Greenwashing: Seven Words on Packaging That Should Make You Ask Questions
Greenwashing: Seven Words on Packaging That Should Make You Ask Questions
Putting a green leaf on the packet doesn't make the product green.
Walk down almost any supermarket aisle and you will see a landscape that has become increasingly green.
Leaves. Trees. Brown cardboard. Muted colours. Pictures of fields. Words such as natural, eco, green, sustainable, biodegradable, plant-based and recyclable.
None of those words automatically means that somebody is trying to mislead you.
But none of them should automatically persuade you either.
That distinction matters.
The aim of sensible consumer literacy should not be to become so cynical that we assume every environmental claim is dishonest. It should be to become sufficiently curious to ask:
What exactly does this claim mean?
That is also remarkably close to the advice given to British consumers by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Its guidance specifically warns shoppers not simply to trust vague slogans such as "all natural", "green" and "eco", but to look for supporting information and evidence. GOV.UK
So here are seven words that should not necessarily make you put a product back on the shelf.
They should simply make you look a little more closely.
Greenwashing Does Not Have to Involve an Outright Lie
When we hear the word greenwashing, we may imagine a company making a completely false claim.
Sometimes the problem is subtler.
A statement can be technically true while the overall impression it creates is misleading.
Perhaps the bottle contains 30% recycled plastic, but the packaging gives the impression that the entire product has little environmental impact.
Perhaps something is recyclable — but only at specialist facilities that most customers cannot easily access.
Perhaps one ingredient is plant-derived, while little is said about the rest of the product.
Perhaps packaging has been redesigned to look wonderfully earthy and natural while the product itself has barely changed.
This matters because UK guidance considers not merely the words used, but the overall impression created by wording, logos, colours and imagery. The CMA also says environmental claims should not exaggerate a product's environmental credentials or focus on one positive feature in a way that conceals significant negative impacts. GOV.UK
The ASA's current advertising rules similarly require the basis of environmental claims to be clear and say that broad claims need appropriate substantiation; environmental claims generally need to take account of the product's full life cycle unless their limits are made clear. ASA
That gives us a useful rule:
Don't ask whether the word sounds green. Ask what the word actually promises.
1. "Natural"
This is perhaps one of the most powerful words in marketing.
We instinctively associate "natural" with:
cleaner
healthier
safer
simpler
less processed
better for the environment.
But those ideas are not interchangeable.
Something being derived from nature tells us remarkably little, by itself, about its environmental impact.
Oil is natural.
Arsenic occurs naturally.
Cotton is natural, but growing and processing cotton still uses land, water, energy and chemicals.
Conversely, a synthetic material is not automatically environmentally worse than a natural alternative. You would have to compare the products properly.
So when I see NATURAL written prominently across a packet, my first question would be:
Natural in what sense?
Is it describing one ingredient?
All the ingredients?
The packaging?
The manufacturing process?
Or is the word mainly there to create an impression?
The CMA actually uses "all natural" as an example of the sort of vague wording consumers should investigate rather than simply accept. GOV.UK
Better information would be:
"Made with 95% naturally derived ingredients."
Now we have something more specific.
It still doesn't prove that the product is environmentally superior, but at least we know what is being claimed.
2. "Eco"
This may be an even better example.
What does eco actually mean?
Eco packaging?
Eco detergent?
Eco paint?
Eco washing-up liquid?
It sounds reassuring, but without further explanation it tells me very little.
Suppose two bottles of cleaning fluid sit beside one another.
One says:
ECO CLEAN
The other says:
Bottle made from 80% recycled plastic. Concentrated formula uses 40% less packaging per wash than our previous 1-litre product.
Which gives you more useful environmental information?
The second.
Interestingly, it doesn't even need the word eco.
The CMA warns that broad terms such as "green", "sustainable" and "eco-friendly", particularly without explanation, can imply that the product as a whole has little or no adverse environmental impact. That is a much bigger claim than many manufacturers may actually intend. GOV.UK
Specific numbers and clearly defined comparisons are much more useful than environmental adjectives.
3. "Green"
A product cannot really be summarised environmentally with a single colour.
