How to spot ‘greenwashed’ brands — and the metrics that prove it

A glossy leaf on a bottle, a promise of “clean,” and a price tag that nudges you to feel virtuous. Green sells. Which is why greenwashing — the art of looking sustainable without doing the work — is thriving. The fix isn’t a feeling. It’s metrics you can check in 60 seconds.

A shampoo bottle shouts “eco,” a T‑shirt whispers “conscious,” and a billboard outside says your next flight is “responsible.” A couple near me compares two brands by colour, not by numbers, and I catch myself doing the same.

We’ve all had that moment when the marketing feels kinder than the maths. The logos get bigger, the forests in the ads greener, and the footnotes harder to find. Something in your gut nags.

I reached for my phone and hunted for the data behind the claims. What I found made me buy less, not more. Then it got interesting.

The green mirage you can spot with your eyes

Most greenwashing starts with vagueness. Words like “eco-friendly,” “kind to the planet,” or “sustainable formula” float past with no baseline, no date, no figure. If a brand can’t say what changed and by how much, it probably hasn’t.

The imagery does heavy lifting too: leaves, oceans, a single bee on a box that’s still plastic. Watch for selective truths. A company might tout “100% renewable electricity in offices” while its factories burn gas and its suppliers burn coal. The whole picture matters, not the prettiest corner.

Regulators are noticing. The European Commission’s sweep found more than half of green claims were vague or misleading, and the UK’s CMA warned that a large share of claims risked breaking consumer law. Ads have been pulled for talking up tree projects while downplaying fossil finance. The pattern is the same: big promise, small print.

Specifics tell another story. A fast‑fashion brand can announce a “conscious collection” while total output climbs. An airline can promise “net zero by 2050” yet raise capacity and push cheap offsets. Numbers beat adjectives every time.

Here’s a real‑world twist: one bank ran climate‑themed ads while still underwriting heavy fossil expansion. Another brand bragged about recyclable bottles, then shipped them to markets with no recycling. The claim isn’t a lie; it’s a half‑truth that feels like one.

Look at what’s missing. No Scope 3 data? That’s most of the footprint for retailers, food, travel, and tech. Only intensity figures like “per product” or “per revenue”? Emissions can fall per unit while the total climbs. Baselines that start in pandemic‑low 2020? That flatters the trend.

Why this works on us is simple: our brains prefer stories to spreadsheets. Brands tell tidy stories. Reality is messy. Intensity metrics make growth look green. Offsets blur reduction with accounting. And targets set for 2050 kick pain into the future leaders’ inbox.

Flip the lens. Ask: what’s the absolute change year on year, before offsets? What share of Scope 3 is covered? How much capital is flowing to low‑carbon projects? Where is renewable power coming from — certificates or contracts that build new wind and solar?

When you ask those questions, the mirage wobbles. Some brands shine brighter, others fade. The trick is a pocket checklist and the will to use it for two minutes.

The metrics that actually matter

Start here: **Near-term targets beat 2050 promises**. Look for Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validation with a dated 2030 goal, not just “net zero someday.” The best disclose annual, absolute CO2e reductions for Scope 1, 2, and 3 separately, with at least 67% of Scope 3 categories covered if that’s the bulk of their footprint.

Next, test the energy story. What percentage of electricity is renewable via long‑term PPAs or on‑site generation, not just certificates? Is there a plan to electrify heat and transport? A credible company ties executive pay to climate milestones and publishes a TCFD‑style transition plan with capex aligned to it.

Then follow the money. What share of total capital expenditure went to decarbonisation last year? How much revenue comes from low‑carbon products, audited by a known standard? If they lean on offsets, ask if they’re high‑durability, third‑party verified, and clearly separated from real reductions. **Offsets aren’t reductions**.

Here’s a quick, precise method. Pull up the brand’s sustainability page and skim for five numbers: absolute emissions trend, Scope 3 coverage, renewable electricity via PPAs, capex share to low‑carbon, and waste or packaging recycled content. If any number is missing, note it. If the numbers are there but cherry‑picked, note that too.

Common traps? “Carbon neutral product” labels built on cheap credits. “Recyclable” packs in places with no collection. “Ocean bound plastic” with no baseline. Let’s be honest: nobody really does this every day. So make it a habit you use for the top three things you buy most.

One sustainability auditor put it bluntly.

“If a claim can’t be measured, it can’t be verified. And if it can’t be verified, it doesn’t belong on a billboard.”

• Look for SBTi near‑term targets and annual progress.
• Check absolute emissions drop before offsets.
• Verify Scope 3 coverage and supplier engagement.
• Prefer PPAs/new‑build renewables over certificates.
• Scan capex alignment and executive pay links.
• Demand product‑level LCAs or EPDs for big purchases.

Red flags that expose greenwash in seconds

Watch for the language tell. Vague adjectives with no numbers. Percentages with no base (“50% greener than what?”). Achievements with no dates. Claims confined to one “eco” line while the rest of the range drives the footprint.

Interrogate the timeline. Targets only for 2050, with nothing concrete for 2025 or 2030. Baselines reset to make progress look steeper. Emissions intensity falling while total emissions rise with growth. **Scope 3 is the real test** for most consumer brands.

Scrutinise the offset story. Are reductions clearly separated from credits? Is there a cap on offset use? Are projects additional, permanent, and recent vintage, not 10‑year‑old credits? *Numbers are the antidote to greenwash.*

When a brand gets it right, it shows. You’ll see year‑on‑year absolute cuts, credible coverage, honest caveats, and independent assurance at “reasonable” levels, not merely “limited.” They’ll publish supplier lists, set living‑wage policies, and admit what’s still dirty.

When a brand doesn’t, it hides in design. Lots of green ink, few figures. A pilot scheme that rescues the press release, not the planet. A “circular” claim without take‑back rates. If the metrics are air, the claim is air.

There’s a human angle too. Your time is finite and your choices are messy. Pick the one metric that matters most for that product. For fashion, look at total output and recycled content verified at scale. For tech, check renewable electricity via PPAs and product energy efficiency. For food, check Scope 3 agriculture and deforestation‑free sourcing.

Here’s the liberating bit. You don’t need to be perfect. You need to be curious. A minute of scrutiny rewires how brands speak to you, and how they spend. The more shoppers ask for the boring numbers, the fewer brands can get away with beautiful nothing.

That’s already changing the market. Shareholders are voting for capex aligned with a 1.5°C pathway. Regulators are drafting rules that make fluffy claims costly. Activists are winning cases that force clarity in ads and annual reports.

Your role is simple. Ask for the metrics that move the needle and reward the ones who publish them. Share the check you use with a friend. It turns out influence looks less like a protest and more like a habit of counting.

FAQ :

• What is greenwashing?Marketing that suggests environmental progress without matching, verifiable action and numbers.
• What’s the quickest single metric to check?Year‑on‑year absolute emissions change before offsets, across Scopes 1, 2, and 3.
• Are carbon offsets ever okay?Yes, for residual emissions, with strict quality and clear, limited use after deep cuts.
• How do I compare two brands fast?Pick one product‑relevant metric and one company metric, then choose the one with cleaner, audited data.
• What if the data is missing?That’s your signal. Ask publicly, buy from a rival that publishes it, and tell the brand why you switched.