What FIFA Claimed
FIFA branded the 2022 Qatar World Cup as a “carbon neutral” event, stating it would offset all greenhouse gas emissions linked to the tournament through various sustainability measures — including energy-efficient stadiums, green transportation, and a carbon offsetting program.

The Reality: Questionable Offsets and Emissions Underreporting
Independent investigations found that FIFA significantly underestimated the tournament’s carbon footprint. Research by Carbon Market Watch estimated the actual emissions were up to 8 million tonnes of CO₂, far more than FIFA’s claim of 3.6 million tonnes. The biggest discrepancy came from underreporting emissions from stadium construction, one of the most carbon-intensive aspects of the event.

Offsets: A Flawed Solution
The carbon neutrality claim hinged on offsetting emissions via a Qatari offset program that was not internationally accredited. Critics argued that:

• Many of the offsets were speculative or not verified by rigorous standards like Gold Standard or Verra.
• Offsetting does not reduce actual emissions, but merely attempts to cancel them out on paper — a process increasingly criticized as unreliable or even deceptive.

Why It’s Greenwashing
Misleading the public with terms like “carbon neutral” without full transparency or independent verification.

Using sustainability language to deflect criticism from environmental harm associated with building new infrastructure and transporting over a million fans.

Presenting offsetting as a solution while avoiding deeper structural changes in how global sporting events are run.

The Broader Impact
FIFA’s carbon neutrality claim serves as a textbook example of “green PR”: a public-facing sustainability effort that garners positive headlines but lacks accountability. It risks eroding public trust in legitimate climate action and in carbon offset mechanisms more broadly.

Resources to learn more: 

• FIFA caught making false claims (BBC, 2023).
• FIFA's greenwashing op-ed by Carbon Market Watch (Mair, 2024)
• FIFA's Sustainability Claims in their main page. 
• What a Carbon-Neutral FIFA could look like (Price, 2023)
• Carbon Neutral claims have been banned (2024)
• What does Carbon Neutral mean? (2024)
• Climate Law article on the greenwashing practices of FIFA World Cup 2022 (2023) 

What Coldplay Is Doing
When Coldplay announced their “Music of the Spheres” world tour, they committed to making it as environmentally sustainable as possible — aiming to reduce tour-related emissions by 50% compared to their previous tour (2016–17).

Key sustainability efforts included:

• Kinetic floors and power bikes that allow fans to generate electricity during concerts.
• A traveling stage made from reusable materials and a low-emission, modular design.
• Use of renewable energy sources, including solar and sustainable biofuels.
• Encouraging low-carbon travel options for fans and providing discounts for public transport.
• Planting one tree for every ticket sold, in partnership with reforestation projects.
• Publicly reporting carbon accounting efforts, with third-party verification from the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative.

🎤 Chris Martin: “We’re not perfect, but we try our best.”

Why It Matters
Coldplay’s tour represents a significant shift in how the music industry approaches sustainability. Touring is typically a high-emissions activity — from transporting gear across continents to energy-hungry stadium performances.

Their initiative sets a new precedent and encourages:

• Other artists to rethink their tour impacts.
• Fans to engage more consciously with live events.
• Media and industry attention on sustainability in entertainment.

Why It's Not Greenwashing
Unlike many corporate “net zero” pledges, Coldplay:

• Provides transparency by publishing emissions data.
• Invests in emerging solutions, not just offsets.
• Frames its efforts as a work in progress, rather than a perfect solution.
• This level of openness and iterative improvement helps distinguish it from performative or misleading green claims.

Sources to learn more: 

• Music of the Spheres (2024) 
• Coldplay beats emission targets (2024)
• Coldplay Tour Emission official statetement (2024)
• Coldplay being investigated for Greenwashing (2024) 
• Learning from Coldplay about decarbonisation (2024)

What Coca-Cola Claimed
Coca-Cola launched high-profile campaigns around collecting and recycling plastic bottles — notably pledging to collect and recycle the equivalent of every bottle it sells by 2030. The initiative was framed as a bold step toward a “World Without Waste,” and Coca-Cola presented itself as part of the solution to plastic pollution.

The Reality: Collecting ≠ Solving
Despite the catchy slogan, Coca-Cola remains the world’s largest plastic polluter, according to annual Break Free From Plastic audits — topping the list year after year.While the company promotes its collection goals, it:

• Continues to produce over 100 billion plastic bottles annually, many of which are single-use.
• Invests in bottle collection programs that often rely on underfunded recycling systems in the Global South.
• Shifts responsibility to consumers and local governments, while resisting efforts to reduce overall plastic production.

