Ep 27: The 7 Sins of Greenwashing: How to be a Conscious Consumer

Sadie
6 days ago
9 min read

Next time you walk into Sephora, count how many products say things like clean, sustainable, eco-friendly, non-toxic, reef-safe. Have you ever asked yourself what these actually mean, or who defines these terms?

What is greenwashing?

Claims like these are an example of greenwashing. Greenwashing is marketing communication that misleads consumers into forming overly positive beliefs about a company’s environmental practices or a product’s environmental benefits. Basically, it’s marketing companies use to make you think that they’re being more environmentally friendly than they actually are.

Consumers are more conscious about their product usage and environmental impact than they ever have been before, which is amazing! However, there are companies that are capitalizing on our desire to do better.

Why does greenwashing work?

There’s quite an incentive for companies to exaggerate their environmental value. Consumers increasingly prefer sustainable products, sustainability is really hard to measure and is often very complex, and vague environmental claims are weakly regulated. All of these things lead to companies exaggerating how good they are for the environment.

The Six (or Seven) deadly sins of greenwashing

A company called TerraChoice Environmental Marketing analyzed thousands of environmental claims and categorized the most common ways companies mislead consumers. They called it the Six Deadly Sins of Greenwashing (although I believe another sin has since been added, so it’s now seven). I highly recommend reading the full article, it’s linked on our blog!

Sin #1: The sin of the hidden trade-off. This happens when a product is marketed as environmentally friendly based on one positive attribute, while more significant environmental impacts are ignored. In other words, the claim may be technically true, but it’s definitely incomplete.

For example, a skincare line might advertise “refillable jars,” but the refill pods are multilayer plastic that are not actually recyclable in most places. Another good non-cosmetics analogy is cruise ships promoting that they recycle plastic cups onboard. Recycling is positive, but the carbon emissions from operating massive ships far outweigh the impact of recycling cups.

The core issue here is framing the impact in a super narrow way. Companies focus on one “green” feature without addressing the product’s overall environmental footprint, which is the most important part.

To avoid this sin, companies should avoid highlighting a single environmental benefit unless they understand - and they’re transparent about - the broader environmental performance of the product.

Sin #2: The Sin of No Proof. This happens when a company makes an environmental claim but doesn’t actually provide any accessible evidence to support it. They may say that their product is “biodegradable,” “sustainably sourced,” or “carbon neutral,” but there isn’t any publicly available data, certification, or documentation backing up the claim. This is extremely common - and it’s especially prevalent in the cosmetic industry, where consumers often can’t easily verify supply chain information.

Examples in cosmetics might include:

“Reef safe” without disclosing any of their testing or criteria (because newsflash, “reef safe” isn’t regulated and therefore doesn’t really mean anything)
“Sustainably harvested botanicals” without disclosing where the ingredients were actually supplied from.
“Carbon neutral” without publishing any documents showing their offsets

Companies making legitimate environmental claims should be able to provide evidence when they’re asked or rely on credible third-party certification systems. If proof isn’t available, the claim is just marketing rather than a substantiated fact.

Sin #3: The Sin of Vagueness. This involves using environmental language that is so broad or poorly defined that consumers are likely to misunderstand it. This is probably the most common form of greenwashing we see in cosmetics.

Terms like:

All natural
Clean
Eco-friendly
Sustainable
Non-toxic
Chemical-free
Reef safe
Carbon neutral

often lack actual standardized definitions, especially in cosmetics.

Different companies define these terms differently. In some cases, the company may not have a clear internal definition at all, but they just throw it on their label because it’s popular to market products with that language.

Vagueness allows companies to benefit from positive environmental associations without committing to doing anything measurable. Because these words aren’t really defined, they are super hard to challenge legally - which makes them safer from a regulatory standpoint than making a specific, falsifiable claim.

In 1938 the FDA began regulating the sale of cosmetics, and it “prohibited the adulteration and misbranding of cosmetics” which means all claims have to be truthful. However, one way companies get around this is by making really vague claims; because as hard as they are to prove, they’re also hard to disprove. That’s a big reason why the Sin of Vagueness is so common.

Sin #4: The Sin of Irrelevance. This happens when a company makes an environmental claim that is technically true but ultimately meaningless.

A classic example that the TerraChoice article had is labeling products as “CFC-free.” Chlorofluorocarbons are ingredients that were banned decades ago under the Montreal Protocol due to their role in depleting the ozone layer. No modern-day products legally contain CFCs. Claiming “CFC-free” does not differentiate a product; it literally just states compliance with a long-standing regulation.

