What is Greenwashing?

You’ve probably heard of whitewashing at least once in the corporate world. This term is defined as the glossing over or covering up of scandalous information through a biased presentation of facts. But greenwashing isn’t nearly as well known.

Greenwashing (a compound word modelled on “whitewashing”), also called “green sheen,” is a form of marketing hype combined with lack of industrial regulation in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organization’s products, aims and policies are environmentally beneficial, often in contradiction to their environmental and sustainability record in general.

Greenwashing takes up valuable space in the fight against environmental issues, like climate change, plastic ocean pollution, air pollution and global species extinctions.

What Is Greenwashing

Not to be confused with green marketing, greenwashing is the process of conveying a false impression or providing misleading information about how a company’s products are more environmentally sound. Greenwashing is considered to encompass any business organization’s unsubstantiated claim for the purpose of deceiving consumers.

For example, companies involved in greenwashing behavior might make claims that their products are made from recycled materials or have energy–saving benefits. Although some of the environmental claims might be partially true, companies engaged in greenwashing typically exaggerate their claims or the benefits in an attempt to mislead consumers.

Or they may only advertise one small environmentally–friendly aspect of a product while completely glossing over another far greater toxic or destructive aspect of the same product in order to obfuscate the complete truth behind a specific product.

How Greenwashing Works

Greenwashing is an attempt to capitalize on the growing demand for environmentally sound products, whether that means they are more natural, healthier, free of chemicals, recyclable, or less wasteful of natural resources.

However, another reason companies engage in greenwashing is ignorance—they don’t know they’re doing it. Many companies don’t have the expertise as to what actually constitutes sustainable materials. For instance, In Australia, a company switched to using “biodegradable” plastic, which technically didn’t fully degrade.

Greenwashing 101

Environmentalist Jay Westerveld coined the term “greenwashing” in 1986 in a critical essay inspired by the irony of the “save the towel” movement in hotels. He stayed at a resort in Samoa that devised one of the most blatant examples of the term. They asked their guests to reuse their towels to “save the environment.” The resort enjoyed the benefit of lower laundry costs, but there is no evidence that any environmental policies were ever instituted. Meanwhile, the resort was expanding further and further into the local area.

Companies that have engaged in greenwashing on a wide scale have made headlines over the years. In the mid–1980s, for example, oil company Chevron commissioned a series of expensive television and print ads to broadcast its environmental dedication. But while the now–infamous “The People Do” campaign ran, Chevron was actively violating the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, as well as spilling oil into wildlife refuges.

Chevron was far from the only corporation making outrageous claims, unfortunately. In 1991, chemical company DuPont announced its double–hulled oil tankers with ads featuring marine animals prancing in chorus to Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy.” It turned out the company was the largest corporate polluter in the U.S. that year.

Why Companies Greenwash

Companies apply greenwashing techniques to the promotion of their products in order to appeal to the environmentally–conscious consumer. Society is shifting towards being more environmentally conscious. With this shift in consumer preferences, firms that do not incorporate environmentally friendly practices in their business model are losing customers and revenue.

Apart from consumer pressure causing firms to engage in greenwashing, the practice also helps a firm in generating positive public relations and boosting a firm’s brand image. Claims that align a product or campaign can gain market share and a competitive advantage over rivals. It’s simple—being seen as ethical drives profitability.

The Bottom Line

A report by McKinsey found that Gen Z (people born roughly between 1996 and 2010) are more likely to spend money on companies and brands seen to be ethical. Another, Nielsen’s Global Corporate Sustainability Report, found that 66% of consumers would spend more on a product if it comes from a sustainable brand, and that jumps to 73% among millennials. Therefore, companies have a financial incentive to be more socially conscious, or at least appear to.

An awareness of greenwashing has increased in recent years. This is due to the rising demand for environmentally sustainable products and much–needed transparency that goes hand in hand with ethical consumption. However, as public consciousness of environmental issues rises so does the inclination to greenwash. As companies rush to exploit this new consumer base, keeping an eye out for greenwashing is more important than ever.

The Consumer

There is also an increasing pressure, from the public and government, for large companies and corporations to reduce their impact on the environment, especially with regard to their contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

More recently, some of the world’s biggest carbon emitters, such as conventional energy (petroleum, coal) companies, have attempted to rebrand themselves as champions of the environment. Products are greenwashed through a process of renaming, rebranding, or repackaging them. Greenwashed products might convey the idea that they’re more natural, wholesome, or free of chemicals than competing brands.

