Companies are racing to align with growing environmental awareness in today's eco-conscious marketplace, leveraging sustainability to bolster their reputations. However, this rush often results in greenwashing—a misleading practice that can damage consumer trust and brand credibility. A survey of corporate procurement officers across the UK, Europe, and the US reveals a striking insight: over half of the organizations worry they might be unintentionally greenwashing.
This concern stems from a broader lack of confidence in sustainability claims and Scope 3 CO2 reporting, underscoring the challenges companies face in navigating the complex demands of environmental commitments.
It’s a fair concern. Research shows that in 2023, 1 in every 4 climate-related ESG risks globally was linked to greenwashing, and cases are especially on the rise in Europe and North America.
Source: Rep Risk: Fig 2. Reflects the count of unique entities with at least one ESG risk incident linked to both environmental footprint and misleading communication in a given year
Greenwashing occurs when companies overstate or fabricate environmental benefits. It misleads consumers into believing a brand is reducing its ecological impact when, in reality, it may be doing little—or worse, causing harm. This practice erodes trust, sparks skepticism, and damages reputations. Several forms of greenwashing have emerged, each presenting unique challenges for brands and stakeholders.
Greenlighting involves spotlighting specific sustainability initiatives to distract from harmful practices elsewhere. For instance, a company might highlight its decarbonization efforts while continuing to contribute to plastic pollution. Investors and stakeholders must evaluate a company’s full environmental impact to ensure its sustainability commitments are genuine.
Greenrinsing refers to altering or resetting environmental goals before achieving them, avoiding accountability while projecting a commitment to sustainability. This tactic often exploits the abundance of environmental labels and buzzwords, misleading stakeholders. A rigorous examination of claims and long-term commitments is essential to counter green rinsing.
.png)
Greenhushing is the deliberate underreporting or hiding of sustainability data to avoid scrutiny. While compiling ESG data can be complex, transparency is crucial for meeting regulatory requirements and building trust. Companies that greenhush undermine accountability, shrink their credibility and fail to educate consumers on meaningful sustainability efforts.
.png)
Greencrowding involves hiding behind group initiatives to avoid scrutiny. Companies engaging in this practice align with industry-wide sustainability efforts but contribute minimally or fail to deliver on individual commitments. Stakeholders must dig deeper to ensure these companies are not merely using group efforts as a shield.
For the cosmetics industry, where bold claims about sustainability are common, transparency is essential. Failing to substantiate these claims can quickly lead to accusations of greenwashing. Beyond meeting FTC Green Guides, brands must navigate additional regulatory requirements, such as the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MOCRA). Transparency is no longer optional—it is critical to maintaining brand integrity and meeting consumer expectations.
A legislative push accompanies growing stakeholder, environmental, and consumer demand for authentic and accountable sustainability action from businesses. Emerging laws, such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Digital Product Passport, California’s AB1305, and Truth in Labeling laws, emphasize transparent ESG communication. These regulations mandate detailed, verifiable disclosures about environmental impact, making it riskier for companies to avoid transparency. Non-compliance could result in fines, market exclusion, and reputational damage.
Sustainability reporting isn’t just a compliance exercise—it’s an opportunity to align your business model and goals with genuine environmental commitments. To address the challenges of unintentional greenwashing and build confidence in your reporting and communication, companies need to start with a strong foundation: embedding sustainability into their core processes and strategies.
A way of doing so: performing Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) at scale, i.e. on your entire product portfolio.
From there, as a marketing, R&D or ESG manager, you can leverage growing knowledge and tools to ensure environmental reporting is accurate and actionable. Done right, this approach supports future strategies, drives meaningful industry change, and positions businesses for successful risk management and sustainable transitions. Tools like Simapro, the Sphera’s suite or the AI-powered environmental platform Fairglow can provide cosmetics companies with key insights and results to meet transparency demands effectively.
Ensuring Accuracy
Navigating the cosmetics industry's complex value chains often means encountering incomplete sustainability data. Fairglow’s Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology addresses this challenge by aligning with globally recognized standards, including the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF), GHG Protocol, and ISO 14040. This ensures your sustainability reporting is rigorous, compliant, and built on a solid foundation of accuracy.
Detailed and Granular Reporting
Fairglow goes beyond surface-level reporting by offering detailed formats tailored to regulatory requirements. This includes comprehensive Scope 1, 2, and 3 carbon accounting, giving you the clarity to communicate your environmental impact confidently.