See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360794321

Case Studies: Lessons to Avoiding the Greenwashing Trap

Chapter · May 2022

DOI: 10.1108/978-1-80117-966-920221004

CITATIONS READS

0 548

1 author:

Agostino Vollero
Università degli Studi di Salerno
90 PUBLICATIONS 1,257 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainability communication on corporate websites - OSEC model View project

Developing a framework for analyzing CSR communications as legitimacy-seeking strategies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Agostino Vollero on 16 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 4

CASE STUDIES: LESSONS TO AVOIDING

THE GREENWASHING TRAP

1. CASE STUDY 1: VOLKSWAGEN DIESELGATE

The Volkswagen Dieselgate (Gorzelany, 2015), or ‘diesel dupe’ (Hotten,

2015), probably represents the major greenwashing scandal of recent years
and has been explored in several management, organisation and marketing
studies (Boiral, Brotherton, Yuriev, & Talbot, 2021; Eigruber & Wirl, 2020;
Holtbrügge & Conrad, 2020; Siano, Vollero, Conte, & Amabile, 2017; Topal,
Nart, Akar, & Erkollar, 2020).
While car manufacturers have been already criticised in the past for their
use in advertisements of ambiguous texts and images (Conley, 2009; Garland,
Huising, & Struben, 2013), undoubtedly Volkswagen Dieselgate represents a
turning point, thus unveiling a critical scenario in the automobile sector in
which the gap between sustainability claims and actual practices seems huge.

1.1 Background to the Case

The start date of Volkswagen scandal can be traced back to early 2014, when
International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), an independent
non-profit organisation that provides scientific analysis to environmental
regulators, reported that the declared emission of pollutants, specifically
nitrogen oxides (NOx), of three European versions of Volkswagen diesel cars
were quite far from real driving situation (Siano et al., 2017). Real-world
emission of NOx by Volkswagen cars (Jetta, Beetle, Golf, Passat, AUDI A3,
etc.) exceeded the US standard by 15–35 times, as reported in additional tests
conducted with the support of researchers from West Virginia University.

65
66 Greenwashing

ICCT communicated the test results to both US Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) who started
their investigation in mid-2014 in dialogue with the car manufacturer. Indeed,
Volkswagen did not offer the CARB convincing explanation of such a
discrepancy, thus indicating technical problems for justifying distorted mea-
surements. Only in August 2015, after CARB put at risk the approval of a new
car model, Volkswagen admitted the use of a defeat device in emissions test.
On 18th September 2015, EPA revealed the presence of the defeat device, a
software that enabled the VW cars to detect when they are being tested, thus
limiting their emissions during homologation tests. The case was then in the
spotlight on worldwide media and then Volkswagen admitted they installed
the defeat device on 500.000 cars in US, and over 11 million around the world
from 2008 to 2015.
A few days later, Martin Winterkorn, the Volkswagen CEO, resigned and
announced the suspension of sales of different models of VW and Audi diesel
cars in US. A number of lawsuits followed the scandal, particularly in the US
where the violation of Clean Air Act and the attempts to mislead both con-
sumers and government officials, push US Department of Justice first to a civil
complaint and then to criminal charges. While several lawsuits are still
pending as of 2020, US courts have condemned VW to over $30 billion of
fines and imprisonment of various VW executives for fraud, besides the recall
of more than half a million cars sold in the US.
As stated in Boiral et al. (2021), Dieselgate emerged in a specific historical,
technological, and institutional context that favoured the detection of cheating
behaviour by car manufacturers, but this deception behaviour in the auto-
mobile industry is not new and quite common to other car manufacturers. In
the 1990s, both General Motors, Ford, Honda, and Volvo Truck were fined to
installing software for reducing reported emissions of carbon monoxide and
NOx. Several investigations have demonstrated that a cheating software was
installed by other car manufacturers till 2015, even if accusations not always
were converted in lawsuits and reported by media.

