What Is Greenwashing? How to Spot It on the Labels You Actually Buy
Author: Rohit Gupta
Published:
Greenwashing is the practice of making a product, a service or a company sound better for the environment than the evidence supports. The United Nations describes it as misleading the public into believing an organisation is doing more to protect the environment than it is. Greenpeace describes it as making vague, deceptive or false claims about positive environmental impact. The Advertising Standards Council of India uses similar language, covering unsubstantiated, false, deceptive or misleading environmental claims about products, services, processes, brands or operations as a whole. The definitions differ in emphasis, and they agree in substance.
The idea is old. The paperwork behind a green claim is new. Since 15 October 2024, India has had a specific rulebook for environmental claims (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas), and every one of its main rules translates into something you can look for. You do not need to become suspicious of all marketing. You need to know what a green claim is supposed to come with.
The difference between a green claim and greenwashing
India’s Central Consumer Protection Authority defines greenwashing in two parts. The first covers any deceptive or misleading practice, including concealing, omitting or hiding relevant information, by exaggerating or making vague, false or unsubstantiated environmental claims. The second covers the use of misleading words, symbols or imagery that emphasise positive environmental aspects while downplaying or concealing harmful ones (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, CAG).
The second part matters more than people expect. A claim does not have to be written in words to count. A symbol can carry one.
The definition also says what greenwashing is not, and the exclusions are what make the term usable rather than an insult. Three things fall outside it, in each case only where the use is not itself deceptive or misleading:
- Obvious hyperbole or puffery.
- Generic colour schemes or pictures.
- A company mission statement not specific to any product or service.
Read the qualifier carefully, because the carve-out is conditional rather than blanket. A green pack with a leaf motif is generally not making a claim. The same leaf, styled to resemble a certification mark, is a different matter. Green design is not the problem. Green design standing in for evidence is.
Yes, India has rules about this now
Before October 2024 there was no Indian law specifically addressing greenwashing. Misleading environmental claims were reached indirectly, through general provisions on misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, through the advertising industry’s voluntary code, and through product-specific legislation covering food and medicines (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas). Remedies existed. A rulebook written for this problem did not.
There is a second, voluntary layer. The Advertising Standards Council of India issued its own guidelines for advertisements making environmental claims, effective 15 February 2024 (Lawrbit). ASCI is a self-regulatory body rather than a regulator, and its code is recommendatory. According to the Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas analysis, the Department of Consumer Affairs has stated that advertisements breaching the ASCI code or the Act should be forwarded by ASCI to the consumer regulator for action, which gives the voluntary layer a route into the statutory one.
Five things a green claim is supposed to come with
Competing explanations of greenwashing name different numbers of tactics. Some name two. Some name seven. Organising your attention around a list nobody agrees on is difficult. The Indian rules give you something firmer, because each one describes a specific obligation, and an obligation is a thing you can check.
A specific claim, not a vague one
Generic environmental terms such as clean, green, eco-friendly and sustainable may not be used without adequate, accurate and accessible qualifiers, or without substantiated disclosures (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, CAG).
This is the most useful rule in the set, and the easiest to apply. The words are not banned. Using them without saying what specifically is better, or without evidence behind the statement, falls short. An unqualified “eco-friendly” on an Indian product is, on its face, not compliant.
Your first question is short. Better in what way?
A named certifier behind the specific words
When a claim gets precise, the obligation gets heavier. Specific claims such as compostable, degradable, free-of, non-toxic, 100% natural, recyclable, refillable, renewable, plastic-free, plastic-positive, climate-positive and net-zero must be supported by credible certification, reliable scientific evidence, or statutory or independent third-party verification (CAG, KSR & Co). These are examples of the category rather than a closed list.
“Free-of” deserves attention, because you see the construction constantly. Free of parabens. Free of sulphates. Free of plastic. Each is a specific factual assertion about what is absent, and each carries the substantiation obligation.
The word doing the work in this rule is independent. A brand asserting its own compliance is not the same as a body with no stake in the sale confirming it. When you see a precise claim, look for who stands behind it.
There is a companion rule worth knowing, because it puts a duty on the brand that most people assume falls on them. Where a technical environmental term is used, consumer-friendly language must be used to explain what the term means and what it implies (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, KSR & Co). If a pack uses a phrase you would need to look up, explaining it is the seller’s job. Being confused by a label is a finding about the label.
Evidence you can actually reach
This is the rule most people do not know exists, and the one that changes shopping most.
A person making an environmental claim must disclose the supporting information to you, with URL and QR code named as the routes for instant verification (KSR & Co). One legal analysis records the wording more broadly, as a QR code, URL, or any such technology or digital medium linking to relevant information (National Law Review).
The practical consequence is worth sitting with. The evidence behind a specific green claim is supposed to be reachable by you, from the pack, in the shop. You do not have to evaluate the chemistry. You have to notice whether there is anywhere to go.
A precise environmental claim with no reachable evidence behind it tells you something on its own.
A stated baseline for any comparison
Comparative environmental claims must rest on verifiable and relevant data disclosed to consumers, and must specify what is being compared and against what measure (National Law Review, CAG). The Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas analysis records the requirement as fair and meaningful comparisons, with the environmental attribute and the barometer of measurement expressly provided.
