As their customers become increasingly eco-conscious, companies in all consumer-facing sectors have faced heightened pressure to present themselves as environmentally responsible. On the bright side, a rising tide inevitably lifts all ships, gradually edging the needle ever closer to a truly circular economy. 

But there’s a darker side to this saga. As companies scramble to elevate and promote their eco-friendly profiles in today’s attention economy, an instantly infamous word has entered the lexicon: Greenwashing, describing the all-too-common practice of businesses exaggerating or falsely claiming eco-friendly attributes to capitalize on the growing demand for sustainable products and practices. 

Unfortunately, greenwashing is particularly prevalent in the packaging industry, with truth-averse claims causing negative publicity and diminished consumer trust. In packaging, greenwashing can hide behind any number or ill-defined terms proudly displayed on product labels. From “eco-friendly” and “sustainable” to “recyclable” and “biodegradable,” such terms are simultaneously heartwarming and hazy: they communicate that a company cares about its environmental footprint without communicating precisely how much, or by what means.

Absent clear definitions or measurable metrics, well-intending companies can find that their sustainability claims first lose luster, then all credibility. We’re all familiar with the Greenhouse Effect. Welcome to the Greenwashing Effect, where countless unsubstantiated sustainability claims are making eco-friendly packaging designations seem about as believable as the boy who cried wolf. 

Let’s examine a few prominent ways in which greenwashing is scrubbing away consumer trust. 

1. Say What? Vague Claims. Among the most common forms of packaging greenwashing is the far-too-liberal use of vague language. Labels touting "green," "natural," or "eco-friendly" are often deployed without clear definitions or verifiable criteria. These terms are designed to evoke positive associations with sustainability, but are rarely supported by actual evidence. For example, a product might be labeled "eco-friendly" but fail to specify which aspects of the packaging or product are environmentally conscious.
2. Partial Credit: The “100%” Trap. Companies sometimes use false or misleading labels to convey a sense of environmental responsibility. For instance, a package may be marketed as "100% recyclable" when, in reality, only certain components are recyclable. In some cases, the packaging may not be recyclable in the local recycling infrastructure at all; such is the case especially in the United States, where recycling streams lag behind the more sophisticated (and more tightly regulated) EU landscape. This misleads consumers into thinking they are making a sustainable choice when, in fact, the  package still ends up in a landfill. This problem is more widespread than even most clear-eyed realists would suspect: In the United States, a mere 6% of the plastics we use end up being recycled. 
3. Gimme a breakdown: "Biodegradable" and "Compostable." Terms like "biodegradable" and "compostable" are often aspirational at best. While a product may indeed break down over time, it may require specific conditions – such as industrial composting facilities – to fully degrade. Many products marketed as biodegradable will not break down properly in typical landfills or natural environment conditions. Everything breaks down eventually… precisely how – and precisely how quickly – a package does so is critical to its sustainability profile.
4. Kind of/Sort of: Partial Sustainability. This refers to promoting a portion of a packaging solution as sustainable, while conveniently neglecting to mention that most of it is not. For example, a company may advertise a product with a “recyclable” label, but other packaging elements, such as the inner plastic wrap or the ink used for printing, cannot be reused or repurposed. This type of selective focus is meant to distract from larger sustainability shortcomings – and consumers are catching on.
5. Certifiably Misleading. Many companies use logos or certifications to imply products are environmentally responsible. However, some certifications are either meaningless or lack rigorous standards. Most egregiously, some packaging has displayed generic “green” certifications or logos that appear official but are actually self-created. This gives the false impression that the packaging has undergone a legitimate evaluation by a trusted third-party organization when, in fact, it has not.

Greenwashing’s Stains – and How to Remove Them

While the sustainability movement’s rising tide does indeed lift all ships, loose lips – or in this case, loose language – can just as surely sink them. Whether born of innocent ignorance or deliberate disingenuousness, greenwashing undermines the efforts of companies that genuinely invest in sustainable practices and packaging. 

Companies engaged in packaging greenwashing are creating a credibility gap that, over time, risks growing into a yawning chasm of distrust and disfavor. This, in turn, erodes the overall effectiveness of sustainability initiatives and dilutes the demand for truly green products.

Like many pervasive problems, combating greenwashing will likely take a “carrot and stick” combination that rewards good actors while punishing bad ones. 

Let’s start with the carrot. As consumers continue to become more discerning and educated about the sustainability terms and labels used on products, some of the more egregious forms of greenwashing will get exposed and, increasingly, excluded from shopping carts. There are already indications that consumers are favoring products certified by known, highly reputable organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or Cradle to Cradle, each of which have clear and transparent criteria.

That leaves the stick. Should some of this nonsense continue, greenwashing’s red flags may lead directly to something few of us want: more red tape. Eventually, governments and industry organizations may step in and implement stricter guidelines for environmental claims on packaging, better ensuring that businesses are held accountable for their sustainability claims. 

Which path is taken to counteract greenwashing – and to what extent – hinges upon one dynamic: our own ability to course correct. If each company can commit to washing their hands (and packaging) of greenwashing, we’ll all land somewhere far more sustainable: reality. 

# # # 

About the Author

Christopher Dale is Executive Director of Public Relations for Turchette, a multidisciplined marketing firm with deep roots in the packaging sector. Now in its 75th year, Turchette is among New Jersey’s leading advertising, marketing and public relations agencies, servicing a variety of clients in diverse vertical markets within the business-to-business and business-to-consumer sectors. www.turchette.com.