1.2 Case Analysis

Undoubtedly, Volkswagen Dieselgate represents a paradigmatic case due to its

relevance and uniqueness in describing a specific mode of greenwashing (Siano
et al., 2017). Dieselgate also poses serious questions regarding the reliability
and transparency of corporate sustainability reporting. The analysis hereby
reported is mainly based on data presented in Siano et al. (2017), which
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 67

probably represents the most complete analysis of Dieselgate as a green-

washing case, integrated by more recent findings on the case.
The study combines both qualitative and quantitative analysis through a
content analysis of corporate documents (sustainability reports) and
non-corporate material (newspaper headlines), and semi-structured interviews
with past VW managers. The triangulation of both internal and external
sources serves to increase the overall validity and reliability of the case study
(Yin, 2003).
Specifically, content analysis is based on an automated content analysis
based on Nooj (Silberztein, 2003, 2015), a natural language processing (NLP)
environment. Such a choice allows to minimise subjective interpretation and
inter-coder reliability issues (Krippendorff, 2012). Nooj is a linguistics soft-
ware and corpus processor, which elaborates texts at orthographic, lexical,
morphological, syntactic, and semantic levels (Elia, Vietri, Postiglione,
Monteleone, & Marano, 2010; Silberztein, 2015). Using this NLP environ-
ment, it is possible to perform specific content analysis, flexible and
user-defined search algorithms (NooJgraphs), to map the text’s linguistic and
compositional characteristics.
Secondary sources used in content analysis are:

(1) VW Group sustainability reports from 2012 to 2014;

(2) article headlines of a sample of US journals (top 25 US daily newspapers)

for a total of over 1,100 headlines published within a month after 18th
September 2015.

The comparison of these two textual corpora made it possible to reach two
main objectives. The first concerns the assessment of the relevance of the terms
and statements associated with the corporate commitment in terms of envi-
ronmental sustainability and leadership in this area. This is followed by
comparing it with what emerged in the public discourse after the discovery of
the fraud of deceptive software. To this end, a process of aggregation of the
lexical units pertaining to these semantic areas (environmental sustainability
and leadership) was carried out, and more specifically, to the terms relating to
Volkswagen’s commitment to reducing CO2 emissions. The dataset of news-
papers’ article headlines also served to represent in an exemplary manner the
accusation of greenwashing by public opinion. It also made explicit the type of
greenwashing accusations against the company. This dataset allows to verify
how the events related to the Dieselgate scandal were perceived and commu-
nicated by a particular category of stakeholders, the media. The incidence of
68 Greenwashing

‘fraud’ on the headlines of newspapers in the semantic area has been found, as
a feature characterising the Volkswagen scandal.
The content analysis of Volkswagen’s corporate sustainability reports
highlights a significant communication commitment of the German car
manufacturer in the field of environmental sustainability: the data, in fact,
reveal a high frequency of the occurrences and co-occurrences of the associated
lexical units in this semantic area. By focusing the analysis on the lexical units
concerning the reduction of CO2 emissions, a progressive growth of the
organisation’s promises in this direction emerges (see Table 4.1).
The analysis also highlights that Volkswagen’s sustainability commitment
was supported by widespread and ambitious statements in the reports that
highlight the organisation’s desire to establish itself as a leading company in
the car industry in terms of environmental sustainability, with particular
reference to the reduction of emissions produced by vehicles (see Table 4.2). In
fact, Volkswagen Group declares its ambition to position itself as ‘the world’s
most environmentally compatible automaker’ by 2018.
In a more recent study, Holtbrügge and Conrad (2020) noted that
greenwashers/decouplers use in their CSR/sustainability reports more articles,
more words per sentence and few terms related to risk, probably to conceal the
disconnection between their CSR talk and their actual (un)sustainable prac-
tices. Volkswagen’s statements in the reports do not align with what actually
happened with Dieselgate. We proceeded then to verify how the events related
to the Dieselgate scandal were perceived and communicated by the media in
the US The incidence of ‘fraud’ on the titles of newspapers in the semantic area
was therefore noted, as an aspect that characterises the type of greenwashing
behaviour in the Volkswagen scandal. The results reveal that the issue of
corporate fraud emerges predominantly.

Table 4.1. Frequency of ‘environmental sustainability’ and ‘Reduction of

CO2 Emissions’ in the Volkswagen Reports (2012–2014).
Frequency –
Word Number of Environmental Frequency – Reduction of
Year Forms Pages Sustainability CO2 Emissions

2012 29,959 61 707 310

2013 28,064 59 647 382
2014 30,009 61 734 402
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 69

Table 4.2. Excerpts of Statements Related to Volkswagen’s Claims in

Environmental Sustainability Leadership.
Year Statements

2012 ‘…best-in-class on fuel consumption and emissions’

‘…the most environmentally compatible commercial vehicle’
‘Group is pursuing to achieve its goal of being the world’s most sustainable
automaker by 2018’
‘…most sustainable manufacturer’
‘Volkswagen has already achieved some notable improvements en route to its
aspired environmental leadership. […]’
‘Volkswagen has adopted 95 g CO₂/km as its 2020 target for European new car
fleet-average emissions. This makes the Volkswagen Group the first carmaker to
commit to this ambitious goal’
2013 ‘…to become the world’s most eco-friendly -manufacturer’
‘by 2018 the Volkswagen Group aims to be the world’s most successful, fascinating
and sustainable automaker’
‘in line with the Group’s declared aim of becoming the world’s most eco-friendly
automobile manufacturer by 2018’
‘By 2018 the Volkswagen Group wants to become the world’s most sustainable
automobile manufacturer’
‘The Volkswagen Group has set itself the goal of becoming the world leader in-
environmental-protection’
‘Driven by our quest for environmental leadership by 2018’
‘…most effective way to reduce mobility-related CO2 emissions’
2014 ‘to achieve best-in-class ratings for fuel consumption and CO2 emissions’
‘…the most eco-friendly and fuel-efficient combustion-engined vehicles on the
market’
‘…in order to become-the world’s most sustainable automaker’
‘…want to be perceived as the most eco-friendly auto-maker’
‘…became the first and only automaker to commit to the ambitious goal of reducing
its European new-car fleet-average emissions to 95 g CO2/km by 2020’
‘Leader in environmentally friendly products […]’

The semantic area related to the concept of fraud is present, in absolute

terms, 486 times. This figure has an incidence of 40% if we consider the
number of newspapers’ headlines analysed, and of 6%, with reference to the
number of lexical or ‘full’ word forms (nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs)
(see Table 4.3). From the analysis of the frequency of the terms contained in
the newspapers’ headlines, it emerges that, among the first five most recurring
lexical units, are present ‘scandal’ and ‘cheating’, or words that fall within the
70 Greenwashing

Table 4.3. Impact of Concept of ‘Fraud’ in US Newspapers Headlines.

Number of Headlines A.V. %

1151 486 42
Word Forms A.V. %

7383 486 6.6

semantic domain of fraud, excluding ‘empty words’ (articles, conjunctions,

prepositions, pronouns, and interjections) and the car brand manufacturer
‘Volkswagen’.
For semi-structured interviews with eight former managers (with at least
two years’ experience), questions were adapted from previous studies on the
topic (Brunton, Eweje, & Taskin, 2017; Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010) to
assess their level of awareness of sustainability communication in VW group,
inter-organisational relationships in CSR field and participation/engagement
of employees in CSR projects. The results of these interviews show a high level
of awareness of CSR policies and communication among employees. In gen-
eral, it seems that organisational discourse on sustainability leadership was
quite diffused and sustained through internal communication tools, and that
both the company’s employees and management attempted to apply CSR
policies and communication in their work.
To sum up, both content analysis and interviews substantiate the centrality
of CSR communication in organisational processes for CSR. In addition,
sustainability was perceived by managers as a strategic imperative to fulfil at
any cost. The pressure to reach ambitious goals in sustainability is also
supported by studies on supply chain management (Koplin, Seuring, &
Mesterharm, 2007; Pizzetti, Gatti, & Seele, 2021; Wang, Ma, & Bai, 2019),
thus suggesting that greenwashing is a complex phenomenon that cannot be
analysed considering the company in isolation. Equally interestingly, it was
noted that engagement of managers and employees in CSR is a
‘responsibility-neutral practice’ (Greenwood, 2007, p. 324) that does not
prevent corporate irresponsibility (Siano et al., 2017).
The lessons learnt from VW case can be summarised in three main points:

