Those “eco-friendly” snack bars you bought this week? Chances are, the label was more marketing than truth. 

Feeding the world comes with a heavy environmental cost. In 2022, food production accounted for 29.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond that, agriculture drives deforestation, water pollution, soil degradation, biodiversity loss, and raises serious concerns about farm animal welfare.

All of this damage is intrinsically woven into our food system, so it’s no surprise that customers have been seeking out more sustainable options. Food companies have picked up on this trend, dressing their products up in ‘green’ marketing to appear environmentally responsible. In reality that doesn’t always mean they are actually doing better for the planet. 

Greenwashing is when companies mislead customers into believing they are doing more to protect the environment than they actually are. Greenwashing takes many different forms, like misleading claims about plastic recycling capabilities, or even products labeled as biodegradable when they don’t actually break down easily unless they go through another  industrial process. On food packaging, this often means vague labels like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘all natural,’ or just plain old ‘green’.

Greenwashing also involves the using visual symbols of nature, like a leaf or a tree, to convey the same message. Earlier in 2025, Snapple entered a lawsuit regarding the company’s marketing of their tea as “all natural,” despite the fact that they contain citric acid, which is considered synthetic by the Food and Drug Administration. In 2014, General Mills’s Nature Valley bars came under fire for their ‘natural’ claims, despite also containing synthetic ingredients. 

Eco-friendly? Prove it!

While it feels good to come home with a grocery bag full of “sustainably sourced” pasta, “farm fresh” tomato sauce, and “pasture-raised” cheese, topped with “pesticide-free” basil. And vague eco-buzzwords may seem enticing, we as consumers need hard evidence to back these claims up. . In the United States, these labels lack a legal definition, which means there are no enforceable standards, and companies can use them freely without providing evidence.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) polices food labels on packaged goods, but only when the wording has a legal definition. Since words like “eco-friendly” or “all natural” are legally undefined, the FDA doesn’t have the authority to get involved in their use.

It might make sense for the FDA to handle these claims, but since greenwashing falls under advertising, this work shifts to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC is in charge of advertising claims to ensure that companies aren’t misleading customers. Their Green Guides provide companies with standards for making truthful environmental marketing claims.

This might seem great for us consumers, but in reality these guidelines have not been updated since 2012, and they aren’t legally binding. The FTC has a more comprehensive legal framework for addressing greenwashing, but its enforcement ability is limited and stronger oversight is needed for this type of marketing.  Vague labelling is misleading and gives a false sense of progress and worse, it distracts from the bigger problems we are facing in agriculture and food supply chains.

What Should You Look Out For?

If buzzwords like “natural” and “green” aren’t enough to guarantee sustainability, then what can we rely on?  That’s where trusted certifications come in; backed by third-party oversight, rigorous standards, transparency, and actual accountability.

The USDA Certified Organic label allows farms or processing facilities to call their products organic but to earn the certification, farms must adopt organic practices. That means protecting soil and water quality, conserving habitats, and avoiding the use of synthetic fertilizers and genetic engineering altogether. If any rules are broken, there are financial penalties and even the risk of losing their organic certification. 

The Non-GMO Project butterfly seal isn’t given out to just anybody. There is a rigorous multi-step process involving third-party administrators, verification fees, and annual renewals. To be given the butterfly seal, the product must avoid genetically modified organisms (GMO). Crops must fall below a strict GMO threshold, and farms and facilities need to keep GMO and non-GMO ingredients separate. The Non-GMO Project verification does not guarantee that products are GMO-free, as such a claim is not legally or scientifically defensible but it is a serious attempt to help consumers find non-GMO foods as best it can. Risks of GMO contamination still exist in seeds, crops, and ingredient supply as many of these non-GMO and GMO products share processing and supply chains. . 

Certified Humane has its own multi-step process, which includes fees, inspections, and intensive reviews. The verification ensures that a farm’s animals are never kept in cages or crates; they are allowed to move freely and behave naturally. Animals must be fed quality food free of antibiotics or growth hormones. They have set animal care standards for individual species ranging from cattle to red deer but even here it’s hard to police every farm or brand who bears their symbol.

Our Wallets Have Power

Knowing the difference between greenwashed labels and trustworthy certifications trying to do the right thing – helps! Here’s a cheat sheet to refer to next time you’re at the grocery store:

• Showing, not telling: don’t fall for the labels with no explanations. Buzzwords like “natural” and “eco-friendly” don’t tell the whole story. Look for details!
• Look for the seal! Certifications like USDA Organic, Non-GMO Project, and Certified Humane require fees and inspections; not just any brand can claim these labels! 
• Check the databases. Certifications provide a product database for you to check your favorite brands. Here for USDA Organic, here for Non-GMO Project, here for Certified Humane. 

At the end of the day, these greenwashing labels are another attempt at curbing the blame of the climate crisis on the individual, rather than making true changes within the industry itself. 

Found some useful information in this article? Consider donating to EARTHDAY.ORG to support further research and awareness.  You can also have these articles emailed directly to you by signing up for our email list.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Greenwashing in the Grocery Store appeared first on Earth Day.