Imagine an electric appliance labelled:
OUR GREENEST MODEL EVER
That sounds impressive.
But compared with what?
Its predecessor?
Every model made by that manufacturer?
Its competitors?
And in which respect?
Energy consumption?
Materials?
Manufacturing?
Transport?
Repairability?
Expected lifespan?
Recyclability?
Those are completely different questions.
The word green becomes useful only when somebody explains what they mean by it.
This is particularly important because environmental impact often involves trade-offs.
A product might use less packaging but require more energy to manufacture.
Another might use recycled material but be difficult to repair.
A durable product might require more material initially but last three times as long.
Environmental decisions frequently involve comparisons rather than perfect solutions.
4. "Sustainable"
This is perhaps the grandest word of the seven.
Sustainably sourced.
Sustainable packaging.
A sustainable choice.
But again:
According to what measurement?
Sustainable forestry might refer to how timber is managed and replaced.
"Sustainable packaging" might mean reduced material, recycled content, renewable material, recyclability or some combination of these.
And saying one component is more sustainable does not necessarily establish that the entire product is sustainable.
This is why context matters so much.
In a 2026 example discussed by the ASA, claims including "sustainable bamboo" and "100% sustainable bamboo fibre" were considered problematic because consumers were not given sufficient qualification and the evidence did not establish the broader life-cycle impression created by the advertising. ASA
A better claim is likely to tell us what has improved, compared with what, and how that conclusion was reached.
5. "Biodegradable"
Now we reach a word that sounds much more scientific.
Surely biodegradable is straightforward?
Not necessarily.
The crucial question is:
Biodegradable where — and how quickly?
Something might biodegrade under particular combinations of temperature, moisture, microorganisms and time.
That does not necessarily mean it will quickly disappear if dropped beside a footpath.
Nor does it necessarily mean that it can be put into your home compost bin.
Nor does it mean you should throw it into the countryside.
Conditions matter enormously.
This issue is sufficiently important that the ASA updated its guidance on biodegradable and compostable environmental claims in September 2026. It says marketers need suitable evidence. Recent ASA cases involving wipes also illustrate why evidence about one constituent material may not establish how the complete product behaves under realistic disposal conditions. ASA
So when something says BIODEGRADABLE, ask:
Under what conditions?
That tiny question changes everything.
6. "Plant-Based"
Plant-based can be a perfectly useful description.
But once again, we need to know what it describes.
A plant-based food?
A plastic partly produced from biological feedstocks?
A cleaning ingredient?
A textile fibre?
Packaging?
And what percentage is plant-derived?
The phrase can describe the origin of a material without telling us what happens to it afterwards.
A material being plant-derived does not automatically tell us that it is biodegradable, compostable, recyclable or low-impact across its complete life cycle.
Those are separate questions.
This is one of the most useful consumer habits we can develop:
Never mentally add environmental claims that aren't actually on the packet.
"Plant-based" does not automatically mean:
biodegradable + recyclable + sustainable + harmless.
It means what the evidence supports — no more.
7. "Recyclable"
Of all seven words, this may be the one I would investigate most carefully.
Because there is an enormous difference between:
technically recyclable
and
likely to be recycled in the real world.
Ask:
Does my local collection accept it?
Do I have to separate parts?
Does the cap stay on?
Does a plastic film need removing?
Can it go into household recycling?
Does it require a supermarket collection point?
Is the whole package recyclable, or just one component?
The ASA says businesses making recyclability claims should have evidence supporting the extent to which products can actually be recycled. ASA
The CMA makes another important point: it should be clear whether recyclability claims apply to the product, its packaging or only part of either. GOV.UK
This is a wonderful example of why the small print can matter more than the large print.
The front might say:
100% RECYCLABLE
Turn it over and the useful information may be:
Bottle: recycle.
Sleeve: remove.
Pump: general waste.
Suddenly the claim has context.
The Eighth Thing to Watch Isn't a Word
It is the picture.
This may actually be more powerful than any of the seven words.
Imagine two identical bottles.
One is bright red with conventional graphics.
