Brands sometimes create their own eco-labels or use symbols that mimic trusted certifications. This blurs the line between authentic verification and brand-created trust.

Example: Innocent Drinks False Labels

What Happened:

In 2022, Innocent Drinks — a well-known UK smoothie and juice company owned by Coca-Cola — faced formal complaints to the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for a sustainability-themed advertising campaign. The ad, titled "Little Drinks, Big Dreams," depicted animated characters joyfully cleaning up nature and promoting the idea that buying Innocent products helps the planet. It implied that purchasing these drinks contributed positively to environmental causes.

Why It's Considered Greenwashing:

Despite its cheerful tone and environmental messaging, the ASA ruled that the ad was misleading. Here’s why:

• Vague and Unsubstantiated Claims: The ad strongly implied that buying Innocent drinks would lead to environmental improvements, without clarifying the extent of Innocent’s actual environmental impact or providing concrete evidence to support such claims.

• Use of Misleading Visual Cues: The brand leveraged soft, nature-inspired imagery (e.g., plants, animals, clouds) and tone to position itself as environmentally responsible, despite the fact that:

  • Innocent uses single-use plastic bottles.

  • The company is owned by Coca-Cola, which has been named the world’s top plastic polluter multiple years in a row.

• Homegrown and Undefined Eco Symbols: On packaging and marketing, Innocent used in-house symbols and language to signal sustainability (e.g., “green halo” badges, “doing our bit” messages) without referencing third-party certifications or transparent criteria. This created a false sense of credibility and eco-certification, manipulating visual trust markers.

The Impact:

• Consumer Deception: The campaign was criticized for leading consumers to believe that they were making an environmentally responsible choice by purchasing Innocent drinks — when, in reality, the company’s packaging and supply chains raised ongoing environmental concerns.

• Erosion of Trust in Green Marketing: Innocent’s case added to growing skepticism about corporate environmental claims. When popular, seemingly ethical brands like Innocent are called out, it highlights how easily sustainability language can be used to mask environmental harm.

• Industry-Wide Wake-Up Call: The ruling by the ASA contributed to stricter scrutiny of environmental messaging in marketing. It reinforced the need for clear, measurable, and independently verifiable sustainability claims — not just feel-good narratives or aesthetic choices.

Sources to learn more: 

• Innocent Drinks Statement on Climate Change (2024) 
• The Good Shopping Guide's Comparison of Innocent Drinks' ethical performance (2025)
• Innocent Drinks Packaging Redesign (2024)
• Innocent Drinks Ads Banned (2022) 

Visuals like green leaves, earthy tones, and clear blue skies are used to cue environmental friendliness — even if the product or company isn't aligned with those values.

What Happened:

Both Coca-Cola and Unilever have used green-label bottles, earthy color schemes, and nature-based imagery to market products in a way that implies environmental friendliness:

• Coca-Cola launched its "PlantBottle" initiative, with green bottle caps and labels to promote bottles partially made from plant-based materials. The packaging leaned heavily on the color green, leaf motifs, and buzzwords like “renewable” or “sustainable.”

• Unilever (owner of brands like Dove, Persil, and Hellmann’s) has widely used images of natural landscapes, leaves, water droplets, and eco-themed taglines across its product packaging — especially for personal care and cleaning products — often without explaining what these visuals actually represent in terms of impact or ingredients.

Why It’s Greenwashing:

• Deceptive Imagery: The use of green color palettes, nature motifs, and minimalist design is intentionally deployed to trigger positive environmental associations, even when the product itself has little or no verified ecological benefit.

• Selective Focus: Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle, while partially plant-based, remains single-use plastic and is not biodegradable or compostable. The initiative distracted from Coca-Cola’s broader environmental impact as the world’s top plastic polluter for five years running (according to Break Free From Plastic’s global audits).

• Unilever similarly promotes "eco-friendly" branding while facing criticism for ongoing deforestation, plastic pollution, and unsustainable palm oil sourcing in various parts of its supply chain.