Companies have engaged in greenwashing via press releases and commercials touting their clean energy or pollution reduction efforts. In reality, none of these companies may be making a meaningful commitment to green initiatives at all. In short, companies that make unsubstantiated claims that their products are environmentally safe or provide some vague green benefit are involved in greenwashing.

Special Considerations

Of course, not all companies are involved in greenwashing. Some products are genuinely green. These products usually come in packaging that spells out the real differences in their contents from competitors’ offerings.

The marketers of truly green products are only too happy to be specific about the beneficial attributes of their products. The website for Allbirds, for example, explains that its sneakers are made from merino wool, with laces made from recycled plastic bottles, and insoles that contain castor bean oil. Even the boxes used in shipping are made from recycled cardboard.

Greenwashing Regulation–FTC Green Guides

Greenwashing is regulated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a government agency that helps protect consumers against unlawful and unethical business practices by enforcing laws designed to ensure a competitive, fair marketplace. The FTC offers guidelines on how to differentiate real green from greenwashed: Here are the FTC guidelines regarding greenwashing. And if you can’t stand reading legalese, here are the cliff notes.

These guidelines are called the Green Guides

Packaging and advertising should explain the product’s green claims in plain language and readable type in close proximity to the claim.
An environmental marketing claim should specify whether it refers to the product, the packaging, or only a portion of the product or package.
A product’s marketing claim should not overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental attribute or benefit.
If a product claims a benefit compared to the competition, the claim should be substantiated.

FTC Green Guides Effectiveness

Companies must be in compliance with the guidelines in place. However, there will be companies that refuse to comply. Noncompliance may go unnoticed for a long time. The FTC received almost 3 million consumer reports in 2018 alone.

How You can Spot Greenwashing

Dramatic wording. If the copy and words used in the brand’s communication lack substantial information, it’s probably because there is no substance. Watch out for “buzz words” or vague language (words or terms with no clear meaning, e.g. “eco–friendly,” “produced sustainably,” etc.)
Green, nature graphics. Declarations from a company that it is slightly greener than its competitors, even if its competitors are pretty terrible (a petroleum producer saying that it is “working to be more sustainable”). Throw a small green plant into the picture and you’re eco–friendly. Over–use of happy flowers, green seedlings, rolling mountains, animals and sun is a distraction from what’s really happening.
Your intuition is off. “Greening” dangerous products to make them seem safe (e–cigarettes). Common sense says that a tobacco company is the last group of people to be talking about health and wellbeing. If you feel there’s an ulterior motive, follow your gut.
Using scientific jargon. Information that only a scientist would check or understand. It always pays to do your own research. If a company’s marketing claims can’t be backed up with specific details, or the statements seem vague, unspecific and unclear, it’s probably junk science (rubbish).
It’s a “thing.” Providing no proof to back a claim. A one–off marketing campaign is exactly that. Quality brands have genuine conservationism built into their DNA.
It sounds too good to be true. If the statements sound over–ambitious, or if the communication is overstated or overdramatic, they’re most likely presenting totally fabricated claims or data as facts.
It’s a laser–focused idea. Emphasizing one tiny green attribute when everything else (operations, labor, raw materials, etc.) aren’t. McDonald’s may use recycled paper in their bags, but they are one of the biggest enablers of factory farming, an industry that has mind–blowing methane emissions. Take a look at the bigger picture.
It’s reactive, rather than proactive. Lack of transparency or openness, and denial of any wrongdoing. Businesses that implement environmentalism because of customer reactions, do so to please its customers and grow their profits, rather than to help the environment.

Words & Claims Commonly Associated With Greenwashing

Large corporations have clever marketing and advertising departments—these stakeholders know to use specific words to appeal to their buyers. However, these words carry no substance and have no real meaning. Here are some words and phrases to look out for:

Natural—Cyanide, arsenic and asbestos are natural, yet trace amounts will kill you.
Organic—A buzz word that means nothing unless it’s USDA Certified Organic and it is paired with this official graphic.
Eco–friendly—Being friendly to the environment doesn’t actually mean anything. This statement carries no weight.
Eco & Bio—“Eco” and “Bio” declarations in products are just names, double–check that they’re actually better for the environment.
Green—Going or being “green” is another buzz word that lacks real meaning and substance.
Sustainable—This word has a strained relationship with regards to environmental conservation.
X% Biodegradable—A product is either completely biodegradable within a human lifetime or it is not. It’s an all or nothing type situation. Anything in between is hype.

