As environmental concerns intensify and consumers increasingly prioritize sustainable options, companies across all sectors are eager to showcase their “green” credentials. However, this surge in eco-friendly marketing has given rise to a problematic practice known as greenwashing.
According to the latest Reprisk report, over 900 businesses in Europe in 2024 were accused of engaging in various forms of greenwashing, highlighting the scale of this issue. For organizations genuinely committed to sustainability, understanding and avoiding these deceptive practices is crucial; let’s explore this further.
understanding greenwashing: beyond the green facade
Greenwashing pretty simply refers to deceptive marketing tactics that make a company appear more environmentally friendly than it actually is.
The word “greenwashing” was introduced by New York environmentalist Jay Westerveld in a 1986 essay. He discussed how hotels would put signs in guest rooms encouraging people to reuse towels in the name of environmental protection. However, he observed that these hotels rarely took real steps to reduce energy consumption and protect the environment, and that the towel reuse policy mainly helped them cut laundry expenses. He naturally concluded that the primary motivation was usually to boost profits. Westerveld used the term “greenwashing” to describe this kind of superficial, profit-driven display of environmental concern. Today, with increasing consumer demand for sustainable products and regulatory pressures, the practice has evolved into several sophisticated forms that can be difficult to identify if you’re not familiar with them.
- greenlighting: the art of distraction
Greenlighting occurs when companies highlight a particular “green” product or initiative to draw attention away from their otherwise environmentally damaging activities. This tactic is especially prevalent in industries with significant environmental footprints.
For example, automotive companies might heavily promote their electric vehicle line while continuing to invest predominantly in combustion engine vehicles that generate substantially higher emissions. Similarly, oil companies might advertise advanced biofuel research while their core business continues to extract fossil fuels at an unprecedented rate. For IT companies, this would highlight how green their new data center is, when the vast majority of others are consuming energy at an alarming rate. These selective showcases create a misleading narrative about the company’s overall environmental commitment.
- greenhushing: strategic silence
Greenhushing represents a different approach – companies deliberately underreport or conceal their sustainability practices to avoid external scrutiny or potential backlash. According to research by climate consultancy South Pole, some large companies intentionally avoid disclosing their progress on science-based climate targets.
This silence might stem from fear that publicizing environmental actions may either expose insufficient efforts, create expectations the company cannot meet, or make investors and/or shareholders worried that green initiatives will slow down profit.
- greenrinsing: moving the goalposts
Greenrinsing describes the practice of frequently changing ESG objectives before they are achieved. Companies employing this tactic typically provide various justifications for why original targets weren’t met while setting new ones.
This continuous shifting of sustainability goals prevents meaningful progress assessment and accountability. Rather than committing to achievable targets with clear action plans, these organizations create an illusion of environmental commitment while avoiding substantive change.
- greenshifting: consumer blame game
Greenshifting represents a particularly insidious tactic in which companies transfer responsibility for environmental harm to consumers rather than addressing their production practices. This approach deflects attention from corporate responsibilities by suggesting environmental problems stem primarily from consumer behavior.
For instance, a company using plastic bottles might emphasize the importance of proper recycling of their product packaging instead of redesigning the packaging to be more sustainable in the first place. This misplaced focus obscures the company’s environmental impact throughout its production chain.
- greencrowding: safety in numbers
Greencrowding relies on safety in numbers and occurs when different organizations join collective initiatives to create the impression of making significant environmental changes. This approach enables companies to conceal their contributions while potentially making minimal contributions as part of a group effort.
A notable example is the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, which includes several of the world’s largest plastic polluters. Such coalitions often move at the pace of their slowest members and set low environmental targets, effectively stalling meaningful action while providing participating companies with environmental credibility.
- greenlabelling: false environmental claims
Greenlabelling involves labeling products or services as environmentally friendly when such claims are misleading or outright false. This practice exploits the lack of standardized definitions for terms such as “eco-friendly,” “natural,” and “sustainable.”
With more than 200 environmental labels active in the EU and over 450 worldwide, consumers face significant challenges in determining which claims to trust. Companies engaging in greenlabelling capitalize on this confusion by using environmental terminology without substantiating their claims.
- greenwishing: unintentional deception
Greenwishing describes a situation where a company’s sustainability ambitions are sincere, but their environmental claims or targets end up being more hopeful than factual. Often, this happens when organizations set bold green goals without fully understanding what it takes to achieve them, or when they overstate the impact of their current efforts due to optimism rather than intent to mislead. The result is an unintentional exaggeration—promises that sound impressive but lack the substance, resources, or planning needed for real-world impact. While greenwishing isn’t rooted in deception like greenwashing, it can still lead to disappointment and erode trust if those well-intentioned commitments ultimately fall short or remain unfulfilled.
actual sustainability action through circular IT
Against this backdrop of deceptive practices, circular IT offers a more transparent and verifiable approach to sustainability. The circular economy model for IT hardware emphasizes extending product lifecycles through reuse, refurbishment, and efficient resource utilization, rather than relying on continuous replacement.
Traditional IT enterprise hardware typically has a lifespan of only three to five years before being discarded, significantly contributing to the growing global e-waste problem. Circular IT aims to extend this lifecycle to between five and ten years, significantly reducing environmental impact through continued use rather than premature replacement.
This approach delivers multiple environmental benefits, including:
- Reduced carbon footprint through extended product lifecycles (we reduce the need to manufacture new products, hence lowering green gas emissions, energy consumption, water usage, and chemical pollution linked to the production of that equipment).
- Decreased demand for raw material extraction
Minimized electronic waste generationBeyond environmental advantages, circular IT enables the perfect optimization of the company’s needs, avoiding unnecessary hardware deployment, and offers significant financial benefits. Organizations can significantly reduce expenses (up to 80% according to our experience) while gaining access to top-quality hardware and fit-for-purpose infrastructures.We believe that authentic sustainability requires moving beyond marketing claims to demonstrable action. Our business model is fundamentally designed to extend the useful life of IT equipment, rather than encouraging unnecessary replacement cycles that generate excessive waste and resource consumption.
navigating toward true environmental responsibility
Recognizing the various shades of greenwashing is essential for organizations seeking to make genuinely sustainable choices. With environmental regulations tightening across Europe, including the implementation of the EU Green Claims Directive, companies must increasingly back their sustainability claims with verified, science-based evidence.
For businesses looking to avoid greenwashing while making meaningful environmental progress, circular IT offers a substantive solution. More generally, by embracing models that prioritize reuse over replacement, organizations can reduce their environmental footprint while simultaneously realizing cost savings and operational benefits.
As consumers and businesses become more sophisticated in identifying deceptive environmental claims, the competitive advantage will increasingly shift toward companies offering genuine sustainability solutions.
Circular IT then stands as both an environmental choice and a smart business decision that aligns economic and ecological interests in an era where transparency and authenticity matter more than ever. Get in touch with our team today to see how it can help your organisation!
