulations, they are enforceable under Section 5 of the FTC Act<\/a>, which prevents unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce,\u201d FTC spokesman Mitchell Katz told CNN via email. Consumers can file complaints about alleged fraud and deception from companies on the \u201creport fraud\u201d tab on the FTC\u2019s website<\/a>.\n <\/p>\n \n The gap between guidance and regulation leaves room for companies to make environmental claims that may not hold up. Well-known brands have faced consequences for statements found to be misleading about the recyclability or sustainability of their products.\n <\/p>\n \n Keurig Dr Pepper settled charges<\/a> filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission last year after labeling its K-Cup single-use beverage pods as recyclable, even though two of the largest US recycling companies rejected the pods.\n <\/p>\n \n A Keurig Dr Pepper spokesperson told CNN via email that the company has taken steps to make its products recyclable and to support modern recycling systems across North America.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cIn 2020, we changed all of our K-Cup pods to be made from polypropylene \u2014 a more widely accepted material in curbside recycling programs,\u201d the spokesperson said. \u201cWe also provide clear recycling instructions on our packaging and encourage consumers to check locally as each community determines what it accepts into its recycling program.\u201d\n <\/p>\n \n With sustainability regulations<\/a> facing rollback<\/a> in the United States, it is increasingly incumbent on individuals to protect themselves in their consumption habits, Larsen said.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cWe all are investors. We all have pension savings. We all go to the supermarket, so it depends also on us and on our day-to-day behavior,\u201d Rasche noted. \u201cAnd we shouldn\u2019t feel too disempowered, because, in a sense, we also have action\u201d in our everyday choices.\n <\/p>\n \n Be sure to know what is real, he said, because when you really buy green, you\u2019re contributing to a more sustainable future.\n <\/p>\n![\"Look](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/gettyimages-1388226402.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Checking](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/gettyimages-1210531301.jpg\")
<\/p>\n