Greenwashing permeates every industry, every type of business, of every size. For a more detailed list, this PDF file contains examples of some of the most flagrant uses of greenwashing.

Herbal Essences

Herbal Essences bio:renew range, by The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), for instance, uses many of the above–mentioned greenwashing techniques but lacks any real definition. None of these words or statements are regulated by bodies of government. This allows companies to use them at will, fooling consumers into buying something that’s not as healthy or benign as they think it is.

Here are some of the most flagrant examples of greenwashing. They’re tricky, deceptive, and, at the very best, nothing more than a collection of half–truths:

Greenwashing & Big Oil

British Petroleum (BP p.l.c.)

In December 2019, environmental legal charity “Client Earth” launched a complaint against BP over claims of greenwashing. BP is accused of misleading consumers, giving them a false impression of their environmental record, with a recent BP advertising campaign adopted an environmental focus and promoted its proposed low-carbon energy initiatives. Another is the fossil fuel giant BP, who changed their name to Beyond Petroleum and put solar panels on their gas stations, and then came under fire for their green misdirection.

In its Keep Advancing and Possibilities Everywhere campaigns, BP acknowledges the need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

However the energy sector is one of the largest contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, there are calls for the sector to de-carbonize and thereby reduce its impact on the warming climate. There is a considerable challenge to be faced in switching our energy supply from one that is fossil fuel based to one that is significantly less carbon-intense. BP claim to be leading the way.

Client Earth lawyers contest the claims made in BP’s advertising campaign regarding their commitment to low-carbon and renewable energy. Whilst BP advertise a keen focus on investing in environment-friendly energy, the fact remains that 96% of their annual capital expenditure is spent on non-renewable oil and gas. Going by their own figures, BP is investing $500 million a year in low-carbon initiatives, less than 4% of overall investment.

British Petroleum’s first move to becoming “green” started in 1997 when it quit the industry’s climate change denial group and acknowledged a link between global warming and fossil fuels. By 2000, the company hired advertising firm Ogilvy & Mathers to launch a $200 million rebranding campaign.

The firm rebranded the name British Petroleum to BP and adopted a new slogan: “Beyond Petroleum.” The firm also changed its brand image into a green, yellow, and white sunburst that is meant to depict a “warm and fuzzy feeling” about the Earth. BP also greenwashed itself by working with green groups and decorating its gas stations with “green” images. Despite British Petroleum’s attempt to greenwash, the company remains an oil company that derives its revenues from polluting the air and destroying the planet. Through many controversial oil spills over the past two decades, such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, British Petroleum’s attempt to greenwash itself has died down.

Royal Dutch Shell

Similarly to BP, in April 2019 Shell announced a $300 million investment in “natural ecosystems” as part of a strategy to take action against climate change.

Some funds now go towards projects that protect trees and others invest in carbon credits. Activities such as these are known as climate change mitigation strategies. In essence, they help to reduce the adverse effects of climate change by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

As with BP, by continuing the extraction of fossil fuels from the ground (and the subsequent burning of those fuels), Shell contradict the very mitigation efforts they promote.

Whilst assisting in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that already exist within our atmosphere may have some positive effect, the IPCC asserts that “natural climate solutions do not compensate for the continued release of greenhouse gases.”

Despite committing themselves to oil and gas, Shell continue to promote themselves as an energy provider that is uses “100% renewable electricity as standard.” This claim is questionable as in 2018 Shell invested $25bn in non–renewable oil and gas energy sources.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) definition, renewable energy is, that which “comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished.” However, Shell’s claim of a 100% renewable source only stands in virtue of purchasing green offsetting certificates, not through buying directly from renewable energy sources. Energy companies can remain investing in non-renewable sources and merely buy enough green certificates to match this investment. Investing in “natural climate solutions” and purchasing green certificates promote the idea of Shell as an environmentally responsible company. However, Shell significantly lacks direct investment in renewable energy while the green initiatives it does engage with have no significant impact. Given that the majority of investment is still being pumped into the fossil fuel industry, it can be argued that this is an act of greenwashing.

Greenwashing & Transportation

Ryanair

In February 2020, a Ryanair advert was banned by a UK watchdog over claims of greenwashing. The advert, released in September 2019, claims that the budget airline is most carbon efficient in Europe, asserting that they have “the lowest carbon emissions of any major airline.”

