The Dark Side of Greenwashing: Corporate Environmentalism in 2025
Fred Gransville
Fred Gransville
That also means the pressure to appear sustainable has resulted in an explosion of "green" marketing. While some firms are changing, others cynically exploit the new public mood by deploying words such as "carbon neutrality," "net zero," and "sustainable" in the service of a myth of responsibility that their actions frequently contradict.
Contrasted with corporate greenwashing is a remarkable movement of farmers and ranchers in the U.S. Midwest who plant prairie grasses and wildflowers to counteract soil erosion, enhance biodiversity, and raise crop yields. These farmers aren't going green just because it is trendy; they understand that sustainable agriculture is necessary for environmental and economic health. The stark contrast between these genuine sustainability efforts and corporate greenwashing enlightens us about the true meaning of sustainability and its potential to contribute to the preservation of the planet and local communities.
1. Nestlé: The Water Predators
The food company Nestlé, well criticized because of water extraction and sale policies, maintains its idea that business could shift to sustain itself using "greener" technologies. The company publicly announced plans in 2020 to make 100% of its packaging recyclable or reusable by 2025. However, its controversial water extraction practices, despite the promise of working toward "responsible water stewardship," continue to have a detrimental impact on drought-stricken areas. The company's actions, such as draining aquifers in California and Michigan, where local communities lacked access to clean water, should concern us all and motivate us to demand genuine sustainability efforts.
In 2021, Nestlé said it would sell its North American water brands—a portfolio that includes Poland Spring and Pure Life, among others—after public pressure grew. Critics now call it a publicity stunt because the company still draws elsewhere around the world, particularly in the already parched areas of Africa and Asia. Profit at the expense of sustainability undermines the greenwashing.
In addition, while publicly committing to reducing its carbon footprint, Nestlé remains heavily dependent on fossil fuels for transportation and packaging. Its CEO, Mark Schneider, has increasingly been criticized for presenting a veneer of sustainability while its operations remain deeply enmeshed in extractive industries and plastic waste.
2. Amazon: The E-Commerce Goliath's Green Hype
Amazon has recently launched some aggressive sustainability campaigns. In 2020, the company promised to be net-zero carbon by 2040 and invested significant resources in electric vehicle and renewable energy projects. Yet, there are still many red flags regarding Amazon's environmental footprint. Its fast expansion of warehouses, often built in sensitive ecosystems, causes widespread deforestation and disconnection. The growth of Amazon's fulfillment network has been estimated to result in an estimated 15% increase in emissions in the United States alone.
Amazon's grandiose green promises are often at odds with its actual business practices. The company, which boasts significant climate ambitions, operates a fast but energy-inefficient shipping network. This pursuit of rapid deliveries in one of the world's most voracious shipping markets results in the emission of a substantial amount of CO2, a stark contrast to its green claims.
In 2022, the company was caught secretly lobbying against climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate, indicating once again a greenwashing commitment. Declarations by Amazon's CEO, Andy Jassy, seem pretty hollow regarding green initiatives when such action is being committed. Greenwashing at Amazon: sayings vs. actions. Public pronouncements and what is done in secret are rather highly inconsistent quite often.
3. Tesla: Innovations or Illusions?
It is celebrated as one of the pioneering electric vehicle makers, disturbing mainstream transportation towards a more sustainable form of travel. However, it is very problematic in its practice—with often-conflicted environmental claims—and innovation-obsessed Musk outshines some serious concerns about Tesla's batteries regarding the production and disposal processes. It is mining for lithium, cobalt, and other rare earth metals, feeding into its battery technology. This activity has led to devastating environmental degradation and related human rights violations, particularly in the Congo.
However, at the top of this shift away from internal combustion, Tesla has done little to ensure its sustainable supply chain. Most of the carbon footprint associated with Tesla comes from the mammoth energy requirements for manufacturing—a feat that Gigafactories illustrate. While Elon Musk boasts about how electric vehicles are "cleaner" compared to their fossil fuel brethren, extraction of raw materials and manufacturing in an energy-intensive setting raise some grave questions as to the company's total impact.
While commendable, Tesla's vision of an electric vehicle-dominated future is constantly undermined by Musk's propensity to market Tesla as a greener company than it is—a mild form of greenwashing. Tesla is selling an ideal but with blinders to the environmental consequences of the production processes that feed it.
4. ExxonMobil: The Fossil Fuel Foe in Disguise
The ExxonMobil company has been accused of involvement in the climate crisis for years. Recently, ExxonMobil said it is part of the solution to global warming, claiming to invest in clean energy. In 2021, ExxonMobil made a $15 billion investment plan in renewable energy, which the company promised would cut its carbon emissions by 20% by 2025. However, all these claims on the company's part appear to be part of a public relations exercise.
It spends minuscule amounts on renewables compared to explorations in oil and gas. Reports from the firm's annual records indicate that the company is still fossil fuel-centered since key capital expenditures have been channeled into producing oil and gas. All such greenwashing practices would hardly cover the facts that ExxonMobil is, after all, a fossil fuel company.
Manipulation of Climate Science
Even its manipulation of climate science is quite well publicized. The internal documents established that the company has been in its knowledge since the 1970s concerning climate change effects; however, they spent decades sowing doubt over science through coordinated campaigns—investor and climate activist pressure mounts against genuine reforms in Darren Woods's case as the ExxonMobil CEO. Greenwashing by the company is a strategic ploy in the interest of pacifying regulators, investors, and consumers while continuing its profit-driven approaches at the cost of environmental damages.
5. BP: Clean Energy in Name Only
British Petroleum, BP, has been striving to rebrand itself as an advocate for clean energy. In 2020, CEO Bernard Looney declared that BP "will be net zero by 2050." As such, the company said it would quit oil and gas for renewables. Yet again, actions speak louder than words.
BP only spent 3% of its capital expenditure on renewables in 2021. The remaining was oil and gas exploration, meaning that BP is still faithful to fossil fuel usage. This company is continuing to drill its oils in sensitive ecosystems. It causes deforestation and habitat destruction when it preaches about clean energy. For one, BP has a history of environmental disasters, including the devastating 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It remains to be known if this is anything but a death knell on its seriousness over change.
Looney's speech and message are full of proclamations of the bright future of clean energy, while BP's balance sheet tells a very different story: this company continues investing in the sources of the greatest impact on climate change.
6. Unilever: A Myth of Ethical Consumerism
Unilever, the biggest consumer goods group in the world, has been boasting about sustainability and ethically responsible consumerism. Its "Sustainable Living Plan" was extolled as a way to reduce its environmental footprint and improve its social responsibility credentials. However, closer scrutiny betrays Unilever's self-proclaimed claims of being sustainable.
The firm was accused of continuing to produce products laced with unsustainably sourced ingredients, such as palm oil, according to the goals of making its supply chain sustainable. The business in the production of palm oil has had a dreadful reputation for perpetuating deforestation while destroying biodiversity and increasing levels of greenhouse emissions. The company claims to source the product responsibly; however, several independent audits report that there appears to be a disconnection between the word from Unilever and the deed.
Second, Unilever's flagship brands, such as Dove Hellmann's and Ben & Jerry's, still go heavily on packaging, with plastic feeding the plastic pollution catastrophe worldwide. What
What Unilever has promised—to reduce plastic use—is not comparable in scope to the one at hand, so in simple terms, "its whole business model is rigged for mass-consumerism, seemingly antithetical towards sustainability rhetoric."
7. McDonald's: Fast food with a green front
McDonald's is the first thought of most when faced with unsustainable fast food, but the company is trying to change its environmental track. In 2020, the company promised that it would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 36 percent by 2030 and that all of its packaging would come from renewable, recyclable, or certified sources by 2025. Such claims sound impressive, but McDonald's still has severe environmental issues, especially regarding its meat supply chain.
Beef used in the production of McDonald's hamburgers contributes to gross deforestation in the Amazon as vast expanses of rainforest are cut down to give way to cattle ranching. Furthermore, the intensive farming system through which production is carried out via McDonald's supply chain leads to soil degradation and pollution. Notwithstanding all these environmental problems that have persisted for ages, McDonald's markets itself as an environmentally friendly company, and this is just a perfect case of greenwashing.
McDonald's corporate social responsibility initiatives rarely miss the opportunity to mention sustainability, but at its heart, its business model is one of mass-produced and mass-consumed fast food—a model antithetical to good stewardship.
8. Coca-Cola: The Plastic Polluter
One of the world's largest beverage companies, Coca-Cola, has been under intense pressure regarding its contribution to the global plastic waste crisis. The company promised to reduce its reliance on single-use plastic bottles and improve recycling efforts. In 2018, Coca-Cola committed to using 50% recycled plastic in its packaging by 2030. But in reality, the company's plastic footprint is growing.
Coca-Cola is often criticized because it produces billions of plastic bottles annually, mainly in landfills and the ocean. It has continuously been included in the world's top plastic polluters list. Greenwashing often funds recycling programs, which is helpful but doesn't get to the heart of the matter: too much plastic production.
2024: Coca-Cola's chief executive, James Quincey, received the worst withering fire after a report showed how the drinks behemoth lobbied for global regulations on plastic waste. Coca-Cola's public utterances of sustainability are incongruent with its lobbying record, and the exposure in greenwashing marks a commitment.
9. Shell: Masking the face of an energy giant with green paint
Shell, like ExxonMobil, has been a pioneer in greenwashing in the energy sector for decades. In 2020, Shell promised to reduce its net carbon emissions by 20% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. However, the company has been accused of investing heavily in new fossil fuel projects, including oil drilling projects in the Arctic, which have been highly criticized.
As of 2022, Shell has been indicted and condemned for its decision to pursue business expansion in its liquefied natural gas despite increased pressure to pivot towards renewables. This has been termed a direct contradiction of Shell's green promises. Shell continues investing billions into fossil fuel exploration, which fuels the same industries responsible for the climate crisis.
Shell's latest greenwashing is a way to pacify regulators and environmentally conscious consumers. At the same time, the company's core business strategy remains to extract and burn fossil fuels.
The War for Authentic Sustainability
We have to distinguish between how companies are moving toward becoming sustainable or just greenwashing to gain a positive image. Companies like Tesla, Unilever, and McDonald's started acting the right way, but most of their moves were not transformative enough. In this fight for real environmental responsibility and accountability, 2025 is the time. And it is now in the hands of both businesses and consumers to call for transparency and ask for more than words.
A fine example of how sustainability is far from marketing also goes to farmers and ranchers who naturally plant prairie grasses and wildflowers across the Midwest to stop erosion, biodiversity, and crop yield. They prove that sustainability is more about actual actions at the local levels rather than corporate commitments relating to long-term environmental, economic, and social benefits. Greenwashing may provide temporary successes but obstruct the central fight against the problem of global warming and further degradation of our environment. For these green claims, until a company produces backing in the form of action, they merely provide a cosmetic overlay for continuing to create more damage.
-###-
© www.olivebiodiesel.com. All rights reserved.