Greenwashing

Jaime Nieto Vega 

The concept of greenwashing is closely linked to marketing and, in particular, to green marketing. Therefore, it is important to clarify these concepts beforehand. Marketing is defined by the Chartered Institute of Marketing as “the responsible management process of identifying, anticipating and satisfying consumer requirements in a profitable manner” (Peattie, 1995). Thus, green marketing would refer to the strategic approach used by companies to promote and position their products or services based on their perceived environmental sustainability (Jindal, 2025). In the discrepancy between the means used by companies to create this perception and their real patterns of behaviour, we will find the definition of greenwashing. To this end, we will next address the objectives pursued when creating this perception and the tools used for it. 

One of the first objectives of green marketing was to explore the market in search of “green markets” made up of “green consumers.” For this profile of consumers, environmental sustainability in the practices of companies and in the goods or services they market becomes an important criterion in their consumption decision-making. In contrast to this more passive approach—in which there is a pre-existing market to be explored—another, more active one would later prevail, consisting of the expansion of these markets. With the aim of broadening the total volume of green consumers, different conventional marketing techniques were incorporated into green marketing to attract conventional consumers toward green consumption (Rex & Baumann, 2007). 

In this sense, green or “eco” labelling plays a fundamental role, signalling “green” companies in the market to those already convinced, and reinforcing the retention of newly attracted consumers. The use of these labels draws a dividing line that differentiates conventional (“non-green”) companies from “green” ones. Being part of the companies considered “green” implies the declaration of an environmental behaviour clearly differentiated from that of conventional “non-green” companies. These declarations may be related to various environmental commitments, such as: 

• Reduction of carbon emissions, including different phases of the supply chain. 

• Initiatives to save on resource consumption, whether energy, water, or materials. 

• Promotion of recycling, the circular economy, and the sustainable management of all types of waste. 

• Conservation of ecosystems, including commitments against deforestation. 

• Commitments to active environmental improvement, including projects for the restoration of damaged ecosystems or reforestation. 

The declaration of this differentiated behaviour may be accompanied by a greater or lesser degree of measurable commitment, which, on occasion, implies the granting of a label that certifies such behaviour. To provide evidence of it, a fundamental tool is ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting. In this document, companies disclose information about their performance in three key areas: environmental, social, and governance (Friede et al., 2015). In practice, since their content is not always fully standardised or verified, they can also become a reputational tool rather than one of accountability. 

Thus, a conventional definition of greenwashing could refer to the practice whereby companies exaggerate their environmental initiatives in their ESG reports or in their advertising campaigns, even going so far as to significantly diverge from them through their actual actions. This gap between what these companies say and what they do relies on certain tools; among the most common, the following can be summarised (Zhao et al., 2026): 

 
• Misleading disclosures: companies often engage in greenwashing through symbolic commitments rather than substantive environmental actions. 
• Image manipulation: companies project an ideal image by exaggerating their environmental policies and commitments, instead of effectively improving their environmental performance. 
• Inconsistent behaviour: There is a discrepancy between proclaimed green initiatives and actual practices. 

Some canonical examples of greenwashing are widely known by the public. For example, the “Beyond Petroleum” campaign of the oil company British Petroleum (BP) was clearly exposed after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Another paradigmatic case was the falsification of emissions data for Volkswagen diesel vehicles, at the same time that the company guaranteed their compliance in its reports. A final singular example would be the case of Total Energies, accused of presenting a false image by advertising its commitment to the transition to renewable energy when the majority of its investments remained in the fossil fuel sector. 

All these examples illustrate how companies struggle even to meet their own commitments. A recent study shows that, for instance, in the agri-food sector’s environmental claims, greenwashing could be as high as 98% (Bach et al., 2026). However, a more complete view of greenwashing implies going beyond the mere contrast between companies’ declarations and their effective degree of compliance. From a more demanding perspective, practices that are a priori acceptable for green marketing could come to be considered greenwashing. 