Language shapes our reality. The words we use to describe environmental problems don’t just communicate ideas — they frame how we think about solutions, who bears responsibility, and what actions matter most. This Dictionary Day, we are examining the worn-out vocabulary that has polluted our environmental discourse. These 10 terms have been so overused that we might want to dump them as a movement.

1. Sustainable

In 1987, the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Around the same time, businesses began using sustainability as a “selling point”.

Today, the word sustainability is used everywhere, describing products from packaging to chocolate to vacations to fashion. The word has become a way for consumers to feel good about their purchases and for companies to claim that they are environmentally friendly.

The United Nations labels the tactic of communicating or claiming the sustainability attributes of a product or service in isolation of brand activities or meaningful action as one form of greenwashing. In other words, businesses these days can claim to be doing right by the planet when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort. Greenwashing is a deceptive marketing tactic that misleads the public to believe that a company is doing more to protect the environment than it actually is. 

For example, McDonald’s introduced paper straws in 2019 to replace plastic straws, but it turned out that their paper straws were not recyclable. In 2021, a report from the Changing Markets Foundation studied the clothing industry, which is dominated by cheap fast fashion. They checked the sustainability claims of major high street brands and discovered that 60% of their overall claims were misleading. One brand in particular stood out: H&M. A staggering 96% of their claims did not stand up to interrogation and were found to be greenwashing.

IKEA was caught greenwashing by Earthsight in 2020 for accredited illegal logging. The company is the largest user of wood in the world but the investigation found that IKEA had been using illegally sourced wood from the forests of Ukraine’s Carpathian region, an area home to endangered beasts such as bears, lynxes, wolves, and bison to make beechwood chairs. This timber had actually been certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. 

This is the illusion of sustainability without any action of sustainability. It promotes false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay credible action.

2. Carbon Footprint

Contrary to how it sounds, the term “carbon footprint” is not actually based in environmental sciences. 

In the early 2000s, BP, or British Petroleum, rebranded thezmselves with a $100+ million-per-year, multi-year marketing effort working with branding experts Landor & Associates and ad giant Ogilvy & Mather. It was a fully integrated PR push across print, TV, and digital, and introduced one of the world’s first prominent online carbon calculators. The company rebranded itself in the face of global warming to “Beyond Petroleum.”

While implying that BP was heavily invested in a fossil fuel free world that was “coming,” the campaign also shifted blame for climate change, making it every individual’s role to measure and manage their own greenhouse gas emissions. It moved the burden of climate change away from fossil fuel company responsibility to being our responsibility. And it worked. Academic research by Professor Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes found “carbon footprint” use in public discourse was minimal before BP’s campaign. Shortly after BP’s ads, the term became Oxford UK Word of the Year in 2007.

Personal choice alone will not mitigate climate action — it has to be at an industry level fight. During the COVID pandemic we saw just a 7% drop in greenhouse gas emissions despite massive lifestyle changes across the world: with roads empty and nobody flying. It was proof that collective individual reductions alone cannot solve the climate crisis without systemic fossil fuel phase-out. To make a difference our energy has to shift to renewable sources like solar, wind and geothermal. It is exactly why we designated 2025’s Earth Day theme as Our Power, Our Planet.

While personal choices certainly matter and collective individual action can drive change — for example, opting for solar panels on your roof, using an electric vehicle (EV), going vegan, and choosing not to fly — this framing deliberately obscures who bears the majority of responsibility for climate change. Between 1988 and 2022, just 100 companies have been responsible for 71 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

In February 2025, BP announced it was slashing investment in renewable energy, like solar, in favor of fossil fuel investment to drive profits and investor confidence. We guess it is now BP — Back to Petroleum.

3. Green

The color has become synonymous with a sense of environmental goodness without requiring any specific impact. Thus, it is the perfect word for companies to use if they want to appear environmentally responsible without actually doing anything that makes a difference to the state of the planet.

In reality, there is no such thing as a green product. In fact, the United Nations identifies “green”’ as a misleading label that does not have a standard definition and can be easily misinterpreted. When everything can be green, nothing is — the word has become environmental camouflage, allowing harmful practices to hide in plain sight behind a reassuring hue.

4. Eco-Friendly

In theory, eco-friendly practices and products aim to reduce or eliminate environmentally harmful impacts, such as deforestation, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, or biodiversity loss.

In reality, the “eco-” prefix and “eco-friendly” label have been used on countless products with no demonstrable environmental benefits. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission advises that brands completely avoid broad terms like “eco-friendly” because these claims suggest environmental benefits and are nearly impossible to substantiate. 

For example, in 2025 the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that UK company Lavazza misled consumers by claiming that their coffee pods were compostable “eco caps.” This marketing led consumers to believe that Lavazza’s capsules could be composted at home, when they could only be composted in an industrial setting.

The United Nations also identifies “eco-friendly” as a misleading label that does not have a standard definition and can be easily misinterpreted. When one of the world’s leading advisory agencies on environmental issues warns against using a specific term, it’s time to retire it from the environmental conversation entirely.