(1) in line with CCO studies (see paragraph 7, Ch. 3), CSR communication
seems to have a performative character, namely it has the power to create
actions with possible negative consequences in terms of generating
unethical corporate practices;
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 71

(2) the engagement of organisational members cannot be associated

mechanically with corporate responsibility ‘in action’ but it can be a
superficial commitment to a strategic imperative (in the Dieselgate case,
‘leadership in sustainability’);

(3) greenwashing can take the form of ‘deceptive manipulation’ when CSR
communication works ‘as a further incentive for some organizational
members to be involved in (unethical) processes which then create the
reality narrated in organizational texts’ (Siano et al., 2017, p. 33).

Volkswagen Dieselgate thus presents a form of greenwashing, namely

deceptive manipulation, which is intuitively associated with high reputational
risks (Siano et al., 2017). Some studies confirm these harms to VW’s reputa-
tion and extend it to all German car manufacturers (Bachmann, Ehrlich, Fan,
Ruzic, & Leard, 2019; Wood, Wang, Duong, Reiners, & Smith, 2018).
Nevertheless, other indicators (Volkswagen topped its sales in 2017, 2018,
and 2019) show that the German manufacturer has maintained a favourable
reputation among its customers, probably due to its excellent past reputation
(Eigruber & Wirl, 2020), which generates a positive halo effect (Coombs &
Holladay, 2015). On these lines, Topal et al. (2020) showed that the effects of
Volkswagen Dieselgate on online consumer engagement were quite limited in
most countries and many consumers also acted as advocates of the brand.
As for the behaviour of car manufacturers after Dieselgate, Boiral et al.
(2021) found the use of four different neutralisation techniques that explain
their behaviour after the scandal. While most affected brands (such as VW and
Audi) seemed to recognise, at least in part, their past errors and present their
future actions as the ‘start of a new era’, others in the automobile industry
continued their previous (empty) discourse on sustainability (‘self-proclaimed
green leadership’) or simply minimised the accusations in their reports (with
‘head in the sand’ and ‘wait and see’ configuration strategies). This poses
serious concerns about how greenwashing scandals can have a significant and
persistent effect on changing unethical corporate practices and reporting
transparency, or if past greenwashing accusations simply push companies to
adopt more sophisticated forms of deceptive symbolic communication.

2. CASE STUDY 2: #PLASTICMONSTER AND NESTL È

Since the 1950s, the consumption of plastic has steadily increased and per-
meates every aspect of our lives (Changing Markets, 2020) from food
72 Greenwashing

