Is greenwashing a kind of disinformation? And why is it important to know this?

What is disinformation?

An exhaustive definition of disinformation can be found in Andrej Krajňák's handbook The Limits of Freedom of Expression on the Internet. The handbook classifies disinformation as ‘speech that threatens the public interest’. It draws on sources from the Council of Europe, the European Union, and Slovak institutions (e.g., the NSA).

‘Disinformation’ is a term derived from the Russian word dezinformacija and is associated with the KGB, the secret service of the former Soviet Union. It refers to verifiably false, misleading, or manipulatively presented information that is deliberately created, presented, and disseminated with the clear intent to deceive or mislead, cause harm, or secure some gain (e.g., economic or political). Disinformation may take the form of false or manipulated text, images, videos, or audio and may be used to promote conspiracies, spread doubt, and discredit truthful information, individuals, or organizations.

The highlighted words may help further explore whether greenwashing, as we know it today, meets the characteristics of disinformation. The definition implies that the intention of the person or institution producing the disinformation is key. In short, the intention is to lie for profit. This distinguishes it from, for example, hoaxes (lying for the sake of lying) or propaganda (one-sided, incomplete half-truths). Admittedly, these categories often overlap, lack clearly defined boundaries, and can be challenging to classify accurately in specific campaigns. However, we need some framework to navigate these complexities effectively.

What is greenwashing?

On the European Parliament's website, we find the following definition: ‘The practice of creating a false impression about the environmental impact or benefits of a product, which may mislead consumers.’

Greenwashing, as defined here, is difficult to equate with disinformation. The word practice might suggest a habit or deliberate action, but it is not clearly stated. Similarly, the phrase may mislead is rather soft and lacks the explicit intent to deceive for profit. A more specific definition is offered by Greenpeace on its website: ‘Greenwashing is a PR tactic used to make a company or product appear environmentally friendly without significantly reducing its negative impact on the environment. The goal of greenwashing is to improve a company's image in the eyes of the public or to increase its sales by convincing us that buying from it aligns with our values.’

However, even this definition leaves room for interpretation regarding whether greenwashing must involve deliberate deception or whether it can also stem from ignorance or inadvertence. Greenwashing is regulated by the Eco-Claims Directive, which, at the time of writing this article, is still in the EU legislative process to update and tighten rules on eco-label use. The accompanying documents justify the need for this legislation primarily on the grounds of protecting consumer rights and, to a lesser extent, the need to force companies to take real steps toward a circular economy and to protect nature, the climate, and the environment. In essence, the EU aims to prohibit companies from gaining a competitive advantage based on false environmental claims. This suggests that greenwashing practices may indeed have the characteristics of disinformation.

Greenwashing practices as disinformation

In this section, we examine greenwashing practices prohibited by European legislation or other regulations that meet the definition of disinformation. Using examples from Slovakia and around the world, we illustrate how deliberate deception for profit can be identified.

Use of generic general claims

Greenwashing often takes the form of half-truths, where companies deliberately create a ‘green impression.’ This practice is directly prohibited under the new EU legislation. Labelling companies or products with vague terms like ‘eco-friendly,’ ‘green,’ ‘biodegradable,’ ‘nature-friendly,’ ‘natural,’ or ‘chemical-free' without clear information on what these terms mean will be banned. If a company cannot substantiate such labels, it will be presumed to be greenwashing.

Examples include ‘biodegradable’ packaging that breaks down into micro-particles in nature (not fully biodegradable in real time) or can only be composted under specific industrial conditions. If a company uses the term ‘biodegradable’ to suggest a lower environmental impact, it is engaging in misleading advertising. Packaging, particularly disposable packaging, is inherently problematic. More important parameters might include whether the packaging is reusable, recyclable, minimalist, or collected for reprocessing. Using vague, generic terms to boost sales and profits without substantiation constitutes misinformation.

Unsubstantiated environmental claims

These claims are similar to generic claims but are easier to sanction and are already regulated under advertising ethics codes and consumer protection laws. They involve outright falsehoods. A textbook example is the lawsuit against Ryanair, which advertised its services as offering the ‘lowest prices - lowest emissions.’ The company failed to prove that its emissions were the ‘lowest’ and lost the international case.

In Slovakia, the Advertising Council confirmed that SPP misled consumers with its ‘Green Energy’ product, also referred to as ‘clean energy’ in advertising. The campaign combined false claims about the energy's origin with overpricing for a product that did not meet the promised qualities (it was not renewable energy). This campaign clearly fits the definition of greenwashing and could be described as disinformation.

Distraction

This is a particularly insidious practice, as it is difficult to prosecute, and deliberate lying (as in life) is hard to prove. This classic greenwashing tactic was used by fossil fuel companies as early as the second half of the 20th century (Hartmann, 2018, p. 27). Its essence lies in diverting attention from the company's core business through irrelevant or budget-insignificant activities that create a ‘green’ image.

Examples include the use of green packaging (e.g., Coca-Cola), nature-themed visuals in advertising, or promoting tree planting by fossil fuel companies. Other tactics involve the use of ‘invented’ organic certifications or highlighting product features that are legally mandated (e.g., phosphate-free detergents). Boasting about such mandatory practices while implying exceptional environmental commitment is a deceptive form of greenwashing.

A local example is the NIVY shopping center, which promotes its green roof and marketplace to create an eco-friendly image. However, the building itself—a shopping mall encouraging excessive consumption—its suppressed public utility function (a bus station secondary to the mall), and its sheer scale (tons of concrete, asphalt, and other emission-intensive materials) are environmentally harmful to Bratislava and its residents.

Some of these techniques qualify as direct misinformation. While companies may occasionally ‘overshoot’ in genuine efforts (many pieces of training and methodologies exist to help prevent greenwashing), the deliberate exploitation of ambiguity is common. Until challenged, such practices sustain business as usual and drive sales through deceptive advertising.

Greenwashing as a political, not a business issue

We must look at greenwashing more broadly and ask why the European Union frames it primarily as a consumer protection issue. Greenwashing is not merely about deceiving individual consumers. As the UN states, it undermines trust and misleads the public by giving the false impression that meaningful action is being taken to protect nature or address the climate crisis:

‘Greenwashing undermines credible efforts to reduce emissions and address the climate crisis. It misleads consumers, investors, and the public through deceptive marketing and false sustainability claims, hindering the trust, ambition, and action needed to achieve global change and ensure a sustainable planet.’

This makes greenwashing a political issue, rather than merely an economic one. If individuals are left to challenge greenwashing through lawsuits and complaints, or if businesses are left to self-regulate (e.g., through advertising councils), society shirks its responsibility for allowing lies with far-reaching political and humanitarian consequences to persist in the public sphere.

Just as democratic societies are defining themselves against political disinformation, they should also take a stand against greenwashing—whether committed by companies, international institutions, or states. For example, COP summits held in oil-producing authoritarian countries that block or manipulate climate agreements illustrate the political dimension of greenwashing.

The unwillingness of political leaders to take responsibility and defend the public interest against greenwashing may, in the long run, result in greater loss of life than any war we have seen so far.

Author: Zuzana Fialová

Background illustration: pkproject

This piece was published in partnership with PDCS - Partners for Democratic Change Slovakia

You can also read this article in Slovak here!

✅ Be resilient to disinformation! Take our free, self-paced course on Countering Disinformation: