Greenwashing: How Corporations Co-opted the Environmental Movement

Tracy Turner

greenwashing, corporate greenwashing, environmentalism, sustainability, BP Beyond Petroleum, Coca-Cola plastic waste, Nestlé child labor, green marketing, eco-friendly products, corporate deception, environmental responsibility, climate change, eco-conscious consumers, sustainable practices, environmental PR, business ethics, green branding, corporate social responsibility

Environmentalism has become an issue both governments and corporations have co-opted. This is a critical concern as climate change threatens global ecosystems and human survival. At a time when sustainable products and practices are in unprecedented demand, a disturbing phenomenon has emerged: greenwashing. Greenwashing is the misleading practice of companies public relations advertising themselves as ecologically friendly while still causing environmental damage. 

Emergence of Greenwashing

However, consumers play a crucial role in combating greenwashing. By being informed and discerning, they can demand transparency and accountability from corporations, thereby reducing the effectiveness of greenwashing tactics. Greenwashing rose as a response to the demand for eco-conscious products, which was at its height in the 1990s with more widely recognized environmental concerns like deforestation, toxic chemicals, and resource depletion. Corporations, eager to capitalize on this trend, started positioning themselves as "green" without significantly changing their business models or methods of production. Rather than systemic changes, corporations adopted superficial practices or misleading labels to make them appear environmentally responsible.

The term "greenwashing" was first published by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 when he observed hotels asking guests to reuse towels for the sake of the environment while ignoring critical environmental issues. This initial observation of surface-level eco-friendly actions later expanded into a wide-scale corporate practice, with corporations realizing the potential of significant profit in marketing themselves as eco-conscious without committing to real environmentalism.

Corporations as Architects of Deception

Large corporations with vast resources have led some of the most notable greenwashing campaigns, often in industries notorious for environmental damage. These companies have used marketing strategies to create the illusion of sustainability while continuing business practices that contribute to ecological destruction.

BP: The "Beyond Petroleum" Campaign

One of the most egregious greenwashing scams was initiated in 2000 by British Petroleum. The oil giant rebranded itself as "Beyond Petroleum," with a new logo featuring a green sunburst, signaling a shift toward renewable energy. The ad campaign responded to growing environmental concerns and positioned BP as a company embracing clean energy. The reality, however, was much less progressive. Despite the ads, however, BP's renewable-energy investments remain tiny. From 2000 to 2010, renewable-energy investments accounted for merely 3 percent of its capital expenditures, as “Beyond Promises” remained committed to exploring and extracting oil and gas.

The "Beyond Petroleum" ad campaign was a strategy to distract public awareness of the environmental devastation at the heart of BP's business-fossil fuel extraction-while putting up smoke and mirrors about its lack of environmental stewardship. Green branding was also a strategy to maintain its market position and maintain a good public image following the 2005 explosion of the Texas City refinery and the oil spill resulting from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon. While the company has spoken about sustainability, its actions in the years after the rebranding (re-brainwashing) continued to put profits well ahead of environmental responsibility. BP erodes the public trust in the company and also damages its own reputation. Greenwashing is not solely an environmental issue, but equally a business and ethical one.

Coca-Cola: The Recycling Pantomime 

Not to be outdone, Coca-Cola, one of the largest producers of plastic waste worldwide, has its accusations of greenwashing. In 2018, the company launched a "World Without Waste" initiative to collect and recycle a bottle or can for every one it sells by 2030. Coca-Cola's greenwashing seems quite laudatory until one considers how it glosses over the main problem of overproduction. Coca-Cola has continued to manufacture billions of single-use plastic bottles every year, doing nothing to significantly cut down on its plastic output. In 2020 alone, Coca-Cola manufactured 120 billion plastic bottles, up 3 billion from the previous year.

Coca-Cola also advocated against legislation that could drastically cut plastic waste. As with these examples, by emphasizing the appearance of recycling, Coca-Cola has managed to package its brand as a player in the solution for plastic pollution while it furthers the problem by producing tens of billions of disposable plastic each year. Such a marketing approach allowed it to protect its brand from taking reputational damage for causing pollution while not changing a single part of how it produces.