It is well–known that flying is an incredibly carbon–intensive activity. Therefore, airlines will be determined to promote their environment–friendly endeavors. However, Ryanair’s claim that it produces the lowest carbon emissions amongst all major airlines in Europe is questionable. According to the Advertising Standards Authority, claims made in the advert are misleading and could not be legitimately backed–up. Reportedly, data from as far back as 2011 was cited in support of the airline’s claims. This holds little comparative value in 2019. Moreover, some well–known airlines did not appear in Ryanair’s comparison. In general, Ryanair’s basis for their “lowest emissions” claim lacks detailed analysis of how they came to this conclusion, with important information missing from reports.

Greenwashing & Manufacturing

Volkswagen (VW)

A classic example is Volkswagen, who admitted to cheating emissions tests by fitting various vehicles with a “defect” device, software which could detect when it was undergoing an emissions test and altering the performance to reduce the emissions level. All of this was while it was touting the low–emissions and eco–friendly features of its vehicles in marketing campaigns. In actuality, these engines were emitting up to 40 times the allowed limit for nitrogen oxide pollutants.

Nestlé

In 2018, Nestlé released a statement saying that it had “ambitions” for its packaging to be 100% recyclable or reusable by 2025. However, environmental groups were quick to point out that the company hadn’t released clear targets, a timeline to accompany its ambitions or additional efforts to help facilitate recycling by consumers.

Greenpeace reacted to this by releasing its own searing statement, in which it said, “Nestlé’s statement on plastic packaging includes more of the same greenwashing baby steps to tackle a crisis it helped to create. It will not actually move the needle toward the reduction of single–use plastics in a meaningful way, and sets an incredibly low standard as the largest Food and Beverage Company in the world.”

In 2021, Nestlé, along with Coca–Cola and PepsiCo, were named the world’s top plastic polluters for the fourth year in a row.

Greenwashing & Mega Retailers

Walmart Inc.

Greenwashing can harm a brand’s reputation. As the world increasingly embraces the pursuit of greener practices, corporate actors face an influx of litigation for misleading environmental claims. In February 2017, Walmart paid $1 million to settle greenwashing claims that alleged the nation’s largest retailer sold plastics misleadingly touted as environmentally responsible.

California state law bans the sale of plastics labeled as “compostable” or “biodegradable,” as environmental officials have determined such claims are misleading without disclaimers about how quickly the product will biodegrade in landfill environments.

Over the past years Walmart has proclaimed to “go green” with a sustainability campaign. However, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILRS), “Walmart’s sustainability campaign has done more to improve the company’s image than the environment.” Walmart still only generates 2 percent of U.S. electricity from wind and solar resources.

According to the ILRS, Walmart routinely donates money to political candidates who vote against the environment. The retail giant responded to these accusations by stating that “it is serious about its commitment to reduce 20 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015.”

Starbucks Corporation

In 2018, Starbucks wanted to jump on trends such as “plastic straw bans,” so they came out with a straw–less lid. Bu that lid contained more plastic than the old lid + straw combo. They claim they’re recyclable but how much plastic actually gets recycled is up for debate.

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd.

Upon closer inspection, you can regularly see that the business has spent more on the marketing campaign than on the environmentally sound practices themselves. One example is the Australian Supermarket giant, Coles. In mid–2018, the company banned single–use plastic bags and started charging customers 15 cents to buy thicker reusable plastic bags.

The company stated that this was “a crucial move to get single–use plastics out of landfills,” arguing that the fact customers had to pay for higher quality plastic bags, meaning they’d be more incentivized to use them again. The new bags used more petroleum–based plastic, took longer to break down and posed a greater threat to wildlife–and the company was pocketing 15c per bag.

This also shifted the social responsibility of the corporation to the individual. And, just 4 days after launching the new bags, a fisherman found one floating in the water, 35kms off the northern coast of Australia.

As one of the corporations that have a monopoly on the Australian Supermarket industry, it carries a large social and environmental responsibility. Coles’ act of “environmentalism” did a lot more harm than good. Some initiatives Coles could have implemented that would have genuinely helped the environment would have been to stop selling “miniature plastic versions of products,” or removed single–use packaging from its own branded products, or remove single–use plastic products (straws, cups, etc.) from their shelves.

Greenwashing & Fashion

H&M

After launching their “Conscious Collection,” H&M claimed that “every piece in the collection is made from sustainably sourced material, such as 100% organic cotton or recycled polyester.”

Fortunately, some countries are starting to crack down on marketing that greenwashes. In 2019, Norway’s Forbrukertilsynet (Consumer Authority) quickly put a stop to this, and ruled last year that fast fashion brand H&M was under investigation for its supposedly ethical “Conscious” collection.

