top of page


Vegan Blogs on Veganism, Health, Animal Abuse, Environment & Recipes

Green Washing: The Dangerous Trend of False Corporate Sustainability Claims

Green Washing: The Dangerous Trend of False Corporate Sustainability Claims

Introduction: Green Washing: The Dangerous Trend of False Corporate Sustainability Claims

In our current state of climate emergency, more and more businesses are making an effort to become eco-friendly and socially responsible. However, not all of these efforts are sincere, and some are mere attempts to create a positive image, commonly known as "green washing." This phenomenon is particularly prevalent in veganism, environmentalism, and human rights. In this blog, we will take a closer look at these issues and assess whether corporate green washing is a superficial attempt to improve their image or a genuine attempt to change their business practices.

Veganism as a Tool for Green Washing: A Closer Look

The promotion of veganism as a marketing tool is more prevalent than ever before. In the United States alone, plant-based meat sales rose 45% in 2020 compared to the previous year. It is no surprise that many corporations are jumping on the veganism bandwagon to capitalize on the trend, often without operationalizing their sustainability commitment.

Unfortunately, using veganism as a tool for green washing is problematic because corporations can overlook the significant environmental impact of animal agriculture. The livestock industry is responsible for over 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and even plant-based alternatives can contribute to deforestation, water use, and biodiversity loss through its supply chain.

Moreover, some companies greenwash under the guise of veganism while directly causing environmental degradation through unsustainable practices. For instance, one of the largest food and beverage companies is associated with the destruction of critical habitat in countries like Mexico and Indonesia. As with plant-based meat products, the fact that their products are vegan in no way indicates that the corporation holds environmental protection as a core value.

It is essential to remain cautiously optimistic regarding the industrial shift to veganism. While the trend is encouraging, it's crucial to understand that veganism alone does not guarantee eco-friendliness, even if it progresses in the right direction. For corporates, adopting a truly sustainable business model involves using natural resources with care, promoting social justice and human rights, and openness and transparency about their environmental footprint. Customers can scrutinize corporations' sustainability practices and act as a catalyst for meaningful change to promote ethical business practices rather than greenwashing.

Environmentalism and Corporate Green Washing: The Debate Continues

Corporate greenwashing is not a new phenomenon, and the practice of using environmentalism as a tool has dominated the conversation around corporate sustainability practices. Many corporations are keen to promote eco-friendliness and are engaged in greenwashing - the practice of making exaggerated claims about the company's environmental performance, and at times, falsifying claims. One example of this is British Petroleum (BP), which suffered a significant reputational crisis in 2010 following a catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In an effort to put a positive spin on its brand, the company re-launched itself as “beyond petroleum,” rebranding its logo from a shield to a green sunflower and distancing itself from its core business of fossil fuel production. This strategy did little to mend public trust, as the disconnect between the multinational's actions and the environmental ideals it claims to embody became more apparent.

Similarly, another one of the world's largest food and beverage companies, has long faced criticism over its neglect for environmental ethics. According to a 2018 report by environmental organization Greenpeace, this comapany was contributing to deforestation through the purchases of palm oil and packaging materials, while at the same time, the company claimed to support sustainable agriculture practices. The report reveals how the company's efforts to greenwash create superficial accountability that avoids transparency and demonstrates a lack of respect for the environment.

These practices aren't exclusive to the larger corporations. Many small and medium businesses also perpetuate greenwashing tactics, either by overselling their environmental initiatives or creating false sustainability claims. There is, however, a solution to the problem. Businesses that are accountable and transparent about their operations and their contribution towards achieving a sustainable world are more likely to be trustworthy by customers.

Greenwashing is a common practice that distracts and confuses consumers who prioritize the environment and ethical business practices. Sustainable business practice is a commitment, not just a buzzword, and it demands ethical, transparent business operations from conception to delivery. Consumers should actively scrutinize a firm's sustainability reports to see what they are truly committing to and how they take ownership of environmental and social issues while using natural resources sparingly.

Human Rights and Corporate Responsibility: A Critical Analysis

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important aspect of ethical business practices, and it has become increasingly necessary for corporations to demonstrate their commitment to human rights protection. Many multinationals, as part of their CSR efforts, have committed to promoting human rights within their operations. For instance, Nike pledged its commitment to eliminate sweatshop labour from their production process, and Coca-Cola pledged to exert greater transparency in their supply chain management.