5. Net-Zero

“Net zero,” as defined by the United Nations, means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to a small amount of residual emissions that can be easily absorbed and stored by nature and other greehouse gas emission removal measures, leaving zero net emissions in the atmosphere, or the air we breathe.

The phrase “net- zero” sounds like a concrete commitment, a finite amount – a definitive finish line in the race against climate change doesn’t it?

But claiming your service or product or aim is to be net-zero means nothing without the appropriate plan that can be enacted for a company or even a country to achieve it, and therein lies the problem.

The Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, CCRM, concluded that the net-zero targets of 24 global corporations which sell themselves as “climate leaders” are misleading, exaggerated, or even down right false. For example, HSBC pledged it would be net-zero by 2030 while funneling billions into fossil fuel projects, misleading consumers on its true environmental impact.

They are not alone. The Fédération Internationale de Football Association, FIFA, was reprimanded for falsely claiming the 2022 Qatar World Cup was carbon neutral. The Swiss advertising regulator, Swiss Fairness Commission,, ruled in 2023 that FIFA’s claim was “false and misleading” due to incomplete accounting of emissions and unreliable carbon offset practices. FIFA was subsequently ordered to stop making unsubstantiated environmental claims about the tournament.​

Additionally, scientists warn that entire countries are getting net-zero wrong and using flawed carbon accounting to achieve it,  — relying too heavily on trees and oceans, to absorb new carbon emissions. Yes, trees are carbon sinks, but they take decades of growing to sequester carbon. They are also vulnerable to wildfire, disease, and deforestation, which can release stored carbon back into the atmosphere.​ Offsets alone don’t reduce current emissions and depending on projected future carbon removals from nature allows companies and countries to

continue polluting right now with abandon, delaying real and urgent emission cuts. 

Thus, the term has become a way for companies and countries to make promises for the future while continuing to pollute in the present, when action needs to be taken now.

6. Carbon-Neutral

Similar to net-zero, carbon-neutral allows companies to continue their harmful behavior under the guise of “offsetting” their impacts. Carbon-neutral requires that carbon dioxide output has a net neutral impact on the environment, that the same amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is removed. 

Just to be clear, because we are getting into word salad territory here, there is a difference between carbon neutral and net zero. The former means balancing out only the carbon dioxide a specific company or person releases by removing or offsetting the exact same amount elsewhere, such as buying carbon credits. It often focuses just on carbon dioxide emissions. Net zero is broader. It means balancing all greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide plus methane and nitrous oxide.

But carbon-neutral claims are difficult to substantiate or verify. The term allows corporations to treat carbon emissions like a debt that can be paid off with bought credits rather than a problem that needs to be eliminated at the source.

7. Recyclable

Just because something has the familiar three chasing arrows on it does not mean that it will be recycled. In fact, the chasing arrows are often plastered on products that aren’t recyclable at all. In 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency described this use as “deceptive.” 

Resin Identification Codes, created by the plastic industry, are the numbers 1 through 7 imprinted on the bottom of plastic products that indicate what type of plastic the material is made from. These numbers gave the illusion that there is a vast and viable recycling industry and infrastructure. In reality, 30 percent of number 1 and 2 plastics were recycled in 2022, numbers 3 through 7 are much more difficult to recycle, and numbers 6 and 7 are not financially feasible to recycle.

Fossil fuel companies have perpetuated the myth that recycling can solve the plastic crisis through their decades-long disinformation campaign. They spent millions to sell the idea that the majority of plastics could in fact be recycled, when the reality is that there is no economically viable way to recycle most plastics, a fact that fossil fuel companies knew. In 2019, the oil industry launched The Alliance to End Plastic Waste, a 1.5 billion dollar campaign that promoted recycling and clean up efforts, shifting the blame for plastic waste from the producer to the consumer. 

The reality is this: the only way to end the plastics crisis is to reduce plastics consumption at the source. EARTHDAY.ORG is asking for a 60% reduction of plastic production by 2040. 

8. Biodegradable

“Biodegradable” means that a product can be broken down by naturally occurring microorganisms, like bacteria or fungi, and turned into compounds found in nature, such as water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients that can safely re-enter the environment. 

A 2020 survey found that 74 percent of shoppers were more likely to buy a product labeled biodegradable, showing how persuasive the term is. However, the label “biodegradable” means little without knowing when, where, and how the product actually breaks down. For example, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission found that ECM Biofilm’s claims that their plastic products would break down in approximately nine months to five years in nearly all landfills was not supported. 

Materials made from PLA, polylactic acid which is a biodegradable plastic made from renewable plant sources like corn starch or sugarcane, require high heat and controlled humidity in commercial composting facilities to break down. Certain biodegradable plastics need very specific conditions and can take years to decompose if these are not met. Additionally, some so-called biodegradable plastics — particularly oxo-degradable types — can fragment into microplastics or leave toxic residues, causing further harm to ecosystems. While other materials, such as paper-based home compostables, can degrade easily but slowly at lower temperatures without any industrial processes.  