The Consumer Authority stated that the information on H&M’s website was general, and did not specify the actual environmental benefit for each garment specifically, such as the amount of recycled material in each garment.

H&Ms “Pinatex” line of products uses fruit leaves that would otherwise be discarded as a replacement for leather—even though the garments still contain petroleum–based chemicals, and are marketed as being “eco–friendly.” Furthermore, the amount of energy used to process the pineapple leaves consumes insane amounts of unrenewable resources which is arguably worse than using animal byproduct in the first place. H&M and other fast fashion retailers are renowned for exploiting the vagueness of green terminology to appear more environmentally conscious and sell more clothes. This is a problem, because fast fashion is one of the biggest polluters on the planet, with more than £140 million worth of clothing ending up in UK landfills every year.

Boohoo Fashion

In 2017, Boohoo announced they’d be banning all wool in their clothes, even though none of their products contained wool. However, it quickly came to light that their “wool look” and fake fur products were made from petrochemicals and much worse for the environment. Wool only represents 1.3% of the global fiber supply and is a very sustainable garment material.

The result? They reversed the decision a week later. Later, an investigation also revealed that UK–based Boohoo laborers were paid £3 per hour. Sustainability goes hand in hand with ethics and responsible employment. Caring for the environment means nothing if you exploit your workers.

Greenwashing & Household Goods

Moonlight Slumber

Moonlight Slumber is an American manufacturer of baby mattresses. In 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved a final consent order against them, after they made claims that their “organic” and “eco–friendly plant–based mattresses” had earned them the “Green Safety Shield.”

This made the product appear like it had been endorsed by an independent third party, and Moonlight Slumber marketed the “certification” as if it were. It was an endorsement made up by the company themselves for no reason other than making a product appear “greener.”

Organix Shampoos

Organix shampoos regularly claim that the product is natural. But natural is very different to organic, ethical, environmentally friendly and cruelty–free. The company’s marketing material also alludes to there being many other environmental benefits of using their product.

However, upon closer inspection, you find that just one in 18 ingredients of one product that claims to be “organic” is actually USDA Certified Organic. Plus the product comes in petroleum–based single–use non–recyclable plastic bottles. That’s three strikes.

Tide purclean Liquid

Cleaning detergents are ripe to be greenwashed. In this case, Tide’s “purclean” liquid is in the spotlight. As soon as you land on the site, you’re greeted with the product sitting in the fronds of a healthy green tree. The background of the product images are made to look like imperfectly recycled cardboard, and we see pictures of delicious coconut and healthy ear of corn.

You can also see fresh grass arranged in the shape of the company logo, and its own statement that it’s the “1^st plant–based detergent with the power of traditional cleaning products.” Yes, it’s the first plant–based detergent with the power of Tide’s other cleaning products.

The product description states that “Tide purclean™ is a formula made with 100% renewable wind power electricity*…” When you look at the meaning of that asterisk (*), you learn “The same facility also uses steam power, electricity represents approximately 50% of the total energy used.”

Steam power, that’s fueled by coal? We’re not sure. Either way, it’s only 50% of the energy used. There’s also no mention of the product’s packaging. For instance, is the bottle made from recycled plastics, is the lid made from petrochemicals, is the label made from recycled paper, is the sticker glue biodegradable, and so on. All in all, this product page is swimming in beautifully distracting graphics, fancy words and unsubstantiated claims.

Greenwashing & Government

The Commonwealth Government of Australia

The Australian Government

The Australian Government, also known as the Commonwealth Government is perhaps one of the few governments that can be attributed to greenwashing. It recently spent climate funds on “researching and upgrading to clean coal,” trying to improve the efficiency of coal–burning. Even if coal burned at 100% efficiency, it’s still a finite resource that creates carbon dioxide (CO₂) as it burns.

Greenwashing & Whitegoods

Fridges, freezers, dishwashers. You more than likely own one of these things and have probably seen a star rating or numerical rating of these whitegoods. But what do these actually mean?

Well, it might alarm you to hear that for a washing machine to not get an A+ rating, it would need to be powered by a gas–guzzling, big–block V8 engine. The biggest carbon emission impact of clothing is the energy used to wash them. Scratch the surface on a lot of electronic appliance star ratings, and you’ll see just how much hogwash there is. You can buy a washing machine that’s got A++++ in its model name.