In cosmetics, similar examples include:

“Paraben-free” in product categories that rarely use parabens (they’ve sadly all but disappeared from cosmetics already)
“Sulfate-free” in products like hair oils or leave-in conditioners that would not contain cleansing surfactants in the first place

These claims aren’t necessarily false, but they distract consumers from evaluating more meaningful environmental attributes. Irrelevant claims are extremely common across many industries, not just in environmental marketing.

Sin #5: The Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils. This happens when a product category itself carries a significant environmental or health impact, but marketing focuses on making that product appear environmentally preferable within the category.

An example of this is something like “Eco-friendly single-use sheet masks.” Even if the mask is made from plant fibers, the product is still single-use and individually packaged, and therefore it’s inherently bad for the environment.

This sin is relatively uncommon compared to others the other ones; TerraChoice found it represented a small percentage of environmental claims. It still happens though, and it’s something to look out for.

Sin #6: The Sin of Fibbing. This is the most straightforward form of greenwashing: making claims that are verifiably false.

Examples would include:

Claiming a product is “certified organic” when that certification doesn’t exist
Advertising “100% recycled paper packaging” when the packaging is plastic
Using a certification logo without authorization

This is less common than the other sins, probably because outright false claims expose companies to legal enforcement and reputational damage. We know how much people in the US like to litigate (we’ve got class actions up the wazoo here), so it’s not in a company’s best interest to straight up lie about their products.

Like we mentioned before, instead of making clearly false statements, a lot of companies rely on ambiguity or broad, undefined terminology. Vague claims are harder to legally challenge than demonstrably false ones. From a risk perspective, being ambiguous is much safer than lying.

Sin #7: The Sin of Worshipping False Labels. This sin wasn’t in the original TerraChoice article, and I haven’t seen it happen very often, but it’s still interesting to note. This refers to creating the impression of third-party endorsement when no independent certification exists.

This can happen through:

Fake certification seals
Designing a bunny logo that looks like Leaping Bunny certification but is self-issued.
Using phrases like “independently tested” without disclosing who conducted the testing.

The product appears to be endorsed by an external authority, but the “label” is either created by the company, or just unverified.

What else do companies do to greenwash?

There are some other ways companies greenwash; many of them are included in the Sins, but they have specific names.

Selective disclosure: Highlighting one eco-friendly product while ignoring the rest of the portfolio. This could look like a company launching one refillable product while the rest of the line remains single-use plastic, or advertising recycled aluminum packaging while not discussing their energy use in manufacturing.

A single “green” product doesn’t necessarily mean the company as a whole has reduced its environmental impact. They’re basically giving their customers a curated highlight reel, rather than the full picture. This overlaps a lot with the Sin of Hidden Trade-Off, but it happens at both the product and company level.

Future washing happens when companies make ambitious long-term environmental commitments without explaining how they plan on achieving these goals.

Statements like:

“Net zero by 2050.”
“Carbon neutral by 2040.”
“Plastic free future.”

sound impressive; but without timelines, investment disclosures, interim targets, or third-party verification, they're just marketing rather than actual commitments from the company.

A credible sustainability goal typically includes:

A baseline measurement (where are we now?)
Interim targets (where will we be in 5 years?)
A strategy (how are we reducing emissions?)
Public reporting

Without those parts, long-term climate promises usually just become a way to manage a company’s reputation, rather than make actual environmental change. This is especially relevant because climate targets often extend decades beyond how long any of the people currently working at the company will be there. This means that there's very little immediate accountability (it’s basically a long term “we’re working on it”)

What is green hushing?

Green hushing, or brown washing, is essentially the opposite of greenwashing. It refers to companies under-communicating their sustainability efforts to avoid scrutiny, backlash, or being accused of greenwashing.

Some companies have reduced how much they talk about sustainability because consumers are increasingly skeptical, regulatory scrutiny is increasing, and public claims invite investigation. In some cases, companies may be making legitimate improvements but choose not to advertise them aggressively.

However, green hushing can also reduce transparency. If companies stop communicating entirely, consumers lose access to information that helps them make informed decisions. It’s a tough trade off because if they talk too much they risk greenwashing, and if they talk too little, they risk not being transparent.

What rules do we have against greenwashing?