packaging to mobility, from agriculture to disposable consumer items. Global

production of plastics grew from 50 million metric tonnes in 1976, to 100 in
1989, 200 in 2002, till reaching the maximum of 368 million metric tons
in 2019 (Shanmugam et al., 2020). Global plastic production fell by 0.3% in
2020, but only due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
It is generally acknowledged that plastic packaging is one of the main
sources of waste. According to Plastics Europe (2020), packaging represents
about 40% of total plastics converters’ demand. Among different types of
plastic packaging, a major role is played by single-use disposable applications,
such as those used in disposable consumer items and food packaging.
The result is that plastic waste has almost saturated every surface of the
planet, including oceans and the highest mountains (Changing Markets,
2020). The impact on wildlife is dramatic and the negative effects of micro-
plastics in the food chain on human health, while difficult to assess, are
deemed to pose serious risks by increasing, among others, cancers, genetic
problems, and reproductive issues (CIEL, 2019).
Though the mainstream media have recently covered the dangers of plastic
pollution, the policies to reduce production have not had much impact, as the
industry responded to the problem by promoting recycling as the only solution
(Changing Markets, 2020). Indeed, most plastics cannot be recycled at scale
and currently over 91% of plastics is not recycled (Parker, 2019) for various
reasons and goes to saturate landfills or ends up in incinerators, when it is not
dispersed in the natural environment.
However, the growing public concern about plastic pollution and its severe
consequences have also prompted several consumer-goods manufacturers to
promote voluntary initiatives to reduce (or even eliminate) plastic waste. The
Coca Cola company, for instance, launched a ‘World Without Waste’ pro-
gram in 2018 and announced it would use 50% recycled materials in all of its
packaging by 2030. Other manufacturers have launched similar initiatives to
make their business more sustainable and environmentally-friendly. More
generally, some of these initiatives remain vague, tend to distract attention
from real problems, but are nevertheless useful for building a company’s
reputation.

2.1 Background to the Case

The global food industry currently produces about a quarter of greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide, thus contributing significantly to climate change. The
Paris Agreement, a legally binding international treaty on climate change
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 73

signed in December 2015, nevertheless represents a turning point: for the first
time, the food industry, together with 195 world governments, has expressed
its support for this cause. The CEOs of 14 global companies – Coca-Cola,
General Mills, Kellogg’s, Mars, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever – have
confirmed their commitment to implementing actions to fight climate change.
As concurred in the Paris agreement, the food industry must take steps to
lower emissions, especially in the supply chain of agricultural raw materials,
responsible for most of the emissions in the sector. In the last decade, several
companies in the food industry have made important steps forward. For
example, they have tried to eliminate the phenomenon of deforestation in the
palm oil supply chains. Equal attention is expected to be paid to addressing the
problem of emissions in all the other supply chains from which they source
(e.g., reducing water use) and to reduce waste, especially of plastic type.
Several companies have developed strategies aimed at reducing the use of
single-use plastics, thus expressing the intent for a transition to a greener
business model based on more sustainable production and distribution models
that can minimise waste and pollution. It is however necessary that these
strategies move beyond the generic promises related to recycling and under-
take to progressively curb and stop the use of disposable plastic (Greenpeace,
2018).
On these lines, to address the environmental problem caused by the
increasing use of disposable plastics, the Swiss multinational Nestlé has
affirmed its commitment to the cause by promising that by 2025 its plastic
packaging will be fully recyclable or reusable. The goal is to eliminate
non-recyclable plastics from packaging. In a 2018 press release, Nestlé CEO
Mark Schneider said,

Plastic waste is one of the biggest sustainability issues the world is

facing today. Tackling it requires a collective approach. We are
committed to finding improved solutions to reduce, re-use and
recycle. Our ambition is to achieve 100% recyclable or reusable
packaging by 2025.

Specifically, Nestlé’s commitments are addressed to: (1) develop models for
collection, sorting and recycling in the countries where it operates; (2) research
different packaging solutions to reduce the use of plastic, facilitate recycling
and develop effective approaches to eliminate this type of waste; (3) increase
transparency, by including all information useful to guide the consumer
towards correct recycling on the product packaging; (4) promote a market for
recycled plastics in order to increase the percentage of recycled material in
packaging.
74 Greenwashing

In response to Nestlé’s statements, Greenpeace Oceans Campaigner Gra-

ham Forbes warns that:

Nestlé’s statement on plastic packaging includes more of the same

greenwashing baby steps to tackle a crisis it helped to create. It will
not actually move the needle toward the reduction of single-use
plastics in a meaningful way and sets an incredibly low standard as
the largest food and beverage company in the world. The statement
is full of ambiguous or non-existent targets, relies on ‘ambitions’ to
do better, and puts the responsibility on consumers rather than the
company to clean up its own plastic pollution. […] A company of
Nestlé’s size should be setting a strong standard to actually move
toward the reduction — and eventual phasing out — of throwaway
plastics. It should know by now that recycling efforts are not going
to clean up our oceans, waterways, and communities. On the
contrary, the company’s business as usual will only accelerate
plastic pollution.

