Greenwashing: When Sustainability Is Just Marketing

Greenwashing is the company version of the say-do gap we saw last week. A CEO announces a net-zero commitment at the annual investor call. Marketing launches a campaign with videos of wind farms and recycling symbols. Social media fills with sustainability pledges. Then, quietly, nothing changes.

It's not usually malice. It's worse. It's aspiration without friction removal, intention without design.

The Core Problem

Companies treat sustainability as a communications challenge when it's actually a behaviour design problem. They focus on what customers will believe rather than what they'll do. The research is clear: consumers care about the environment. Surveys show 60-75% say they want sustainable products. But they buy them at rates closer to 5-10%. That gap isn't ignorance. It's friction.

Greenwashing fills that gap with words instead of action.

The three patterns I see repeatedly:

The Hidden Trade-Off. A company highlights one genuine sustainable attribute (recyclable packaging) whilst ignoring the much larger impact (the product itself is disposable and replaces something durable). Think: "eco-friendly" single-use coffee pods that claim sustainability because the shell is compostable, whilst the aluminium and machinery behind them drive the actual carbon footprint.

The False Association. A brand borrows credibility from environmental imagery without substance. A petrol company funds a small solar farm and makes it the centre of its brand story. A fashion brand uses forest imagery in marketing whilst its supply chain drives deforestation. The visual association does the work that actual change hasn't earned.

The Symbolic Commitment. The company makes a headline pledge so distant from operations that it's unfalsifiable. "Net-zero by 2050" sounds bold. But it's also vague enough to avoid triggering behaviour change in the next decade. These commitments are designed to satisfy today's narrative demand without constraining tomorrow's decisions.

How to Spot and Respond

The test for greenwashing is simple: what friction must the company remove, not communicate? If they're talking about sustainability but not changing the choice architecture, they're greenwashing.

Here's what works:

First, push for specificity. Vague commitments (net-zero, carbon neutral) are greenwashing's home. Ask: what changes behaviour this year? Not 2040. This quarter's friction reduction matters more than a 2050 announcement.

Second, find the default. How would the customer have to actively work to choose the unsustainable option? If they don't have to, the default hasn't shifted. Greenwashing often sits beneath the surface: the sustainable choice is available, but you have to hunt for it. Real sustainability changes the path of least resistance.

Third, measure substitution, not addition. If a company adds a sustainable product line but the original unsustainable one still dominates revenue, nothing has changed. Greenwashing often works by offering both choices and calling it progress. Progress is when the sustainable option becomes the default.

Greenwashing persists because talking about change is faster and cheaper than designing for it. But the say-do gap is widening, and customers are starting to notice. The ones who'll win are the ones who flip the priorities: design first for behaviour change, then communicate what's actually happened.

The simplest way to spot greenwashing is to watch what the company makes easy for the customer, not what it says is good for the world. The gap between the two tells you everything.

Sustainability without friction removal is just marketing waiting to be called out.