However, some businesses are more committed to funding CSR projects than conducting a critical analysis of their business models' potential to generate negative impacts. These companies adopt CSR as an easy public relations tool designed to create an illusion of ethical and social responsibility. For instance, a 2018 report by The Guardian revealed that one of the large Coffee outlets had failed to address human rights issues in their coffee supply chain, despite repeated publicized commitments to sustainable and ethical practices.

Moreover, some companies engage in human rights violations directly, such as Nigeria's well-known human rights and environmental violation issues that led to the execution of dissidents, protest movements, and the displacement of local communities in the Niger Delta region. Such startling cases like these demonstrate the need to scrutinize companies and ensure that their business model doesn't compromise their commitment to human rights protection.

In summary, CSR must involve genuine commitments to the principles of ethics, transparency, and accountability, including a critical analysis of the environmental and human rights implications of corporate activities. A corporation's actual impact must align with the ideals it claims to uphold, which requires careful attention to the entire supply chain process. By assessing the credibility of companies' ethical claims and scrutinizing their impact on environmental or human rights issues, we can push for a more responsible and ethical business culture that values human rights protection.

Superficial or Genuine? Assessing the Sincerity of Corporate Green Washing Efforts

Evaluating the sincerity of companies' environmental and sustainability efforts is a significant challenge for the consumer who is often left to navigate misleading PR messages with little concrete information. Companies need to prove that their sustainability initiatives are sincerely driven and not just a public relations exercise. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) provides an effective framework that companies can use to report their environmental, social, and governance performance. GRI encourages businesses to provide transparent reports that outline the company's sustainability strategy and how this aligns with what they do. They also detail their supply chain and the methods they use to reduce carbon emissions, promote human rights, and support society.

For example, Unilever, a multinational consumer goods company, has been recognized for being committed to adopting a sustainability strategy that is backed by concrete actions in alignment with the GRI framework. This commitment has included promoting recyclable packaging, reducing water usage, committing to sustainable sourcing of oil, and developing sustainable farming practices in agriculture.

On the other hand, companies that don’t embrace the GRI framework or do it in superficial ways perpetrate greenwashing. By merely aligning with the GRI framework and not following through on the commitments made, many companies use sustainability and environmental terminology without reflecting values of transparency and accountability. As a result, consumers should scrutinize whether companies' sustainability reports are merely aimed at creating a positive image or genuinely committed to sustainability and lasting change.

In summary, the GRI framework provides transparency and accountability to sustainability reporting and accountability. Companies using this framework are more likely to commit to environmentally and socially responsible business practices. As for the consumers, scrutinizing companies and their respective sustainability reports is a critical step in holding firms accountable for their environmental and social impact.

Conclusion: Moving Towards Genuine Sustainability in Corporate Practices

Corporate green washing is both harmful and counter-productive. While it is essential to celebrate and support ethical and environmentally conscious businesses, it is crucial to remain vigilant and critical of companies' sustainability claims. Addressing the climate crisis requires a collective effort, and companies must be transparent in honouring their commitment to sustainability. By holding companies accountable, we can encourage genuine efforts toward sustainability rather than greenwashing.


- Global Reporting Initiative. (2019). Sustainability reporting standards. Retrieved from

- Unilever. (2021). Our progress on sustainability. Retrieved from

- Hopkins, M., & James, P. (2019). The politics of corporate social responsibility: Reflections on the GRI sustainability disclosure controversy. Business & Society, 58(2), 310-342.

- European Commission. (2011). CSR: Impact on human rights. Directorate-General for External Policies. Retrieved from

- The Guardian. (2018). Starbucks pledges 100% sustainable coffee but farmers report otherwise. Retrieved from

- Human Rights Watch. (2019). Shell in Nigeria: Corporate social responsibility as an open question. Retrieved from

- Greenpeace (2018) Nestlé’s Palm Oil Sustainability Report

- Blomsma, F., & Brennan, G. (2017). The pitfalls and potential of sustainable marketing for SMEs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 467-478.

- Kripps, S., & De Oliveira, J. (2021). Veganism and Corporate Environmentalism: Framing a Sustainability Nexus. Routledge Handbook of Vegan Studies, 332.

- Hogue, C. (2020). Veganism as a marketing tool: What’s behind the trend in plant-based eating? The Conversation. Retrieved from

- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Retrieved from

- Mawhood, R. (2019). How companies are using veganism to greenwash their businesses. Greenpeace International. Retrieved from

- Brinckmann, J. A., Yufika, A., & Gilissen, J. K. H. (2018). PepsiCo profits from Indonesian and Mexican deforestation. SOMO. Retrieved from


Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating


to hear about the latest news, blogs and petitions
bottom of page