After some months without replying, Nestlé’s CEO in an official statement

has admitted that

100% recyclability is not enough to successfully tackle the plastics

waste crisis. We need to push the boundaries and do more. We are
determined to look at every option to solve this complex challenge
and embrace multiple solutions that can have an impact now. We
believe in the value of recyclable and compostable paper-based
materials and biodegradable polymers, in particular where
recycling infrastructure does not exist. Collective action is vital,
which is why we are also engaging consumers, business partners
and all of our Nestlé colleagues to play their part.

Nestlè has thus rapidly adjusted its strategies by announcing, among others,
the creation of an Institute of Packaging Sciences to find solutions to avoid the
use of non-recyclable plastics and the development of new, sustainable pack-
aging materials. This change in strategy, however, has not been perceived by
environmental NGOs as sufficient. This is because Nestlé’s promises remain
vague and do not effectively contemplate the phasing out of throwaway
plastics.
In April 2019, Greenpeace launched the #plasticmonster campaign to call
out big corporations – and specifically Nestlè – from employing single-use
plastic packaging. Greenpeace activists delivered plastic monsters, created by
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 75

gathering plastic pollution from streets, rivers, and beaches, to Nestle’s global
headquarters in Switzerland and to other headquarters all over the world.

2.2 Case Analysis

The exploratory analysis of Nestlé’s case study has been focused on commu-
nication through the Nestlé Global Facebook page. The analysis of social
media communication is justified by the fact that social media increasingly
represent a direct and immediate way to initiate an online dialogue with the
company’s audience, even more crucial when companies aim at communi-
cating a significant strategic change in the field of sustainability and to gain
associated benefits in terms of reputation (Dutot, Galvez, & Versailles, 2016;
Vollero, Palazzo, Siano, & Foroudi, 2020).
Manual coding has been used to classify the content of each post, marking
with 1 the presence of a specific element, 0 in case of absence. Nine different
categories of greenwashing communication signals have been considered
(Siano, Conte, Amabile, Vollero, & Piciocchi, 2016; Terrachoice, 2007;
Vollero, 2013):

(1) lack of clarity. Clarity should be interpreted as the organisation’s ability

to communicate in an understandable and unambiguous way. The use of
technicalities and fluffy language can be associated with this first category
(Gillespie, 2008). An example could be seen in the Nestlé’s post of 24 June
2018, which says: ‘We need to protect water resources together’ with an
image of a snowy mountain. Both the post and the link to the website do
not provide clear information about the activities undertaken by the
company to protect the water sources. Indeed, it should be emphasised
that Nestlé has been accused of having reduced the level of groundwater
by 10 meters in the town of Vittel (France) which gives its name to the
well-known mineral water distributed by Nestlé all over the world. By
rejecting the accusations, Nestlè declared that it had voluntarily reduced
supplies by 20%, while acknowledging that this solution will not be
sufficient to solve the problem of water supplies in the town;

(2) vagueness. It occurs when the company issues vague statements, using
deceiving language to mislead the consumer about the true meaning. The
video post published with the hashtag #BeatPlasticPollution, focused on
the growing problem of plastic pollution, underlines the need to activate
an approach that involves all the interested parties in order to adequately
fight pollution, but appears very elusive in clarifying which actions Nestlè
76 Greenwashing

has effectively promoted, also considering its major role in the sale of
products with plastic packaging;

(3) lack of completeness. Completeness refers to the company’s ability to

convey all the main elements addressed to meet the information needs of
stakeholders. In the post of 21 November 2018, for example, a video is
presented with the headline: ‘We are removing salt and sugar from our
products. […]. Not enough evidence is provided to understand this
removal (or at least consistent reduction) in what it actually consists of.