This complexity highlights the need for transparency and better infrastructure to support true biodegradability because the dimension of time — whether something degrades in weeks or centuries, and the conditions needed to biodegrade at all —  make all the difference. While the label “biodegradable” treats them as all the same.  

9. Natural & Organic

The so-called ‘natural product industry’ was projected to hit nearly 320 billion dollars in value by 2024. But what exactly does ‘natural’ mean? The answer is almost nothing.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines natural products as those with no artificial ingredients and only minimal processing. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says food labeled natural should have nothing artificial added to it. But these standards are incredibly vague and leave enormous room for interpretation and manipulation. 

Food labelled as natural isn’t necessarily healthy. For example, according to the standards of both agencies, meat that was produced using hormones and antibiotics is still considered natural.Sugar cane and animal fat are both natural substances, but that label does not imply they are healthy choices. Worse, companies know that the term natural  implies healthy, and additive-free food, even when this is not necessarily true. The term preys on the implication that these products come from nature, and are therefore good for us and the planet.

Additionally, organic does not mean pesticide-free in the U.S. On that note, the Trump administration is trying to make agricultural chemical companies less accountable by granting pesticide manufacturers broad legal immunity, so that they are not held to account if their products hurt us, even when their products do cause harm. You can speak out by writing to strongly oppose Section 453 of the Interior Appropriations Bill.

10. BPA-Free

BPA stands for bisphenol A, a chemical primarily used in the manufacture of plastics that has been linked to endocrine disruption and various other serious health concerns. You can read more on BPa and other plastic chemicals in the Babies VS. Plastics report.

Public opposition to the chemical has led to “BPA-free” products and a global push to reduce usage of BPA. However, the chemical makeup of other compounds used in their place known as  BPA-substitudes — bisphenol S (BPS), bisphenol F (BFB), bisphenol AF (BFAP) — aren’t that different from BPA. In fact, research suggests that BPS in food is more harmful than BPA. Thus, BPA-free does not mean better — it just means the label tells you what’s absent, not what harm remains.

Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say

Words matter in the environmental movement because they shape policy, influence consumer behavior, and determine which issues receive attention. The terms we shared with you sound like solutions, but are all open to manipulation, while enabling the status quo.

This Dictionary Day, let’s demand the use of specific, measurable, and verifiable claims instead of vague platitudes that mean everything and nothing. The climate crisis is too urgent for linguistic camouflage — we need to use words that illuminate the truth, not obscure it.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Green Words That Should Go Extinct: 10 Terms That Annoy Us All appeared first on Earth Day.

We are committed to a transition to sustainable materials. 

This bottle is made from 100% recycled plastic. 

We are a major investor in green energy.

You’ve likely seen statements like these in advertisements or on product labels. Buying a company’s products because of their sustainable practices can be admirable, but how much trust can we put in such claims?

​​As the evidence of human responsibility for accelerating climate change and environmental degradation becomes ever clearer, companies are finding themselves under pressure to make their practices more sustainable — or at least to appear that way. Many large corporations engage in greenwashing: using marketing to make their products or services seem more environmentally friendly than they actually are. Here are six tricks marketers use to pull the wool over your eyes.

Quick, Look Over There!

One of the most common greenwashing methods that companies employ is to make one small  positive change or effort and then draw as much attention as they can to it. 

For instance, ExxonMobil has long publicized its plan to construct carbon capture facilities in the UK, which would theoretically reduce the impact of its gas production. But despite their impressive talk, the project has struggled to realize necessary resources and government backing. So far, it seems like a long way off.

ExxonMobil isn’t the only fossil fuel corporation making promises it so far has not been able to keep. From 2000 to 2008, British Petroleum, BP, undertook a major advertising campaign, rebranding itself as “Beyond Petroleum” and emphasizing its alternative energy investments. Unfortunately, most of what they called “alternative” energy was natural gas, which is another form of fossil fuel and therefore hardly a greener option. Further, these investments represented just 7% of BP’s total investment budget, the rest of which was devoted to oil and coal energy.

In 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, creating the largest oil spill in human history. Researchers at the the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, explored how BP’s “Beyond Petroleum” advertising campaign influenced public reaction to this oil spill. Their analysis revealed that areas with greater exposure to BP’s ‘green’ marketing efforts exhibited a notably weaker consumer backlash following the disaster compared to regions that saw fewer of the ads. 

We Are Cutting Our Emissions

Another tactic commonly used by large corporations like Nestlé and PepsiCo is overreliance on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), or storing atmospheric carbon dioxide in the land or ocean. While CDR can certainly be useful, several companies have been criticized for using it as a way to avoid implementing the systemic change that true decarbonization requires. A recent report by the New Climate Institute reported that while Danone, Nestlé, Mars, JBS, and PepsiCo’s were taking action, the Institute concluded that it was “unlikely to result in meaningful emission reductions.” To many that sounds like their efforts could therefore be described as greenwashing. 