First, the reduction of carbon emissions, relied upon almost exclusively through the massive deployment of renewable generation technologies, typically conceals part of the broader picture. As highlighted by the literature on environmental conflicts (Martínez-Alier, 2023) and the limits of renewables (Carpintero and Nieto, 2022), the transition to these technologies tends to replace some problems with others and to shift environmental impacts to the Global South. An example would be the dependence of these technologies on non-renewable critical minerals, whose polluting extraction is avoided in developed countries. Reducing a company’s greenhouse gas emissions in the territory in which it operates is a noteworthy achievement. However, a genuine commitment to environmental sustainability would require recognising and actively minimising these environmental and social impacts associated with its global supply chain. 

Second, there is an underlying conflict between promoting efficiency in resource use, on the one hand, and the desire—intrinsic to the concept of marketing—for market expansion. The so-called “rebound effect” implies that efficiency improvements may result in lower-than-expected reductions in consumption (Parrique et al., 2019). Greater efficiency can make consumption cheaper and even generate a false sense of harmlessness or an underestimation of impact. This is the case of private combustion vehicles, whose significant efficiency improvements have been accompanied by an increase in kilometres driven per passenger, as well as in the average size of vehicles. The establishment of practices aimed at reducing net consumption—avoiding the aforementioned rebound effects—would truly move toward environmental sustainability. However, the logic of business profitability discourages any such dynamic. 

Third, recycling, as one of the most widely used and well-known green marketing tools, is not free from contradictions. Ecological economics has shown us that, on a finite planet, total recycling or a fully circular economy is physically impossible. Once again, excessive reliance on recycling may lead to an underestimation of the consumer’s environmental impact—even among those who are aware. This is particularly harmful in the case of single-use goods and, especially, when the material used is plastic. 99% of the 6.3 billion tonnes of plastic produced up to 2017 have been incinerated (12%) or discarded into the environment (79%) (Resco de Dios, 2024). The promotion of plastic recycling is, in most cases, greenwashing. Although recycling must be part of any sustainability strategy, a more useful commitment would reframe it as a “lesser evil.” In this sense, reuse, repair, the prohibition of planned obsolescence, and the substitution of certain materials, such as plastic, by others, such as glass (reusable) would be practices more aligned with environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, all of them directly clash with the logic of market expansion. 

Fourth, reforestation campaigns often conceal an uncomfortable truth: reforesting an area equivalent to that deforested by a company does not restore or compensate for its environmental impacts. During the period in which the forest mass grows to recover its original size, the amount of carbon captured by the forest is far lower than what would have been captured had deforestation not taken place. In other words, reforestation actions undertaken by McDonald’s, such as “En el Campo x el Campo” or “Let’s Get Growing America,” do not compensate for deforestation along its supply chain, which constitutes a clear case of greenwashing. Scrutiny of these supply chains, as well as their subcontracting networks, must be as rigorous as possible. Policies for sustainable forest management that genuinely minimise impacts must also be promoted. 

Finally, it is worth noting how some companies that are more scrupulous in their activities in developed countries “relax” their behaviour in the Global South. For example, a report by ActionAid (2026) points to large multinational companies such as Coca-Cola and Repsol—despite their significant green marketing efforts—for some of their practices in territories of the Global South. For instance, the report highlights the lack of adequate compensation to communities on the coast of Peru affected by an oil spill caused by the company in 2022. It also points to the appropriation of water resources in El Salvador by Coca-Cola, where 68% of water resources are contaminated, and 80% are under water stress. 

In short, the existence of greenwashing reveals the limitations of CSR or, more generally, the market’s response to the social and environmental impacts of multinational companies. As a consequence, greenwashing generates a series of undesirable effects that are worth summarising: 

1. “Solutionism”: it presents as solutions to environmental problems practices that are highly questionable in light of the best available empirical evidence. 

