Corporate sustainability is everywhere today – from product labels and glossy brochures to social media campaigns. Companies are eager to showcase their green credentials, whether through sneakers made from recycled materials or flights advertised as “carbon neutral.” But when examined closely, many of these claims don’t hold up. This gap between image and reality highlights two growing concerns: greenwashing, which involves misleading or exaggerated environmental claims, and greenhushing, where companies stay silent about their sustainability efforts. For business journalists, understanding these tactics is essential to holding companies accountable and helping the public cut through misleading messages.
A recent example involving Procter & Gamble (P&G) makes this issue clear. While P&G promoted its Charmin toilet paper as environmentally responsible, a class-action lawsuit claimed the company sourced wood pulp from Canada’s boreal forest, a critical ecosystem. The company faces backlash that could damage its reputation and compel it to promise greater transparency in its auditing and supply chain management.
What do greenwashing and greenhushing mean in practice?
Greenwashing is the practice of companies making their products or operations seem more environmentally friendly than they genuinely are. This can involve vague marketing claims, exaggerated product benefits, misleading PR communications, or selective disclosures. “It’s a way for companies to appear like they care while also increasing their profit margins, as they’re fully aware that eco-conscious people are willing to part with more money for sustainable products,” according to the sustainability company Akepa.
Greenhushing is the opposite: when a company hides or avoids sharing information about its sustainability efforts. This might happen because they fear criticism, don’t want to be accused of greenwashing, or aren’t confident in the results. While less visible than greenwashing, greenhushing also undermines transparency and accountability.
Stakeholders and investors call for responsible sustainability communication
Today, sustainability is not just a nice-to-have – it’s a priority for investors, customers, and employees. Companies are expected to manage climate risks, be transparent about their ESG (environmental, social, governance) impact, and to meet increasingly stringent regulatory standards.
“Sustainability disclosure necessitates that companies move beyond vague manifestos to establish SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) goals,” says Galina Parmenter, Founder of Brussels-based Willow Sustainability Ltd. “To avoid greenwashing, companies must substantiate all ESG marketing claims with clear evidence and, ideally, third-party certification, aligning with the EU’s Green Claims Directive that require consistent, verified data.”
Reporting frameworks and standards, such as the GRI, SASB, and ESRS, enable companies to establish robust, science-based sustainability goals based on double materiality assessment (understanding impacts, risks and opportunities) that they can rely on for sustainability disclosures, corporate communications, and marketing materials.
Claims such as “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “natural” demand verification.
For journalists, identifying greenwashing requires attention to detail and a solid understanding of the relevant rules and standards. Vague terms like “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “natural” are red flags unless supported by clear evidence. Under the EU Greenwashing Directive and the US FTC Green Guides, companies must back such claims with proof – and often with independent certification. Journalists should always ask for specifics: How are emissions being reduced? By how much? By when? Through what actions?
How can consumers and the media distinguish between sustainable products and misleading practices? Some companies use misleading tactics. Shein, for example, was criticized for marketing a “sustainable” clothing line even as its emissions increased. Others create a “green glow” by spotlighting small, positive actions – like installing solar panels – while ignoring larger environmental harms. This kind of selective storytelling is also banned under EU rules. It’s also important to look for trade-offs. A product labeled “biodegradable” might require lots of water or energy to produce. Good reporting considers the full life cycle of a product.
Eco-labels on product packaging and certifications also warrant scrutiny. Some are produced in-house and lack credibility. The EU now prohibits self-made or uncertified labels, and the FTC mandates third-party verification and transparency. Claims of “carbon neutrality” also deserve a closer examination. Airlines such as KLM and Qantas have faced criticism for purchasing carbon credits while continuing to operate with high emissions. New regulations now necessitate full life cycle assessments for these kinds of claims.
To verify sustainability claims, journalists should explore various sources. Sustainability reporting is now mandatory for large European companies on their websites. “It is these comprehensive sustainability reports that should serve as the primary information sources for journalists,” says Willow Sustainability’s Parmenter. “If you want to see if the company is taking sustainability seriously, you can also check how often the CEO talks about the company’s sustainability strategy in detail to shareholders, and not only about the [income statement] and balance sheet. If not, it likely means that sustainability is governed at the lowest levels of the organization, which is not a good sign.”
Marketing materials – such as ads, packaging, and websites – may often be used to exaggerate green messaging. Press releases can also include overly optimistic language. Journalists should pay close attention to supply chain disclosures, where environmental impacts often occur. The P&G example illustrates the importance of effective sourcing practices. Lawsuits and legal investigations may reveal more than public statements.
The roles of government and NGOs in safeguarding the truth
Governments are tightening rules around green corporate communication. The EU Green Claims Directive and the US FTC Green Guides are now central tools in the battle against misleading claims. The EU law, effective September 2026, bans vague or unverifiable claims and mandates third-party validation. The FTC Green Guides, although not formal laws, require clear, accurate, and evidence-based claims, particularly for terms like “compostable,” “renewable,” or “offset.” These legal standards empower journalists to hold companies accountable.
NGOs play a crucial role. Nonprofits like Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund expose misleading practices through investigations and lawsuits, and collaborate with companies to enhance their sustainability. Their independent research supports journalists in uncovering the truth and highlighting genuine progress.
As sustainability becomes an essential strategic priority for businesses, Parmenter recommends companies consider appointing a dedicated sustainability lead or even a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO) who also has decision-making power at the executive table. This individual, she emphasizes, plays a pivotal role in integrating sustainability across all business functions. A successful sustainability leader must gain strong management support, cultivate a network of internal champions, and deeply embed sustainability into the company culture to ensure a lasting and impactful transformation. Particularly in mitigating the risks of greenwashing, this organizational backing is crucial for ensuring transparent, responsible, and factual reporting of sustainability commitments and initiatives.