Nestlé and Slave Labor in Chocolate Production

Nestlé has faced repeated allegations of using child labor and exploitative practices in its chocolate supply chains. Despite pledges to improve conditions, investigations have shown that cocoa farmers, particularly in West Africa, continue to suffer from poor wages and harsh working conditions, including forced labor. Nestlé’s failure to fully address these systemic issues has drawn criticism from human rights groups and consumers alike.

Buying Up Water Rights for Monopoly

Nestlé has been accused of aggressively purchasing water rights around the world, particularly in drought-prone regions, to bottle and sell water for profit. Critics argue that this practice exacerbates water scarcity and deprives local communities of vital resources. In 2021, the company faced backlash for continuing its water extraction in California during a severe drought while communities struggled to secure adequate water supplies.

Smurfing: Overproducing Plastic Bottles and Greenwashing

Nestlé has come under attack for its part in the plastic waste crisis engulfing the world. The company, despite promising to scale back its plastic use, manufactures billions of single-use plastic bottles annually. According to critics, the sustainability promises of Nestlé have been only superficial, targeting recycling or small-scale initiatives rather than the root causes of overproduction and waste. It is a greenwashing strategy that enables the company to maintain its image in public view without making actual changes to its practices.

Nestlé has been accused of greenwashing, the company frequently advertises sustainability projects, such as commitments to reducing plastic use, increasing recycling, and managing water more efficiently, but critics say the efforts are inadequate or even deceptive.

For instance, while Nestlé vowed to make all of its packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025, the company still manufactures billions of single-use plastic bottles every year. Its efforts toward a switch to biodegradable plastics or alternative packaging have been slow and often fail to address the core issue of overproduction of plastics. Nestlé heavily advertises this "green" initiative in its ad campaigns, but to many, it's just a way to divert attention from the larger environmental impact the company has, including huge contributions to global plastic waste and its involvement in water privatization issues.

What this means, in essence, is that while Nestlé trumpets its commitment to sustainability, critics argue that its actions often fall short of the claims, thus qualifying its efforts as greenwashing.

The Fashion Industry's Greenwashing Pandemic

The fashion industry, among those businesses that have the greatest environmental impact, has also taken up greenwashing on a massive scale. In response to growing consumer demand for sustainable products, the brainwash PR pours out. Brands such as H&M, Zara, and Patagonia have marketed 'eco-friendly' lines of clothing made from organic cotton, recycled polyester, or other sustainable materials. While these efforts represent steps in the right direction, they mostly mask significant, systemic problems.

For example, in 2012, H&M launched the 'Conscious Collection' using organic cotton and recycled fabrics, among other sustainable materials. Its business model is essentially based on very low-priced clothes mass-produced for fast consumption and is therefore intrinsically unsustainable. In 2020, H&M destroyed more than $4 billion worth of unsold clothing, an apparent contradiction to its said environmental ambition of sustainability. H&M was also criticized because it sells "green" products while doing nothing to address the overproduction and waste issues at its core. Some of the products might be made from sustainable materials, but the company still promotes quantity over quality, generating a lot of textile waste. This greenwashing allows H&M to masquerade as an environmentally responsible brand without having to worry about deeper issues such as resource depletion and environmental degradation.

Government Agencies and Greenwashing

Corporate greenwashing has been enabled, if not facilitated, by government agencies that either fail to regulate deceptive environmental claims or actively support greenwashing tactics. Among government agencies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), created to protect human health and the environment, has been one of the most significant enablers of greenwashing.

The EPA and "Clean Coal" Myth

The most iconic example of governmental greenwash is the promotion by the EPA of "clean coal" technologies. Coal companies and government officials, during the early 2000s, began talking about "clean coal" and telling the world that this would be a viable, environmentally friendly energy source through carbon capture and storage technologies, or CCS. In truth, these technologies could have been more proven and effective. Nevertheless, it remained the coal industry-unsupported in any form by the EPA-a prime source of carbon emissions. While the EPA was bound by its duty to regulate pollutants and enforce environmental standards, support for clean coal technologies extended the lifespan of coal as a viable energy source and, correspondingly, undermined efforts toward renewable energy. This case shows just how regulatory agencies can become complicit in corporate greenwashing, either through weak enforcement or direct support for environmentally harmful industries.