The other is pale green, printed on a brown-paper-effect label with a picture of leaves, a bee and a woodland stream.
Which one feels environmentally preferable?
We form an impression before reading a single sentence.
The CMA specifically advises consumers to look beyond wildlife imagery, leaves, earthy colours and green typography because visual presentation can create an environmental impression of its own. GOV.UK
A leaf is not evidence.
A tree is not certification.
Brown cardboard is not a life-cycle assessment.
And a smiling polar bear does not tell you the carbon footprint.
Turn the Packet Around
I think this may be the simplest practical lesson in the entire article.
When the front of a packet makes a big environmental promise:
turn it around.
Look for the explanation.
If the front says:
MORE SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING
the back might explain:
"We have reduced the amount of plastic in this bottle by 22% compared with our previous 500 ml bottle."
Excellent.
Now there is a defined claim.
You can decide how significant you think that improvement is.
If there is no explanation anywhere — not even through easily accessible supporting information — I become considerably less impressed.
The CMA's shopper guidance recommends looking for evidence, reading supporting information and checking reputable certification rather than relying simply on slogans. GOV.UK
My Five-Question Supermarket Test
I don't think anyone wants to conduct a 20-minute environmental investigation every time they buy washing-up liquid.
So I would reduce the whole exercise to five questions:
What exactly is being claimed?
Product, ingredient, packaging, manufacture, transport or disposal?Compared with what?
"Greener" is meaningless without a baseline.Where is the evidence?
Is there a percentage, recognised certification, test, standard or meaningful explanation?What happens at the end?
Can I actually reuse, recycle, compost or correctly dispose of it where I live?What aren't they telling me?
Is one small environmental advantage being used to create a favourable impression of the entire product?
You don't necessarily need to know the answers.
Sometimes simply asking the questions is enough to stop clever packaging making the decision for you.
Good Environmental Marketing Should Survive Questions
There is another side to this story that is worth emphasising.
We should not punish businesses for trying to improve.
A manufacturer that cuts packaging by 30%, increases recycled content, makes replacement parts available or reduces energy consumption should be able to tell customers about it.
The problem isn't the existence of green claims.
It is poorly defined green claims.
Indeed, current UK guidance does not tell companies to stop talking about environmental improvements. It tells them to make claims clear, accurate and supportable. The CMA's 2026 guidance continues to emphasise responsibility for environmental claims throughout supply chains. GOV.UK
There is a big difference between:
BETTER FOR THE PLANET
and:
"This bottle contains 70% post-consumer recycled plastic, excluding the cap and label."
The second statement may look less exciting.
But it is far more informative.
And perhaps that is what genuinely greener marketing should look like.
From Suspicious Consumers to Informed Consumers
There is a danger with articles about greenwashing.
They can leave people believing that everything is greenwashing.
That would be a mistake.
Some environmental claims are genuine, specific, independently certified and supported by good evidence.
Some products really have improved.
Some businesses are investing substantial amounts of money in reducing waste, energy consumption and environmental impact.
Our job as consumers isn't to distrust them automatically.
It is to reward evidence rather than appearance.
That means becoming comfortable with saying:
"That's interesting. What exactly do you mean?"
Conclusion: A Green Leaf Is an Invitation to Investigate
Next time you are shopping, try an experiment.
Look for these seven words:
Natural.
Eco.
Green.
Sustainable.
Biodegradable.
Plant-based.
Recyclable.
Don't immediately reject the product.
Don't immediately believe it either.
Turn the packet around.
Read the qualification.
Look at the percentages.
Check what the claim actually refers to.
Consider how the product will be disposed of.
Look for credible evidence.
And ask whether the impressive claim on the front is still impressive after you understand what it means.
Because one of the most environmentally useful things we can develop doesn't need electricity, solar panels, recycling bins or a heat pump.
It is critical thinking.
Putting a green leaf on the packet doesn't make the product green.
But learning to ask the right questions can make us much better consumers.
For readers who want to investigate further, the CMA Green Claims Code consumer guidance and ASA guidance on environmental advertising claims are useful starting points.
Comments
Post a Comment