Using CDR as a smokescreen should be doubly concerning for all of us as CDR only affects carbon dioxide, not other greenhouse gases. But these food and agricultural companies work with livestock, which is a huge source of methane.

Methane is a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide, but it is more than 28 times stronger. Many of the initiatives these companies touted (like CDR) simply ignored the methane emissions associated with farming livestock. When companies like Nestle focus on removing carbon dioxide, they can fall behind on reducing their methane emissions. 

Don’t Worry, Just Recycle

For the past few decades, many of us have grown more comfortable with and even passionate about recycling. At home, in restaurants and cafes, in office buildings, anywhere there is a garbage can, you are likely to see a recycling bin next to it. And that’s a good thing, right? The more plastic we put in those bins, the less plastic is heading to our landfills and oceans.

Except that isn’t quite how it works. Under 10% of plastic waste is recycled globally, with more than three quarters of all plastic still making its way into landfills or the ocean.

While advertising campaigns have sold us the idea that recycling is some kind of magical process that can transform any kind of used plastic into something new and valuable, the reality is that recycling is an incredibly inefficient process. And there are few buyers desperate to use recycled plastics. Creating new virgin plastic from petroleum is cheaper, easier, and results in a better quality product than recycled plastic.

If recycling plastics is so uncommon, why do we all think it’s actually happening? Because  we believe the hype that makes us feel better about buying and using plastic. The idea that we can recycle our way out of our plastic tsunami is just greenwashing on a massive scale.

The only real solution to our plastic crisis is to buy, use, and thus produce less plastic overall. With half of all plastic produced worldwide being single-use, each of us has the power to make a difference simply by refusing single-use plastic bags and choosing not to purchase plastic soda and water bottles. If we all took meaningful steps, the collective impact would be enormous. Our actions would send a powerful, unmistakable message to the corporations flooding the market with plastic: we are done with single-use plastics, and we demand change.

Ta-Da, Green!

Next time you step out to your local grocery or convenience store, have a look at their bottled water. More likely than not, at least one of the brands on display will have leaves, a forest, or some other kind of greenery on their label. This, in a very literal sense, is greenwashing. While the brand may or may not directly claim to be sustainable, natural imagery—even just the color green—implies a kind of vague commitment to environmentalism.

These green-appearing designs use natural imagery to convince consumers that they are sustainable, despite their parent companies often being among the top plastic polluters globally.

Just Don’t Ask What it’s Made From… 

While some companies appear to be the picture of sustainability, their materials are anything but. IKEA has been called out on multiple occasions for accepting lumber from environmentally valuable old-growth forests.

While IKEA makes a big point of only using recycled or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood, this is less of a guarantee than it seems — the FSC has itself been criticized for acting more like a greenwashing rubberstamp than a real regulatory body.

In 2021, Earthsight reported that IKEA had received wood from protected Russian forests. IKEA claimed to have stopped this practice once the information was made public. In 2024, it was discovered that IKEA was sourcing wood from the Romanian Carpathians, some of the only old-growth forests left in Europe.

It is extremely hard to be 100% sure that the furniture you are buying is not made from timber sourced from protected forests. One thing you can do is to invest in second hand furniture. That way you know you are reusing something already made, possibly a long time ago, and you are saving it from going to landfill. Many cities around the world have special days of the week dedicated to free furniture when residents put their unwanted furniture out on the streets for anyone who wants it.

My Fingers Were Crossed!

The simplest form of greenwashing is simply not telling the truth. Germany’s Deutsche Bank-owned asset manager DWS, for example, was recently found guilty of greenwashing. 

It had claimed that environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing was central to its work, when in fact that was not the case.

One of the most infamous cases of greenwashing came from Volkswagen back in 2015. The car manufacturer was revealed to have cheated on emissions testing, passing grossly inefficient cars off as environmentally sound.

Staying Aware

Unfortunately, these and other methods of greenwashing are likely to become more and more prevalent as environmental concern increases and companies keep trying to convince you that they care. 

The best thing you can do is stay alert. Research the companies you buy from. Consider how much of their business is sustainable, how specific their commitments are, whether they rely on plastic recycling, how accurate their labeling is, where their materials come from, and of course, check if they are being truthful. Finally, have they had complaints upheld against them or paid fines for misleading advertising or claims? 

EARTHDAY.ORG is about spreading awareness. Donate to help us get the word out and hold greenwashers accountable! It takes a group effort to fight misinformation.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 6 Greenwashing Ploys to Watch Out For appeared first on Earth Day.

We are in the midst of exciting seasons in soccer, American football, ice hockey and basketball, with sports fans all over the US and the world celebrating their favorite teams. It’s easy to understand why competitive sports are so important to us – they are at the center of global culture.  They bring people together, inspire us, elevate our lives, it is where we can find commonalities and formulate a sense of community. 

Yet, as we embrace our excitement of sports it is important to acknowledge the darker side of the industry— it’s called ‘sportswashing’. 

What is Sportswashing?

You may have heard of the term “greenwashing” – it refers to the practice of claiming a product or a company is environmentally conscious when in fact they are no such thing.  The ugly cousin of “greenwashing”is “sportswashing”. 

What many fans don’t realize is that billions of dollars are poured into sport sponsorships by fossil fuel companies with hidden agendas lurking behind the team brands we love so much.  Today, oil and gas companies, and even national governments, use sports to greenwash their reputation.

Historically, this is nothing new But increasingly sportswashing has entangled itself in the political and economic world order too. Most commonly sport washing is about hiding a country or company’s exploitation of the global environment and their role in advancing climate change. For example Aramco,  Saudi Arabian oil company. Aramco is a major greenhouse gas emitter, in fact it has been estimated that  it has released 68,832 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) between 1938 and 2022. By these numbers, if Aramco was an independent country, they would have the 5th largest emission globally. 

Since 1965, Aramco has emitted 4% of the global GHG emissions, and 5% from 2016 to 2022.  While Aramco shows little evidence of lessening their role in climate change, its efforts to paint themselves in a positive light to the public have ramped up. Aramco signed a contract with Formula 1 and ‘invested’ $495.7 million into this motorsports alone. More significantly, Aramco dedicated $757.6 million to football sponsorships, followed by several sponsorship deals in golf and cricket. 

Why? Because it paints the company name in a positive light, associating itself with something that many of us love: sport. Their company name, signage and logos are normalised to the public  in this way and we forget they are contributing to climate change on a global scale. 

Aramco Are Not Alone

A 2024 report, entitled, Dirty Money: How Fossil Fuel Sponsors are Polluting Sport, found that, collectively, oil and gas companies have spent $5.6 billion– 205 deals – in this way. Three of the primary oil and gas companies—Amarco, TotalEnergies, and Shell—spent at least $1.3 billion, $777 million, and $470 million, respectively. 

TotalEnergies is an energy and petroleum company, responsible for 17,584 MtCO2e from 1934 to 2022— putting it 19th in the global historical GHG emissions list.  TotalEnergies also initiated the Vaca Muerta shale gas project in Argentina, for the EACOP pipeline, which led to the displacement of indigenous peoples in the region. 

To help deflect from this reality they sponsored the Rugby World Cup of 2023 and backed a seven-year contract for the TotalEnergies Africa Cup of Nations, amounting to $247 million. Additionally, they have poured money into badminton, cycling, and motorsports, specifically to promote their alleged green fuel developments.

Shell, known as one of the largest environmental polluters of all, released 40,674 MtCO2e from 1892 to 2022. Shell was the first corporation to be held liable for perpetuating climate change, enacted by the Dutch court in 2021. Not surprisingly Shell has a long history of throwing money into sports as a mechanism for greenwashing their brand’s name. business. 

Shell’s sports deals include $65.2 million in motorsports, $28.3 million in American football, and $21.7 million in basketball.             

Sportswashing of the Paris 2024 Olympic Games

This past summer, France held the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris. The Olympic Games are placed on a global pedestal, serving as a moment of worldwide celebration. 

The International Olympic Committee (IOC), responsible for organizing the Games, pledged to generate a new phase of responsible sport and be more sustainable than all of the preceding modern era Games. They claimed to have reduced their overall GHG emissions, their energy consumption and vowed to utilise renewable energy resources.  They set an ambitious  goal of reducing their CO2 emissions by half, compared to the London 2012 and Rio 2016 Games. 

Furthermore, they committed to using 95% of existing or temporary infrastructure for the Olympic Village and Games sporting venues, rather than constructing brand new buildings.  All of this sounds great but in retrospect, how sustainable and green were they? Then games were sponsored by Toyota – a global automotive manufacturing company and an industry that is a primary emitter of greenhouse gasses such as CO2. 

Toyota agreed to provide 2,650 electrified vehicles for a 100% electric fleet for the Games, including 500 Toyota Mirai’s.  Toyota advertised the Mirai—a hydrogen fuel cell dependent vehicle—as a more sustainable alternative to conventional automobiles. Which all sounds fantastic except that the Mirai is only a small percentage of their total car sales.  Within 2022, approximately 22,000 Toyota Mirai units were sold globally.  While this may appear to be a significant sales figure, the issue lies in the sharp decline in Toyota Mirai sales since then and the comparison to fossil-fuel Toyota model sales.  In 2023, 2,737 Mirai models were sold and within the beginning of 2024, only 245.  In reality, Toyota remains a primarily fossil-fuel based company, intended to sell 110 million internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in 2024, all of which rely on fossil fuels and emit significant levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

This equates to the annual emissions of 2,000 coal plants. Toyota used the Paris 2024 Olympic Games to disguise their gas guzzling business in front of the general public at a time where environmental protection and responsibility should be at the forefront of business and governance. 

The Future

Following the 2024 Paris Olympic Games, athletes have pushed for the removal of sportswashing schemes from the sporting industry. 

A group of Olympic and Paralympic athletes sent a letter to the International Olympic Committee—the President and all the Executive Board Members—urging them to rethink the effects of partnering with Toyota. These Olympic Champions emphasize the pre-existing environmental impacts on the athletes themselves when competing in the Games, including the high temperatures and poor air quality interfering with athlete’s health and performance. 