2. Incoherent allocation of responsibilities: responsibility for minimising environmental impacts is delegated to the consumer. This overlooks, on the one hand, the close link between consumption and production and distribution, and, on the other, the limitations faced by consumers in their real living conditions to actively act as “green consumers.” 

3. Distorted perception: consumers receive misleading signals from the market, which identifies as sustainable practices that entail other environmental problems or are, in fact, not sustainable at all—as is the case with plastic recycling. 

4. Displacement of environmental impacts: some environmental impacts are replaced by others and shifted from some territories to others, undermining the global sustainability of certain “green” practices. 

It is worth concluding with some of the major challenges facing the reduction or elimination of greenwashing. The first, more practical, relates to the recent tendency to subsume environmental sustainability within a broader set formed by ESG dimensions (environmental, social, and governance) or, more generally, Sustainability—plain and simple. Although at first glance this trend could lead to an interesting integrated approach that considers these dimensions as inseparable, in practice, it blurs them and makes them interchangeable, which could facilitate the practice of greenwashing. Secondly, the conceptualisation of sustainability in market economies relegates this issue to that of an “externality,” in line with the concept of green capitalism. Green marketing represents a way of privatising the response to this “market failure” by attempting to correct consumer behaviour without resorting to more direct and extensive regulation. Examples include banning excessive plastic in packaging, active state participation in the production of electric vehicles—prioritising public transport—or the intervention of the assets related to the ownership and exploitation of fossil fuel resources. Thirdly, at a deeper level, there is a fundamental contradiction between the concept of marketing and that of sustainability that is difficult to overcome. The pursuit of profitability and business competition imposes a growth imperative that is incompatible with long-term sustainability. However, promising alternatives have recently emerged. Thus, Lloveras and Pansera (2025) explore pathways that help sustainable marketing escape this trap, promoting selective downscaling, sufficiency, consumer sovereignty, and a culture of limits. The consolidation of these debates within marketing and green marketing should be seen as a decisive contribution to the elimination of greenwashing. 

Bibliography: 

Actionaid. (2026). Sin excusas, la necesidad de la debida diligencia vinculante para proteger a las personas, sus derechos humanos y el medio ambiente: Cuatro casos, cuatro países: Empresas con responsabilidad social empresarial sin diligencia en derechos humanos. Actionaid. 

Bach, M., Loy, L., Mach, K. J., Shukla McDermid, S. & Jacquet, J. (2026). Environmental claims, climate promises, and ‘greenwashing’ by meat and dairy companies. PLOS Climate, 5(4), e0000773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000773 

Carpintero, Ó. & Nieto, J. (2022). Transición energética y escenarios postcrecimiento. In PAPELES de relaciones ecosociales y cambio global (pp. 93–106). FUHEM Ecosocial. 

Friede, G., Busch, T. & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG and financial performance: Aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917 

Jindal, P. (2025). Economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable development-direct and indirect effects on business practices. In Greening Our Economy for a Sustainable Future (pp. 227–240). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-23603-7.00018-2 

Lloveras, J. & Pansera, M. (2025). Degrowth: A literature review and conceptualisation for sustainable marketing and consumer research. Journal of Marketing Management, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2025.2572966 

Martinez-Alier, J. (2023). Environmental conflicts and the making of world movements for environmental justice. Economia Politica, 40(3), 765–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-023-00306-x 

Parrique, T., Barth, J., Kerschner, C., Briens, F., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkaken, A. & Spangenber, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau. 

Peattie, K. (1995). Environmental marketing management: Meeting the green challenge. Pitman. 

Resco de Dios, V. (2024). Ecomitos: Los Bulos Ecológicos Que Agravan la Crisis Ambiental (1st ed). Plataforma Editorial SL. 

Rex, E., & Baumann, H. (2007). Beyond ecolabels: What green marketing can learn from conventional marketing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.013 

Zhao, Q., Zhang, J., Sun, X., Ma, J. & Wang, G. (2026). Green or Greenwashing? A novel deep learning method integrating multi-source data for ESG greenwashing detection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 555, 148147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.148147