Whether we’re shopping online or browsing store aisles, we’ll feel better in the long run if we don’t give up on shopping based on our values. When you don’t have time to research every single purchase carefully, it helps to know how to recognize greenwashing quickly.

More of us are concerned about making environmentally conscious purchases, and marketers have our number. But “eco-friendly” labeling on a product’s packaging doesn’t necessarily mean the item is more sustainable than other brands; it may even be a signal that you cannot trust the claim. To be smart shoppers, we need to learn how to spot greenwashing, including the most common ways that marketers greenwash products: hidden trade-offs and unsubstantiated claims.

Greenwashing

If you’re not already familiar with the term, greenwashing is the practice of marketing products to convince consumers that they’re more environmentally friendly than they actually are. There may be no such thing as a truly sustainable consumer product. But some products definitely have less environmental impact than others. Those are the ones most people want to buy.

Consumer demand for sustainable products continues to grow. According to a 2024 PwC survey of more than 20,000 consumers in 31 countries, 80% will pay an average of 9.7% more for sustainably produced goods. Pricing consultancy Simon-Kucher’s 2024 Global Sustainability Study also found that 54% of shoppers are willing to pay a premium for sustainable products, up from just 35% in 2022. These findings should inspire companies to make greener products. But some companies respond to that information with, “Let’s don’t and say we did.”

The scale of greenwashing has become alarming. RepRisk’s 2024 greenwashing report found that overall greenwashing cases globally decreased by 12% between June 2023 and June 2024, marking the first decline in six years. However, the incidence of high-severity cases increased by 30% globally over the same time. More troubling is that 30% of companies flagged for greenwashing in 2023 were repeat offenders in 2024, suggesting that greenwashing has become a systematic practice for many businesses.

Hidden Trade-offs

A classic 2007 study found that the hidden trade-off is the most common form of greenwashing, affecting 57% of green marketing claims. Consumers are already aware of a similar practice in food marketing regarding nutrition claims. Think of the many food products labeled “low fat.” The claim may be accurate. But in many cases, it primarily serves to direct attention from large amounts of added sugar. Such foods are no healthier than their regular, full-fat versions.

The hidden trade-off applies this same approach to environmental claims. It often relies on a single environmental claim, such as “recycled content,” while ignoring other, more impactful, aspects of a product’s sustainability.

Consider paper, which often bears the recycling symbol and the words “recycled content.” That paper product may contain only 10% recycled content, while the rest is made from newly harvested virgin pulp. But even when the paper is 100% recycled, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s greener, because the paper may be heavily bleached to give it the bright white appearance of unrecycled paper. In that case, recycled paper may use more water and generate more pollution than regular paper.

Recent examples of hidden trade-offs abound. In 2024, Lululemon faced a class-action lawsuit over its “Be Planet” initiative. While the athletic wear company promoted ambitious sustainability targets, including using sustainable materials in 100% of products by 2030, the lawsuit alleged that the company failed to disclose that the environmental impact of its operations and supply chain continue to grow. Likewise, Target’s “Target Clean” label faced legal challenges in 2024, when a federal court allowed a lawsuit to proceed after plaintiffs claimed some products bearing the label contained ingredients that contradicted its clean promises.

Recycled content, less packaging, fewer VOCs, and other environmental claims are best practices. Each one may result in a lower overall environmental impact. But, like the sugary low-fat food or overbleached paper, it may involve trade-offs that cancel out any improvements. Either way, a single change is rarely enough to classify a product as sustainable, or to give a company the kind of market advantage that offering a truly better product should confer.

If you see a product advertising a single environmental claim without indicating a broader sustainability commitment, you have probably spotted greenwashing.

Unsubstantiated Claims

According to the classic 2007 study, at least a quarter of the time, you will catch a greenwasher with the adage, “Trust but verify.” That’s because, if you read the fine print on the packaging or visit the product website, you will not be able to find proof of 26% of environmental claims made on packaging or in advertisements. The best form of evidence is a third-party certification label. These labels can be used for greenwashing, too.

Product transparency policies may eventually require environmental disclosures even when a product isn’t certified sustainable. In general, manufacturers should provide evidence to support any claim.

The problem of unsubstantiated claims has intensified in recent years. In 2024, the Netherlands’ District Court ruled that KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign contained misleading statements about the sustainability of flying. The airline painted an “overly rosy picture” of measures like Sustainable Aviation Fuels and its carbon offsetting practices, according to the court, instead of disclosing that they only marginally reduce aviation’s environmental impact. The court also determined that claims about the feasibility of KLM’s climate targets were unlawful.

The food and beverage industry faces particular scrutiny. In September 2024, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Coca-Cola can be sued for greenwashing over whether it overstated the role of sustainability and recycling in its business practices. Likewise, New York’s attorney general sued PepsiCo in November 2023 in a first-of-its-kind lawsuit seeking to hold the company responsible for plastic pollution. In 2024, California escalated its legal battle against oil companies in an amended complaint that provides new evidence of greenwashing and false advertising about climate change impacts.

Rising Skepticism

Consumers are waking up to the threat of greenwashing and becoming more deliberate about their choices. Simon-Kucher’s 2024 study reported that 70% of consumers conduct their own research on sustainability claims before purchasing. That number jumps to 80% when consumers believe brands are engaged in greenwashing. Another 2024 survey found that 52% of consumers believed organizations were greenwashing their initiatives, up from 33% the previous year.

Those rapidly stated, low-volume caveats in commercials may be annoying. But they may give some idea of the value of a marketing claim. For example, if a lightbulb is touted as 25% more efficient, the packaging or website should tell you two things: what kind of lightbulb it compares to, and how the comparable efficiency was measured. Consider a company that can support its “eco-friendly” claim with hard data. In that case, they have every reason to make it available to consumers. If that information isn’t provided, you’ve likely spotted a case of greenwashing.

Hidden trade-offs and unsubstantiated claims are not the only forms of greenwashing. But they are the ones you are most likely to see. Once you’ve learned to identify them, you can avoid the majority of misleading environmental marketing schemes.

The growing wave of regulatory and court actionsuggests that the tide may be turning against greenwashers, but consumer awareness is needed to drive real change. By learning to spot these common greenwashing tactics—especially hidden trade-offs and unsubstantiated claims—you can make more informed purchasing decisions that align with your environmental values.

Once you’ve learned to identify them, you can avoid the majority of misleading environmental marketing schemes.

Editor’s Note: This article, which was originally published on December 14, 2020, and updated in November 2025, is the second in a six-part series that includes the following topics: