Greenwashing Examples: Real Cases, Company Examples, and How to Spot It

Greenwashing is what happens when a company’s environmental claims are broader, vaguer, or more positive than the evidence supports. It is not always deliberate fraud. Sometimes it is a marketing team using terms like “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” without legal clearance. Sometimes it is a company offsetting emissions in one area while expanding fossil fuel activity in another. Regulators treat both the same way.

The EU ECGT Directive (2024/825), the UK CMA Green Claims Code, and the US FTC Green Guides all make specific types of environmental claims illegal or enforceable, and regulators in all three markets have been taking action. The cases below are documented enforcement decisions, not allegations. ^[1]

Understanding real greenwashing examples matters whether you are a consumer trying to make better choices or a company trying to ensure its own communications are compliant. GreenClaim.ai scans websites and marketing copy for green claims risk under EU, UK, and US regulations: the fastest way to identify exposure before regulators do.

What Is Greenwashing?

Greenwashing is the practice of making environmental claims that are vague, misleading, unsubstantiated, or that omit significant negative environmental information. The term covers a wide spectrum: from a company claiming a product is “100% natural” when it contains synthetic chemicals, to a major airline promoting carbon offset flights while expanding its fleet.

Regulators use the term broadly. The UK CMA’s Green Claims Code identifies six principles for compliant environmental claims: they must be truthful and accurate, clear and unambiguous, not omit important information, make fair and meaningful comparisons, consider the full product lifecycle, and be substantiated by evidence held before the claim is made.

Failing any of these principles, not just making outright false statements, can constitute greenwashing under UK, EU, and US law.

Greenwashing Companies: Real Enforcement Cases

HSBC: Misleading by omission (UK, 2022)

HSBC ran ads promoting its green financing and tree-planting commitments without disclosing that it was simultaneously financing companies responsible for 65.3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions annually. The UK ASA ruled the ads misleading by omission. The lesson regulators drew: advertising environmental positives while concealing significant environmental negatives is itself a form of greenwashing, even when every individual claim is technically accurate.

KLM: “Fly Responsibly” campaign (Netherlands, 2023)

KLM’s carbon offset programme allowed passengers to offset the emissions of their flights. A Dutch court ruled the campaign misleading because the carbon offsets could not be substantiated and because the framing implied customers could fly without environmental impact. KLM was ordered to stop the campaign. The case established that carbon offset claims require specific, independent verification. A company’s own calculations are not sufficient.

TIER Electric Scooters: “Be environmentally friendly” (UK, 2022)

TIER ran ads encouraging users to “be environmentally friendly” by using electric scooters. The ASA ruled that TIER could not demonstrate zero lifecycle environmental impact. The scooters’ production, charging, and disposal all had environmental costs that were not disclosed. The phrase “environmentally friendly” was ruled non-compliant because it implied a positive impact across the full lifecycle that TIER could not substantiate.

Lacoste Kids: “Sustainable Clothing” (UK, 2024)

Lacoste used 78% certified sustainable materials in the relevant clothing line and had commissioned lifecycle analyses. The ASA still ruled the “Sustainable Clothing” ad claim non-compliant because the claim applied to the whole product and brand impression, not just the material sourcing aspect. Even extensive sustainability evidence did not make a broad claim about a whole product or category compliant.

Superdry: “Sustainable Style” (UK, 2024)

A single Google ad using the phrase “Sustainable Style” was pulled after an ASA complaint. No further evidence or advertising was needed. The claim alone was sufficient for action. The ASA now uses AI to proactively monitor advertising for non-compliant environmental claims. Companies no longer need to be reported by consumers.

Volkswagen: “Clean Diesel” (US, 2015-2019)

Volkswagen programmed diesel vehicles to pass emissions tests under laboratory conditions while emitting up to 40 times the permitted levels of nitrogen oxide in real-world driving. The company marketed the vehicles as “Clean Diesel.” The resulting settlement cost $14.7 billion in the US alone, plus criminal charges against executives. This is the most financially costly greenwashing case on record and the one that most clearly illustrates the difference between a claim and the underlying reality.

Kohl’s and Walmart: Bamboo textile claims (US, 2022)

Both companies marketed rayon textile products as bamboo, claiming environmental benefits associated with bamboo that do not apply to rayon, a chemically processed fibre. The FTC fined Kohl’s $2.5 million and Walmart $3 million. The case is notable because the environmental benefit claims were not invented. Bamboo genuinely has some environmental advantages, but those advantages did not apply to the processed product being sold.

What Are the Common Types of Greenwashing?

Greenwashing researchers and regulators identify several recurring patterns:

• Vague absolute claims: “Eco-friendly”, “green”, “sustainable”, “responsible”, “conscious”, “natural”, without specific substantiation. All banned under EU ECGT where the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance.
• Misleading by omission: Advertising environmental positives while omitting significant negatives. HSBC’s case is the clearest example. A company can make only true statements and still be ruled to have misled through omission.
• Unverified carbon offset claims: “Carbon neutral”, “net zero”, “climate positive” based on offset purchases without independent verification. KLM’s case applies here. The EU ECGT specifically bans neutrality claims based on offsetting.
• Irrelevant claims: Advertising an environmental benefit that is legally required or industry-standard as if it is a positive differentiator. “CFC-free” on a product where CFCs are already banned by law is an example.
• False certification marks: Displaying sustainability labels that are not based on recognised certification schemes or established by public authorities.
• Partial claims presented as whole: Claiming a product is sustainable based on one aspect (materials sourcing) while ignoring other aspects (manufacturing emissions, disposal). Lacoste’s case applies here.

How to Spot and Avoid Greenwashing

Five questions to apply to any environmental claim:

1. Is the claim specific? “Plants 1,000 trees in Tanzania, field-measured at 0.025 tonnes CO2 per tree per year” is specific. “Helping the planet” is not.
2. Is there independent verification? A company’s own calculations are not verification. Third-party certifications from named bodies, published field studies, or regulatory-approved measurement methodologies are.
3. Does the claim cover the full picture? A product described as “made from recycled materials” may still have significant environmental impacts in manufacturing, shipping, and disposal that the claim ignores.
4. Is the claim about an offsetting mechanism? Carbon neutral and net zero claims based on offset purchases are the highest-risk category in all three regulatory frameworks. Treat them with particular scrutiny.
5. Does the certification come from an independent body? Self-awarded green labels are not certifications. Look for marks backed by named third-party schemes.

For companies reviewing their own claims, GreenClaim.ai applies these checks automatically across websites, marketing copy, and product descriptions, identifying which claims carry risk under EU, UK, and US regulations and suggesting specific, compliant alternatives.

Why Do Companies Greenwash?

Environmental claims have commercial value. A 2024 PPAI report found that sustainable promotional products reached $3.69 billion in US sales, a 20% year-over-year increase. Consumer preference for products and companies with credible environmental credentials is documented and growing.

The problem is that the market rewards environmental claims before evidence is required. A company that says “sustainable” in its marketing sees commercial benefit immediately. The regulatory challenge, if it comes, arrives later, after the commercial benefit has been realised and the campaign has run. This creates an incentive structure that regulation is designed to correct.

The companies best positioned as regulation tightens are those that have built specific, evidenced environmental actions, not those that have made claims. Planting verified trees in a named location with published field-measurement data is a different proposition than labelling a product “eco-friendly.” The first is defensible. The second, under current and forthcoming regulation, increasingly is not.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a famous example of greenwashing?

Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” scandal is the most financially consequential greenwashing case on record: $14.7 billion in US settlements after programming vehicles to pass emissions tests in laboratory conditions while emitting up to 40 times legal nitrogen oxide limits in real driving. KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign, HSBC’s green financing ads, and Lacoste’s “Sustainable Clothing” claim are more recent examples of enforcement actions taken against mainstream brands.

Which companies have been caught greenwashing?

Companies that have faced documented regulatory action include HSBC (UK, 2022), KLM (Netherlands, 2023), TIER Electric Scooters (UK, 2022), Superdry (UK, 2024), Lacoste Kids (UK, 2024), Volkswagen (US, 2015-2019), Kohl’s (US, 2022), and Walmart (US, 2022). This is not an exhaustive list. It covers the most widely reported and financially significant cases.

How does Coca-Cola engage in greenwashing?

Coca-Cola has faced criticism and campaigns around its plastic packaging, promoting recycling messaging while remaining one of the world’s largest producers of single-use plastic. No formal regulatory greenwashing ruling has been issued against Coca-Cola at the time of writing. The criticism centres on the gap between the scale of the environmental claim and the scale of the company’s environmental impact. This is the same principle that led to HSBC’s ASA ruling on misleading by omission.

What are the types of greenwashing?

The main categories are: vague absolute claims (eco-friendly, sustainable, green without substantiation), misleading by omission (promoting environmental positives while omitting negatives), unverified carbon offset claims (carbon neutral, net zero based on unverified offsets), partial claims presented as whole-product claims, irrelevant claims (standard compliance presented as environmental achievement), and false or unrecognised certification marks.