In the U.S., environmental marketing claims fall under:

– FTC Green Guides

these prohibit unfair or deceptive practices in commerce – Federal Trade Commission Act (which prohibits deceptive marketing) – FDA regulation for cosmetic labeling (requires that claims are truthful, non-misleading)

The FTC Green Guides specifically warn against:

Unqualified “eco-friendly” claims
Broad “sustainable” claims
Carbon offset claims without substantiation

The EU is also taking a stance against greenwashing claims; In 2020, the European Commission found that over half of environmental claims they screened were vague, misleading, or unfounded.The EU is now working on the Green Claims Directive, which would require companies to substantiate environmental claims with a standardized methodology, which is a great step in the right direction.

We also have several certifications in the US; this includes:

USDA Organic (standards for ingredients in the products)
COSMOS / Ecocert (natural/organic cosmetic standards)
Leaping Bunny (cruelty-free supply chain audit)
Vegan Society
B Corp (governs companies and their impact metrics)

These certifications aren’t perfect and they don’t indicate perfect sustainability, but at least having certifications creates a defined criteria and can be audited to make sure they’re honest about their criteria. However, if you want to learn more about different environmental claims and the issues with these certifications, we highly recommend checking out The Eco Well Podcast / Website. Jen knows way more about the environment than we ever will!

Macro versus Micro Impacts

The true environmental impacts of cosmetics are measured across the full lifecycle of a product, not just one of its attributes. When it comes to cosmetics, the largest environmental impacts usually come from:

Raw material extraction
Energy used during manufacturing
Packaging production
Transportation
End-of-life disposal

Greenwashing often emphasises micro impacts (like recyclable packaging, organic ingredients, etc) because it’s easier to market, but the macro impacts make the biggest difference. True sustainability requires addressing the macro impacts.

How can you actually have a positive impact on the environment?

The biggest way you can positively impact the environment is to be a more conscious consumer. That doesn’t mean obsessing over every ingredient label or buying the “greenest-looking” moisturizer. It means understanding where impact actually comes from and adjusting behavior accordingly.

1. Reduce Your Consumption Frequency

The most consistent finding across lifecycle assessment research is that total consumption volume matters more than marginal packaging improvements. Using fewer products, finishing what you buy, and avoiding trend-driven overconsumption typically reduces environmental impact more than switching from one plastic pump to another.

2. Use Your Products Fully Before Replacing

Throwing away your products before finishing them increases lifecycle waste.

In cosmetics specifically, throwing away half-used products contributes to unnecessary packaging waste, avoidable manufacturing emissions, and avoidable ingredient production

3. Support Transparency, Not Aesthetic Sustainability

Form the company, look for things like public sustainability reports, clear (and attainable) metrics, interim climate targets (these are things like 1, 5, and 10 year climate goals), and third-party certifications.

Conclusion

If there’s one thing we want you to take away from this episode, it’s that sustainability isn’t something you can buy in a prettier bottle. Real environmental impact is measured across the full lifecycle of a product - how it’s sourced, how it’s manufactured, how it’s transported, how it’s disposed of, and how much of it we consume. The most powerful thing you can do isn’t to chase every product labeled ‘clean’ or ‘eco-friendly.’ It’s to consume thoughtfully, finish what you buy, demand transparency, and recognize that systemic change matters more than aesthetic sustainability. Greenwashing works because it makes impact feel simple. The reality is more complex, but complexity doesn’t mean helplessness, it just means we have to think a little deeper.

Bibliography

Like we mentioned, check out The Eco Well Podcast and greenwashaction.com for more information on sustainability, greenwashing and how you can be a more conscious consumer.

Dimitrieska, S., Stankovska, A., & Efremova, T. (2017). The Six Sins of Greenwashing. Economics and Management, 13(2), 82–89. Faculty of Economics, South-West University “Neofit Rilski,” Blagoevgrad.Retrieved from https://www.ul.com/insights/sins-greenwashing

Federal Trade Commission. (2022). Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides).U.S. Government. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/GreenGuides-FRN-11-5-22.pdf

Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Green Guides — Truth in Advertising.U.S. Government. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/topics/truth-advertising/green-guides

Greenwashing Action. (n.d.). The Means and End of Greenwash.Retrieved from https://www.greenwashaction.com/research-and-media-blog/the-means-and-end-of-greenwash

Montgomery, W. (Host). (n.d.). Wren Montgomery interview. In The Eco Well Podcast. Retrieved from https://www.theecowell.com/podcast/wren-montgomery