• Lack of Transparency: In both cases, brands highlight small, often marginal improvements in materials or sourcing while avoiding meaningful discussion of overall production volumes, lifecycle emissions, or end-of-life waste.

The Impact:

• Consumer Misperception: These visual strategies reassure consumers and reduce perceived guilt, making them feel like they are making sustainable choices — even when the product and company practices remain highly unsustainable.

• Reputational Criticism: Both companies have faced growing pressure from environmental groups, watchdogs, and climate-conscious consumers. Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of COP27 (the UN climate summit) in 2022 was particularly controversial, with many calling it a textbook case of greenwashing.

• Regulatory and Civil Pushback: The increasing use of design-based deception has fueled calls for more rigorous marketing standards, clear environmental labeling laws, and third-party accountability for sustainability claims.

• Dilution of Trust: These practices contribute to broader consumer cynicism about sustainability marketing. When well-known brands use visuals to overstate green credentials, it undermines legitimate sustainability efforts across the industry.

Sources to learn more: 

• Coca Cola modifies their recycling claims after lawsuit (2025)
• Coca Cola accused of misleading eco claims (2023)
• Coca Cola drops recycling goals (2024)
• Coca Cola Commits to improving recycling to align with EU standards (2025) 
•  

We look at how brands like Nike use aspirational language (“Move to Zero”) to align with environmental progress — while remaining vague on the specifics or measurable progress toward those goals.

What Happened:

In 2019, Nike launched its “Move to Zero” campaign, promoted as the brand’s journey toward zero carbon and zero waste. The initiative featured strong aspirational branding — with slogans like “Protecting the future of sport” — and imagery filled with natural motifs, sleek product visuals, and minimalist, eco-themed design. Nike highlighted actions such as using recycled polyester, reducing packaging, and building some “sustainable” facilities.

However, the campaign lacked detail on timelines, accountability, or measurable benchmarks for achieving “zero.”

Why It’s Greenwashing:

• Aspirational Over Specific: While “Move to Zero” sounds powerful, Nike has been vague about what the end goals actually involve, how progress is measured, or what percentage of its overall production is covered. The brand frames sustainability as a vision rather than laying out a concrete, transparent roadmap.

• Omission of Contradictions: Nike continues to operate within a fast fashion-adjacent model — mass-producing synthetic, non-biodegradable shoes and apparel, relying heavily on global supply chains, and releasing frequent product drops to encourage high consumption. These realities are largely absent from the campaign narrative.

• Selective Highlighting: The brand emphasizes progress (like recycled materials in select product lines) while downplaying broader emissions, labor issues, and overproduction. It focuses on high-visibility improvements without disclosing the full lifecycle impact of its products.

• Emotional Reassurance: The campaign design — with its sleek aesthetic, strong narrative, and empowering tone — helps consumers feel like purchasing Nike products is an act of climate-conscious solidarity, even when the environmental impact remains unverified.

The Impact:

• Consumer Misleading: Many consumers assume Nike is a sustainability leader based on its messaging, without realizing how little of the product line is meaningfully “zero” in any environmental sense.

• Deflection from Core Practices: Rather than rethinking the structure of its business model (e.g., reducing production volumes or improving product longevity), Nike rebrands environmental harm as a solvable problem through technology and choice, without structural accountability.

• Industry Influence: As a major global brand, Nike’s approach sets a precedent. Superficial campaigns with minimal substance risk becoming the norm in corporate sustainability, diverting attention from truly transformative efforts.

• Demand for Regulation: The vagueness of campaigns like “Move to Zero” has spurred calls for standardized definitions, mandatory disclosures, and legal restrictions on unverified environmental claims in advertising.

Sources to learn more: 

• Nike's 'Move to Zero' Campaign Press Release (2019)
• Nike Sustainability Statements (2025)
• Weavable Article on Nike's Sustainability Claims (2025)
• Fashionista Article on Nike's 'Move to Zero' Campaign (2020)
• Ethical Report from Good On You on Nike's 'Move to Zero' Campaign (2023)