Greenwashing & Bottled Water

More than 60% of water bottles end up polluting waterways, in landfill, or as carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane from inefficient recycling processes. Even the water industry tries to over represent its greenness. Plastic water bottles like Poland Spring, Evian, Fiji, and Deer Park all depict nature imagery, colorful images of rugged mountains, pristine lakes and flourishing wildlife printed on their labels. While the water may come from these locations, sourcing it from here has a massive impact on the local community. Plastic water bottles are designed to be single–use and are one of the greatest dangers right now to our environment.

Fiji Water

Fiji Water, America’s most imported bottled water, sources its water from Fijian springs—while 12% of Fijians don’t have access to fresh, running water.

Fiji Water also donates money to local kindergartens and schools. A noble act, until you realize that the company only donates to institutions where most of the students are children of workers—therefore allowing the parents to come to work.

Greenwashing & Packaging

While many companies spend lots of money creating and greenwashing an “eco–friendly” product, the packaging is usually overlooked. This also means that the packaging industry is susceptible to greenwashing.

Greenwashing Sucks

Besides watching out for this behavior from companies, there are also some online tools and search engines, such as Project Cece and Ethical Made Easy, which can help you to find sustainable brands, and avoid ones that simply pretend to be sustainable.

As the green computing movement has grown, some technology vendors and hardware manufacturers have engaged in greenwashing, changing their packaging, advertising or branding to focus consumer’s attention on green manufacturing, recycling or energy–saving benefits. The increased transparency and scrutiny many corporations have been exposed to by nongovernmental organizations, advocacy groups and collaborative citizen journalism in the blogosphere all have helped to reveal which environmental claims are accurate and which are not.

Consumers researching their buying decisions can consult the National Advertising Division (NAD) of Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) in the United States and Canada, which administers a system of voluntary self–regulation for the advertising industry. Online, sites like coopamerica.org, treehugger.com, corpwatch.org, greenbiz.com and others provide additional assistance. As blogged by Marketing Green, social bookmarking Web sites like DotheRightThing.org are allowing consumers to read news articles and rate the actions of the companies involved, based upon the perceived positive or negative environmental impact.

Social Awareness

Being aware of greenwashing practices is the first step to undermining its effectiveness. As consumers, we must hold companies to account through questioning sustainability initiatives and demanding transparency.

Through reducing our spending with companies that indulge in greenwashing and investing our money where genuine efforts are being made to reduce environmental damage, the effects of greenwashing are diminished.

We can use the resources at our disposal–environmental charities, consumer watchdogs, and advertising standards bodies–to expose and challenge false claims. Importantly, our most powerful tool is where we spend your money.

Take Action Against Greenwashing

What you can do about it:

Say No. The best thing to do is to not spend your money on the product and spread the word. Less demand will eventually get the product pulled from the market.
Contact them. You can also contact the company to address your concerns. Sometimes, rarely, the company did not intentionally greenwash their product. Once they understand, they can correct themselves or make improvements.
Contact FTC. Another thing to do is to hit up the FTC. They have online chat to determine if you should file a complaint or provide any help. Remember the FTC gets overloaded with complaints every year. And it takes a while for action to be taken.

Today we have the means to research the brands in which we invest our time and money. We have immense power as consumers; we shape the landscape in which businesses operate. Where our money goes, so does their focus. We need to ensure that focus goes towards sustainability. Businesses must be held accountable for and made to answer for their greenwashing; as the climate crisis accelerates, we simply must adopt a zero tolerance approach to any and all destructive business practices that place profit over planet.

More on Greenwashing

Here are some more articles to check out about greenwashing:

Sources:
Wikipedia – Greenwashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
Greenwashing Definition
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp
By WILL KENTON, Reviewed by MARGARET JAMES Updated Jan 23, 2021
What is greenwashing? | Ethical Consumer
https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/transport-travel/what-greenwashing
Wednesday 19th of February 2020
What is Greenwashing?
https://earth.org/what-is-greenwashing
BY DEENA ROBINSON, JUL 23RD 2021
What is Greenwashing? Examples [2020] – Green & Thistle
https://greenandthistle.com/what-is-greenwashing
by KT
What is greenwashing? – Definition from WhatIs.com
https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/greenwashing
By TechTarget Contributor
What Is Greenwashing? – businessnewsdaily.com
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/10946-greenwashing.html
Adryan Corcione, Business News Daily Contributing Writer, Jan 17, 2020
7 Vague Statements Companies Use to Greenwash Products
https://culinarylore.com/food-culture:7-vague-statements-companies-use-to-greenwash/
MAY 31, 2016 BY ERICT_CULINARYLORE