๐ฑ ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด: the classic โeco-makeup.โ Example: a brand calls its line sustainable because it uses 10% organic cotton, ignoring that the other 90% comes from intensive farming.
โ๏ธ๐ง๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ต๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฎ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ป๐ด: more sophisticated. Example: a carmaker claims its EV is carbon neutral based on incomplete calculations that exclude battery production.
๐๐ฒ๐ณ๐ถ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป: refers to a deceptive practice within the broader phenomenon of greenwashing, where organizations or companies use technical data, scientific jargon, metrics, or certifications to misleadingly present their products, services, or operations as environmentally sustainable or beneficial. This approach leverages complex or seemingly rigorous technical information to create an appearance of credibility and environmental responsibility, often obscuring the true environmental impact or lack of substantial sustainability efforts. Unlike general greenwashing, which relies on vague or emotionally appealing claims, technical greenwashing targets more informed audiences, such as regulators, investors, or technically savvy consumers, by exploiting the complexity of technical details that are difficult to verify or interpret without specialized knowledge.
๐ And hereโs the risk: itโs not always bad faith, sometimes itโs lack of knowledge or weak systems. But that doesnโt make it less dangerous. Like taxes: you canโt just say โmy accountant got it wrong, I didnโt know.โ Under the hashtag#CSRD in European Union, transparency isnโt optional, itโs mandatory.
๐จ Thatโs why technical greenwashing can be as harmful as lying. It builds trust on shaky ground and erodes market credibility.