“40% less plastic” is the shape to watch. Less than what? Than the previous pack, than a competitor, than an industry average, than the same product five years ago? A comparison without a stated comparator is not a measurement. It is a number wearing the clothes of one.
A plan behind any future promise
Aspirational and forward-looking claims may be made only where clear, actionable plans have been developed for achieving them (KSR & Co, Lawrbit).
The rule does not forbid ambition. A company can promise to reach net zero by a future date. The promise is supposed to have a route attached.
This is one of the few tactics that more than one international authority names independently. The United Nations lists unsubstantiated net-zero claims without credible implementation plans among its greenwashing tactics, and Greenpeace names the same behaviour under the heading “wishful thinking”. A target is a statement about intention. A factual claim is a statement about the present. Reading one as the other is how a dated pledge starts working as evidence of current practice.
Who these rules actually reach
The guidelines bind manufacturers, service providers and traders whose goods or services are advertised, and they extend to advertising agencies and to endorsers (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, KSR & Co, CAG). They cover claims about goods and services including manufacturing, packaging, use and disposal.
Endorsers being named matters, because most green claims reach you through a person rather than a package.
The consequences available to the regulator run to a penalty of up to ten lakh rupees, rising to up to fifty lakh rupees for subsequent contraventions, and a prohibition on an endorser endorsing any product or service for up to one year, extending to three years for repeat breaches (Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, National Law Review).
Those are maximum penalties available under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, rather than amounts typically imposed. Public data on how often the regulator has used these powers for greenwashing since October 2024 was not found while researching this article. What the rules permit and what has happened in practice are separate questions, and only the first has a clear answer here.
Is there an Indian mark worth looking for?
There is. The Ecomark is India’s official eco-label, governed by the Ecomark Rules, 2024, which the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notified in 2024 (SCC Online gives the date as 26 September). Applications go to the Central Pollution Control Board. A grant requires a licence or certificate of conformity with Indian Standards under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, and lasts three years, or until the criteria for that product change (SCC Online, Vision IAS).
Two things follow. A mark with a statutory body behind it and a standards licence underneath it carries weight a brand’s own badge does not. And because a grant expires, a printed logo is a claim about a moment rather than a permanent condition.
One honest caveat. How many products currently carry a valid Ecomark, and how easily you can look one up, is not something this research established. Treat its presence as meaningful. Do not treat its absence as proof of anything.
How big is the problem?
The most useful measurement available is European rather than Indian. A European Commission study conducted in 2020, examining a sample of 150 product environmental claims, found 53.3% provided vague, misleading or unfounded information. Within the same sample, 40% of claims were unsubstantiated (European Commission, A&O Shearman, Sidley Austin).
Read those figures carefully. They describe claims examined in Europe in 2020, not products on Indian shelves in 2026. The 40% is a subset within the 53.3% rather than a separate group. The sample was small, and the Commission gathered it to support a legislative case rather than as a neutral survey.
No equivalent Indian study was found while researching this article. The honest position is this. In the one market where a regulator has counted, more than half the claims it examined did not hold up. Whether Indian shelves look similar is unmeasured.
A thirty-second check you can run in an aisle
Four questions, in the order they are useful:
- Is the claim specific, or is it a general word doing general work? “Eco-friendly” on its own is a mood. “Recyclable” is a claim.
- If the claim is specific, who confirmed it? Look for a certifying body rather than the brand’s own badge.
- Can you reach the evidence? A QR code or a URL leading to the substantiation is what the rules ask for. Nothing to scan and nowhere to go is informative.
- If the claim compares or promises, is the anchor there? Less plastic than what. Net zero by when, and by what route.
You will not resolve every pack this way, and some honest products will fail the test through poor labelling rather than deception. The point is not a verdict. The point is knowing which claims have earned your attention.
Conclusion
The change worth carrying away is a shift in where the burden sits. A green claim in India is now supposed to arrive with its evidence attached, reachable by you, from the shelf. That moves the work off your shoulders and onto the people making the claim, and it means your job is the smaller one of noticing when the evidence is missing.
The same tests apply to every brand publishing about the ocean, including this one. A standard that exempts its author is not a standard.
The next time a product tells you it is good for the planet, what exactly is it claiming, and where does it say you can check?
Sources
- Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Greenwashing – New Guidelines and the Path to Compliance, 7 November 2024
- Citizen consumer and civic Action Group, How India’s greenwashing guidelines can protect consumers
- KSR & Co, CCPA Guidelines on Greenwashing
- National Law Review, India’s Central Consumer Protection Authority Proposes Guidelines to Regulate Greenwashing
- Lawrbit, Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024
- SCC Online, MoEF notifies Ecomark Rules 2024, 2 October 2024
- Vision IAS, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change notified Ecomark Rules, 2024, 3 October 2024
- United Nations, Greenwashing – the deceptive tactics behind environmental claims
- European Commission, Proposal for a Green Claims Directive, COM(2023) 166 final, 22 March 2023
- A&O Shearman, European Commission publishes proposal for the Green Claims Directive
- Sidley Austin, Heightened Scrutiny of Green Claims in the European Union and Switzerland
- Storyboard18, ASCI issues guidelines to prevent greenwashing
- Greenpeace Aotearoa, What is greenwashing?