(4) irrelevance. It takes the form of dissemination of truthful statements, but

of limited general importance. For example, the 22 February 2018 post
states that: ‘Eating more plant-based proteins can offer a simple (and
tasty) way to positively impact your health and the planet’ accompanied
by a photo of cereals and dried fruit. Although the statement is true, it is
not clear how Nestlè, one of the main producers of food products with
sugars and fats, can effectively contribute to healthier eating styles, also
because there is no reference to any in-depth information (e.g., recipes to
prepare tasty vegetable-based dishes or upcoming Nestlè products that go
in this direction);

(5) lack of credibility. The signal refers to the credibility of the messages:
companies often exaggerate the green aspects of their products and
associated results achieved in the environmental field. For example, in a
2018 post Nestlè proposes a simple method to help coffee farmers in
Vietnam reduce water waste. In addition to being hard to believe that all
of Nestlé’s Vietnamese farmers really use this trick to save water, there is
no convincing evidence to support the statement;

(6) trade-offs. It occurs if the organisation declares the sustainability of a

product or a process by directing attention to a particular set of attributes,
without considering other relevant sustainable aspects. Taking up the
previous post, the message seems to present trade-off signals, in the sense
that to produce the dose of coffee contained in a cup (approximately 6–7
grams), 140 litres of water must be used. From this perspective, the
expedient proposed by Nestlé seems to be aimed at hiding the massive
waste of water behind the intensive production of coffee;

(7) lack of reliability. It refers to the reliability of the environmental decla-

rations conveyed and to the presence of in-depth information that can
prove what has been said. In several posts, already reported above, no
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 77

official data are provided regarding the sustainability objectives while

there is often a shift of attention towards partial results;

(8) mandatory practices. This greenwashing signal occurs when the company
emphasises the sustainable features of its product or its business practices,
while these are required by current legislation. An example is the post
published in September 2018 on gender parity wages, a measure that in
Switzerland, and other countries where Nestlè operates, is required by
law;

(9) worshipping of false labels, such as focusing on self-produced certifica-

tions that are not verified by third parties. For example, posts boasting of
having achieved AWS (Alliance for Water Stewardship) certification for
two California plants appear self-celebrating considering the private
nature of the organisation and the presence of Nestlé among the financing
members. Nestlé’s certification should also be evaluated based on its
impact on water extraction in California, a State being constantly affected
by severe drought and devastating fires.

While the presence of these signals cannot assure the presence of green-
washing practices nor entail unethical behaviour by the company, it should be
noted that charges of greenwashing lie in the eyes of the beholders (Seele &
Gatti, 2017), and generally ‘stem from some environmental stance a corpo-
ration publicises without putting its rhetoric into practice’ (Vos, 2009, p. 674).
Among the 162 Facebook posts published on Nestlé’s Facebook page in
2018, 54.3% contain an image, 26% a video, and 19.7% only a link. More
generally, 93% of image and video posts include a link to the corporate
website, that represents the hub of the content communicated by the company.
A first step of the analysis was to verify how much content concerns
sustainability issues. By using the 3P model (Planet, People, and Profit –
Elkington, 1997), it emerges that 73.5% of posts present at least one dimen-
sion related to sustainability. The frequency of each dimension is presented in
Fig. 4.1.
The remaining 26.5% represents other types of content, such as content
related to community engagement, posts dedicated to employee communica-
tion and promotional messages linked to newly launched products. As for the
nine greenwashing signals previously discussed, it emerges that 54.9% of
analysed posts show one or more signals. More specifically, 74% of posts
related to sustainability present some greenwashing signals, and 41.9% of
posts show two or more signals of greenwashing. Fig. 4.2 exhibits the distri-
bution of the different greenwashing signals.
78 Greenwashing

Profit 16.9%

People 57.1%

Planet 26%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig. 4.1. Frequency of Sustainability Issues in Nestlè FB Posts (2018).