To tackle sportswashing, we need to push for stronger ethical standards in sports. 

Institutions such as the International Olympic Committee should set rules that prioritize attracting sponsors with a proven commitment to sustainability and human rights. Athletes can also use their platform to speak out against companies involved in sportswashing, sending a clear message to both sponsors and fans that reject this dark art once and for all. If athletes, fans, and organizations collectively demand a sports industry that values integrity and transparency over profits, we can achieve a more sustainable future. 

The post The Dark Side of Sports: Sportswashing and Climate Change appeared first on Earth Day.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres delivered a speech in June, urging the expansion of global sustainability efforts. Guterres said, “It’s climate crunch time,” as he pushed for an end to greenwashed sponsorships and advertising space for high-carbon businesses, like Big Oil.

Take Chevron for example, a leading American energy company, which aims for zero carbon emissions by 2050. However, a report found that Chevron’s plan encompasses only 10% of their ‘business-related emissions’, overlooking the pollution caused by consumer use, such as vehicle tailpipe emissions. Phasing out fossil fuels is the only solution to zero emissions, yet Chevron’s 11% capital increase in new gas and oil projects contradicts their emission-free goals. 

In 2018, ExxonMobil released a paid post in the New York Times promoting two plant-based energy research programs. The proposal aimed to develop a synthetic oil-rich strain of algae, converting plant waste into sustainable “bio-oil.” The project touted its goal to “produce 10,000 barrels of algae-based biofuel a day by 2025,” and cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50%. It sounded impressive. 

Just six years later, ExxonMobil pulled funding from Viridos, after investing $350 million in the project, claiming that there are natural limitations to these new low-carbon technologies, and they are not ready for wide-scale use. The costs of researching these algae based biofuels may not appear justified, but the favorable advertising they generated made the project worthwhile in terms of impact.

ExxonMobil and Chevron are not alone in using advertising in their greenwashing campaigns. The question is, could environmental objectives actually be better achieved if fossil fuel companies were prohibited from producing these advertisements?

By distorting the truth, investing strategically, and controlling media messaging, high-carbon businesses are working against climate action. This ‘high-publicity’ approach aligns with the potency of harnessing online platform coverage.

In the United States alone, 68% of consumers rely on social and video platforms for news. With New York Times podcast promotions, PR influencers and Super Bowl Ads, it is becoming easier to reach a wider group of people and influence their perceptions about the oil industry. 

Many believe that advertising bans could limit the impact of Big Oil’s greenwashing tactics. 

What Are Advertising Bans? 

Advertising bans are regulatory policies imposed by governments or legislative bodies to restrict or limit the advertising of harmful and deceptive products or services. These bans can vary from mild constraints on content, placement, and broadcast time to complete prohibitions, counter-advertising, and advertisement taxation. We can see two clear examples: tobacco demonstrates how complete bans can be effective, while the other, alcohol, shows how avoiding such bans can benefit business to the detriment to human health. 

First, tobacco products. Since the 1960s, medical authorities around the world have recognized the severe, cancer-causing effects of tobacco. In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which urged countries to implement all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorships (TAPS) regulations. The WHO asserts that only comprehensive bans are effective, as partial bans, such as those in place in the United States, enable tobacco companies to exploit marketing and legal loopholes.

Another example is alcohol. Despite the well-documented health issues associated with alcohol consumption, it remains one of the least restricted products in terms of marketing worldwide. Thirty-one countries do have complete advertising bans, but most are Muslim nations where the consumption and sale of alcohol is also prohibited. The United States operates under a self-regulating system, following placement and content guidelines determined by the Fair Trade Commision (FTC). American advertisers are required to include health disclaimers, limit deals that encourage excessive consumption, and avoid websites with underage audiences. Beyond that, they remain free to advertise.

Fossil Fuel Rejection

In this decade, the rejection of toxic fossil fuel businesses is growing, from colleges to civic society to museums. As Big Oil becomes more entrenched in public health issues, ecological disasters and the cause of climate change, many institutions and organizations increasingly do not wish to be associated with it. 

Given that pollutants from fossil fuels cause an estimated 5.13 million deaths a year, compared to 2.6 million alcohol and 8 million tobacco related deaths, it is evident that fossil fuel advertising should be more strictly regulated. High carbon companies are clearly dangerous to global health. 

It’s Not Just Big Oil, But…

Many advertisers participate in greenwashing, misleading consumers with vague terminology claiming their products are  “green,” “eco-friendly”, “recyclable” or “sustainable” – when their product is none of these things. 

But it is high-carbon advertisers who embrace these marketing techniques the most, using climate doubt, deception, and misinformation to manipulate and maintain public opinion. Further, an analysis of tax filings across US trade associations found that coal, gas, and energy enterprises invested $3.4 billion in climate-related political activities from 2008 to 2018. The largest expenditure, at $2.17 billion, was allocated to advertising.

So What is Being Done Globally to Counter the Greenwashing?

Countries, including France, Amsterdam, and Scotland, have enforced various levels of advertising restrictions on fossil fuel companies. Although there is no current ban on fossil fuel advertising in the United States, climate litigation is on the rise. Many human rights organizations, non-governmental organizations, and individual actors are targeting fossil fuel businesses in courts.

One report, on global climate litigation, found that the number of cases has nearly tripled in frequency since 2017, with 70% of those cases – 1,522 in 2022 – filed in the United States. 

With these kinds of laws and litigation becoming more popular, it’s important to shift the responsibility back toward producers, removing social pressure from consumers. At present, a complete advertising ban against high-carbon and greenhouse gas emission businesses is not plausible in the United States. Partial advertisement bans have proven unsuccessful, shown in U.S. alcohol advertising, due to fragmented regulations, industry stakeholders, and first amendment protections. But, vast changes are on the horizon as the inevitability of climate justice continues.

Platforms Need to Take Responsibility

Companies such as Google and Vox have pledged to address misleading advertising related to climate change denial. Enforcing these pledges is crucial for our planet. Through climate litigation and accountability campaigns, fossil fuel companies participating in climate-washing advertisements will lose their partnerships with mainstream advertisers, eliminating the fossil fuel industry’s influence, changing public policy, and saving our planet. So, yes, advertising bans are important and they work!

The post Stop Spreading the News: Advertising Bans appeared first on Earth Day.

Next summer, the opening ceremony of the 2024 Olympic Games will take place on the Seine River in Paris, France. Previous Olympics have had a dramatic carbon footprint, as well as a dreadful impact on biodiversity. For instance, the last two summer Olympic games where held in Tokyo, Japan and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. They released more than 2.7 million and 4.5 million tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere respectively. Each and every one of us witnesses the effect of global warming in our day-to-day life. We can ask ourselves what regulations will the Paris Olympic planning committee implement to reduce the environmental impact of arguably the most renowned sporting event on Earth? 

A recent change in the carbon narrative 

Initially, the planning committee pledged the Olympics will have a “positive carbon contribution”. That means more carbon will be captured or compensated than emitted. Apart from misleading the public to believe the Olympics’ carbon footprint was minimal, their assertion is also unrealistic. That is why the board has reevaluated its carbon budget and committed instead to cutting the carbon emissions of the event in half. 

The Olympics will have a lower impact than in previous years, but still a significant one. Indeed, the expected carbon budget consists of the emission of 1.58 million tons of CO2. Transportation accounts for the most important share of emissions (34%), followed by operations & logistics (26%), and constructions (25%). On the latter, substantial efforts have been made. Only one building will be made (the Olympic pool). Thanks to the reuse of existing sports facilities. 

Paris 2024 will be greener than previous Olympics, but there is still a lot to do 

There is a major issue with the current structure of accountability for carbon emissions at major sporting events, like the Olympics. The lack of transparency about the carbon assessment. The Olympic Committee, despite publicly expressing environmentally conscious governance and several designated bodies, is very reluctant about disclosing the details of the carbon assessment method.

To correct this, the carbon footprint analysis used for the 2024 Olympics is based on a new approach. It focuses on integrating carbon costs beforehand instead of doing a carbon assessment afterward. Organizers have also adopted the ARO approach (Avoid, Reduce, Offset), to refrain from jumping to compensation without making the first and more complicated step of not emitting carbon.

The “old” carbon assessment model compared to the new one adopted by Paris 2024:
Changing the model: from a post-Games assessment to a pre-Games target

Efforts compared to previous Olympics Games are praiseworthy and necessary. However, several problems remain and need to be tackled for future major sporting events to make sure the athletic community does its part in the fight against the climate crisis. 

How to move toward a greener Olympics? 

Looking forward, propositions for greener Olympics have been formulated by academics, sports supporters, organizers, as well as the athletes themselves. 

The first step would be to greatly downsize the event, inherently decreasing the ecological and material footprint by reducing the size and cost of the new infrastructure required. It will also cut down the transportation’s emissions, which accounts for a large share of an international event’s carbon footprint. Another step would be to rotate the Olympics among the same cities. By doing so, all necessary infrastructure will already be in place, and the Olympics happen at a lower cost, alongside minimal social and ecological disruption. 

Other ideas formulated to reduce Olympics’ carbon footprint include enforcing stronger accountability and transparency standards, and using only renewable sourced energies during the event. As an individual, the greener action you can do is renouncing to go in person. Indeed, with transportations accounting for the greatest share of emissions, it is better to watch the competition on your TV if you live too far from the hosting city and have to take the plane. 

In the fight against the climate crisis, athletes are both an inspiration and a solution. More and more of them are expressing their concerns about the environmental impact of the competitions they are participating in, and are increasingly conscious of their interconnection with global warming. Our Earth Day Campaign Athletes for the Earth aims at amplifying their voices and connecting athletic practices with environmental stewardship.

The post Paris 2024 Olympics: A Greenwashing Nightmare or a Genuine Effort to Save the Planet? appeared first on Earth Day.