Crafting sustainability messaging is complex, and the goalposts keep moving
What hasn’t changed is the need for companies to be open, honest and transparent about their environmental claims. But it doesn’t always work out that way.
Greenwashing – the practice of making false, misleading or unsubstantiated claims about the environmental and social benefits of a company’s products and initiatives – remains a pervasive problem in the business-to-business (B2B) space, as vendors try to seduce sustainability-focused procurement teams with smart marketing and messaging.
The green advantage
With sustainability high on the corporate agenda, and supply chain emissions (Scope 3) often representing 80% or more of enterprise emissions, sustainable procurement has become a critical tool for achieving corporate sustainability goals.
For suppliers, this means that being “green” – or perceived to be – can offer a competitive advantage by attracting new customers and charging a “green premium” for goods.
And perception is a powerful tool. In a recent study, researchers at the Venice School of Management discovered that some companies were willing to pay as much as 15% more for goods labelled as “100% sustainable” – a claim backed by nothing but slick marketing.[1]
In the same study, other companies were willing to pay about 13% extra for products labelled with genuine sustainability certifications backed by independent third parties.
This points to a concerning possibility: that procurement teams are influenced as much – if not more – by sophisticated marketing messaging than genuine sustainability credentials communicated with less fanfare.
The allure of the “green” advantage can entice some companies to push their sustainability messaging beyond the credible and step, intentionally or not, into the murky world of greenwashing.
The grey “green zone”
To muddy the already murky, greenwashing has no legal definition, despite numerous anti-greenwashing regulations, for example, the UK’s Green Claims Code [2], the EU’s Green Claims Directive [3] and Canada’s anti-greenwashing Bill C-59 [4], designed to punish and eliminate the practice.
A lack of legal definition poses several challenges. First, to say that a company is greenwashing is a subjective charge that must be interpreted by regulators, such as the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Mobilising the regulators, however, doesn’t take much. Last year, the ASA banned a Virgin Atlantic radio advert for misleading claims about sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) – following just five complaints.[5]
The advert claimed that Virgin Atlantic was the “world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic on 100% sustainable aviation fuel”. However, this statement was deemed misleading as, while the life-cycle emissions from SAF are about 85% lower than those from conventional jet fuel, SAF still emits the same amount of carbon dioxide when burnt.
I can’t be certain, but simply rewording along the lines of “…world’s first commercial airline to fly transatlantic using only sustainable aviation fuel” might have been a better option.
And this, surely, was the headline that Virgin Atlantic wanted, because commercial jet fuel is currently not allowed to contain more than 50% SAF – though most use considerably less, owing to the higher cost of SAF and lower mandated amounts by regulators.
For me, this example doesn’t suggest any intent to mislead but it does show how easy it is for companies to get their messaging wrong, even those with substantial marketing and legal resources.
Falling foul
And falling foul of the rules has real consequences. For example, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority now has the power to fine UK companies up to 10% of their global revenue for serious breaches of consumer law, including misleading environmental claims. [6] Moreover, it can shatter trust with partners and customers in moments – trust that’s taken years to nurture.
This should be a wake-up call for companies. However, a recent report by RepRisk suggests that as much as 30% of companies engaged in greenwashing in 2024 are repeat offenders. [7] Does this point to deliberate deception, or suggest that companies just aren’t learning from their mistakes?
Red flags
For companies deliberately out to greenwash, they know what they’re doing; however, I think a lot of companies live in the grey “green zone” and don’t know they’re doing it – but this isn’t an excuse.
Companies should cast a sceptical eye over their sustainability messaging and hunt out potential red flags, such as vague language that’s open to interpretation (see Virgin Atlantic example), exaggerated or unsubstantiated claims, absolute or prescriptive statements and misleading imagery – yes, too much green can be too much “green”!
There are also more sophisticated forms of greenwashing that go beyond product messaging. For example, Planet Tracker’s The Greenwashing Hydra report describes “greenlighting” as claims that try to shift attention away from a company’s other activities that may be harmful. [8]
Then there’s “greenshifting”, when a company shifts blame down the value chain (blaming consumer demand, for example); or “greenrinsing”, when a company regularly amends its environmental targets without actually achieving them.
A safer path
The optimist in me likes to think that most companies approach their marketing with the best of intentions. However, good intentions won’t save a company’s reputation in the court of public opinion or from increasingly vigilant regulators.
So, how can companies tread a safer path with their sustainability messaging?
The first obvious step is to understand the nuanced and often sophisticated nature of greenwashing – it goes beyond just labelling and includes pledges, commitments and disclosures. Lack of a legal definition blurs the lines, but put simply: if messaging has the potential to mislead, it has the potential to greenwash.
Next is developing sustainability claims and the language used to communicate them. This is where marketing and legal teams often converge to decide if claims such as “carbon neutral”, “low carbon” or “biodegradable” are valid and if product statistics – such as CO2 emission reduction claims – stand up to scrutiny. Having documents that substantiate claims is vital; these documents should be available to and accessible by third parties.
Finally comes the messaging. This is the bit the outside world sees and the part that can make or break a marketing campaign. As with Virgin Atlantic, it’s easy to get this wrong. I would advise against using language that guarantees an absolute outcome, as performance or results may differ with different use cases – don’t imply certainty where certainty doesn’t exist.
Above all, companies should take a systematic approach to sustainability messaging that’s open, honest and consistent across all channels and touch points. Scrutiny has never been greater and the penalties never so severe – if you can’t prove it, don’t say it.
[1] Khan & Hinterhuber (2025) An experimental study on the susceptibility of purchasing managers to greenwashing. Sci Rep 15, 11426
[2] UK Gov | Green Claims Code
[3] European Parliament | ‘Green claims’ directive: Protecting consumers from greenwashing
[4] Canada Climate Law Initiative | From greenwashing to green trust: How Bill C-59 strengthens regulations and protects Canadians
[5] Sky News | Blow to airline environmental claims as Virgin Atlantic’s first transatlantic sustainable aviation fuel ad banned
[6] FieldFisher | Greenwashing under scrutiny: The CMA’s new powers to tackle misleading environmental claims
[7] RepRisk | A turning tide in greenwashing? Exploring the first decline in six years
[8] Planet Tracker | The Greenwashing Hydra