Why It’s Greenwashing

• Overstates progress by focusing on downstream recycling rather than upstream reduction.
• Distracts from overproduction of plastics, which continues unabated.
• Misleads consumers into thinking that using Coca-Cola products is sustainable if they’re simply recycled.
• Ignores deeper systemic change like switching to reusable packaging or ending plastic dependence altogether.
• “Coca-Cola uses recycling as a shield while producing more plastic every year. You can’t recycle your way out of this crisis.” 

The Broader Impact
These campaigns give the illusion that the company is taking strong climate and waste action — while protecting a business model rooted in disposability. This kind of surface-level sustainability undermines public understanding of what real circularity or climate responsibility looks like.

Resources to learn more: 

• Greenpeace USA Report 2022 (here).
• Coca Cola's New Campaign 2025 (here)
• Criticism of Coca Cola's recycling practices (2017) 
• Coca Cola and Nestle eco claims criticism (2023) 
• Coca Cola faces backlash after scaling back packaging plans (2024)
• Coca Cola drops their reusable packing targets (2024)

What Is Trash Art?
“Trash art” — also known as reclaimed or found-object art — involves using discarded materials, industrial waste, or everyday litter to create visual installations, sculptures, and performances. Artists repurpose the byproducts of consumer culture to transform waste into statement.

This movement isn't just about aesthetics — it's about intervention.

Why It Counters Greenwashing
While corporations often use sleek, sanitized visuals and “eco” messaging to suggest sustainability, trash art forces us to confront the physical evidence of our throwaway economy. It flips the script by:

• Exposing hidden waste streams (like ocean plastics or single-use packaging).
• Making the environmental cost visible in ways that glossy ads obscure.
• Challenging corporate storytelling that masks unsustainable practices.
•  Instead of green logos and leafy labels, trash art says: Here’s the mess — now let’s talk about who made it.

Using Marketing and PR for Good
Trash artists often employ marketing techniques themselves — dramatic visuals, public installations, shareable content — to interrupt public spaces and spark dialogue.

• Emotional impact: Viewers experience discomfort, awe, even guilt — emotions that spur reflection more than data can.
• Accessibility: Anyone can understand what a pile of toothbrushes turned sea turtle means.
• Tangible storytelling: Unlike vague sustainability claims, trash art shows the literal consequences of our habits.

Sources to learn more and examples: 

• Sense making through the art trash (Prasad et al, 2017: p.32-37)
• An Aesthetic Consumption and using Trash (Gill, 2020)
• Sparking Change: Examples of Artists (here) 
• 2023 Activists using Trash Art (here)
• How to raise awareness of pollution through Trash Art (2024). 

What Happened?
In 2019, Dutch airline KLM launched its “Fly Responsibly” campaign, positioning itself as a leader in sustainable aviation. The campaign encouraged customers to:

• Purchase carbon offsets for their flights.
• Take the train for shorter distances.
• Support KLM’s investment in sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

It also included a widely circulated video ad inviting passengers to consider whether they really needed to fly — a message that appeared, on the surface, unusually honest for a commercial airline.

Why It’s Greenwashing
Despite the progressive tone, several major contradictions expose the initiative as greenwashing:

• Offsets Are Not a Real Solution
  KLM leaned heavily on carbon offsets — a mechanism where customers pay extra to “neutralize” their flight’s emissions by funding environmental projects.

However:

• Many offset schemes have questionable credibility and long-term effectiveness.
• They don’t eliminate emissions — they merely shift responsibility elsewhere.
• Critics argue that offsets allow companies to continue polluting without systemic change.

Mixed Messaging
While urging travelers to fly less, KLM simultaneously expands routes and markets air travel aggressively, creating a dissonance between messaging and business practice.

Legal Backlash
In 2023, environmental groups including Fossielvrij NL and ClientEarth filed a lawsuit in the Netherlands against KLM, accusing the airline of misleading advertising under EU consumer protection laws.

The Bigger Picture
KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” shows how corporate sustainability messaging can sound bold but remain shallow. It reflects a broader trend in which high-emissions industries attempt to soften their image without confronting the structural limits of their models.

In reality, meaningful climate action in aviation would involve:

• Reducing flight frequency.
• Shifting subsidies away from airlines to rail networks.
• Investing heavily in true low-carbon alternatives — not marketing illusions.

Resources to learn more: 

• KLM misled consumers (2024)
• Dutch Court rules KLM guilty of greenwashing (2024)
• KLM tries to pull 'Fly Responsibly' ad due to lawsuits (2023)
• Critiques of Carbon Offsetting (Greenfield, 2023) 
• Why Carbon offsets don't work (Lebreton and Birch, 2024)
• Sustainable Aviation efforts (here)