The EPA and Monsanto: A Close Relationship

Links between the EPA and Monsanto (Bayer) have raised several critical concerns regarding regulating pesticide and herbicide use. Glyphosate is a chief ingredient in Roundup, an herbicide made by Monsanto, which has been linked to cancer and environmental damage. The EPA has continually underestimated associated risks amid mounting evidence of harm. Indeed, the agency had repeatedly resisted calls to ban the chemical even as other countries, including the European Union, moved to limit its use.

Monsanto has been very aggressive in trying to make changes to the EPA's policies. Captive situations with the agency have led it to manufacture and sell the same kind of glyphosate products in order to reap greater profit benefits at the expense of harming human life. It shows how corporate power, linked to regulatory capture, often operates with the interest of influential industries at large instead of looking out for citizens' and the environment's safety and protection.

The Limitations of Corporate Sustainability

Though many businesses have begun to make first steps in the name of sustainability, their efforts generally need to be rewritten by the broader economic system in which they exist. Real sustainability needs more than superficial adjustments; what is demanded are systemic changes to business models, processes of production, and consumption patterns.

Indeed, Tesla, for instance, has significantly contributed to popularizing EVs as the alternative to traditional internal combustion engine vehicles, which run on cleaner fuels. But digging for rare minerals needed to make EV batteries and large-scale battery manufacturing comes at an environmental cost, offsetting the holistic ecological effect of its activities. Besides this, Tesla's rapid production has also put pressure on factory conditions and the carbon footprint brought about by global supply chains.

Similarly, Microsoft promised to go carbon-negative by 2030. While this commitment is exemplary, the company's heavy reliance on data centers, which use massive amounts of electricity, complicates its environmental claims. Despite its best efforts, Microsoft's carbon footprint remains very high, and the reliance on cloud computing infrastructure, much of which is powered by non-renewable energy sources, makes it challenging to be sustainable.

A Call for Real Change

Greenwashing is only getting worse, not better. It is a way for corporations to appear to be doing something in service of the environment when they are actually carrying out business as usual behind the scenes. Instead of working to solve real environmental problems, companies use clever marketing to divert attention away from the fact that they're taking no meaningful action; profits continue unabated, while the climate crisis and environmental degradation remain unsolved. And far too often, government agencies-most notably the EPA-enable this deception through weak regulation or active support of industries that are harming the planet.

In the midst of global environmental crises that are quite urgent, accountability is to be demanded from corporations as well as governments. It is not just a buzzword or a PR strategy that sustainability should be reflected in how companies operate-from production processes, labor practices to how they manage resources. Where corporations fail to take responsibility, governments must step in, strengthening regulations, increasing transparency, and prioritizing the health of people and the planet over corporate profits.

Individuals such as Michael Taylor, who transferred from Monsanto to the EPA and back, are cases in point demonstrating how this revolving door between big corporations and government agencies serves only to further greenwashing. Taylor, formerly an executive of Monsanto, played a crucial role in the development of policies that favored corporate interests over environmental health, even to the extent of blind eyes being turned toward the risks of genetically modified crops and pesticides. His career path is not an outlier; it forms part of a broader pattern where corporate leaders, once embedded in regulatory agencies, use their influence to weaken environmental protections and promote the very industries that are wreaking havoc on the planet.

People like Taylor epitomize how greenwashing is more than a marketing play-it's a political and economic one. With powerful K Street lobbying, they push corporations to avoid meaningful regulation while their public relations imagery is squeaky clean with an environmental veneer. This self-serving cycle of deception and influence is deadly to serious environmental protection and effective climate action.

So long as people with vested corporate interests continue to shape public policy, real change will be out of reach. We must demand that our leaders put environmental justice above corporate gain and hold industries and regulating agencies accountable for their involvement in perpetuating environmental harm. It is only then that we could move beyond greenwashing to real sustainability.

References