70
37.9%; 61
60
29.2%; 47
50
24.8%; 40 24.8%; 40
40
18.6%; 30
30 14.9%; 24
20
6.2%; 10
10 1.9%; 3
0.6%; 1
0

Fig. 4.2. Frequency of Greenwashing Signals in Nestlè FB Posts (2018).

A common theme is that of hidden ‘trade-offs’ and, in fact, 37.9% of the

total number of posts examined (and over 50% of sustainability-related posts)
present some CSR initiatives, without addressing other less sustainable (or
unsustainable) factors. A case in point is represented by posts pertaining to
plastic pollution and, specifically, those related to the development of a 100%
sustainable plastic bottle (i.e., 100% bio-based PET). While the timeline for
research to develop this type of bottle is clear and detailed, with precise
deadlines, no information is provided on how much of the bottles will be made
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 79

of bio-based material, and therefore contribute greatly to reducing plastic

pollution. This is consistent with the fact that almost all posts related to the
Planet category (96.8%; n 5 31) exhibit signs of greenwashing (an average of
3.3 greenwashing signals per post), while posts related to sustainability display
greenwashing in about two thirds of posts. This is also supported by ANOVA
analysis of these three groups (Planet: p , 0.001; F 5 21.8).
Lastly, an analysis of engagement of different types of posts was performed.
Each Nestlè Facebook post in 2018 generated on average 661 interactions
(sum of reactions, comments, and shares), but there is a huge difference
between the three sustainability categories (see Table 4.4).

Table 4.4. Average Interactions in Nestlè FB Posts (2018) per Sustainability

Dimension.
Sustainability Dimensions N Avg. Interactions

Planet 31 102.8
People 68 1078.3
Profit 20 107.9
Total 119 661.1

The posts related to the People sphere, namely relating to the protection of
the health and safety of workers and consumers, as well as to the well-being of
local communities, were more engaging for the public. To a lesser extent, the
posts attributable to the Profit dimension and lastly those relating to the Planet
dimension, with an average of 102.8 interactions per post.
Even more interestingly is the huge difference as regards engagement
between posts that present signals of greenwashing (318 interactions on
average) and posts with no signal (840 interactions on average). This indicates
that Facebook users are more likely to interact with content that does not
appear to be greenwashed.
The analysis of Nestlé’s Facebook communication appears to confirm
widespread practices of consumer goods manufacturers that could be accused
of greenwashing due to their impact on the environment and production of
plastic waste. It is interesting to note that consumers also seem more likely to
be engaged by communication that does not present signals of greenwashing,
thus indicating that the respect of some principles of communication is
necessary to avoid this type of allegation.
80 Greenwashing

3. CASE STUDY 3: GAR AND DJSI, GREENWASHING IN

SUSTAINABILITY INDICES?

Corporate sustainability indices (e.g., Dow Jones Sustainability Index, MSCI

KLD 400 Social Index, FTSE4Good Index) and ESG agencies (e.g., MSCI ESG
Ratings, Sustainalytics’ ESG Risk Ratings, Bloomberg ESG disclosure scores,
FTSE Russell’s ESG Ratings) are important sources of information to effec-
tively evaluate how a company is able to comply with commonly accepted
principles and parameters of corporate social responsibility. These sustain-
ability indices and ratings use non-financial performance measures to evaluate
the actual implementation of sustainable corporate policies (Arribas, Espinós-
Vaño, Garcı́a, & Riley, 2021; Escrig-Olmedo, Muñoz-Torres, &
Fernandez-Izquierdo, 2010). By observing them, stakeholders (investors, asset
managers, media, etc.) can thus appreciate the efforts made by companies in
accordance with sustainability principles. In turn, companies listed in these
indices can benefit from a general improvement of their reputation (Lourenço,
Callen, Branco, & Curto, 2014).
Companies have also tried to create their own sustainability indexes or
ratings, such as the ‘green rating’ created by Walmart, the world’s largest
retailer. This could be interpreted as a tentative of misleading self-promotion
by forcing their suppliers to guarantee specific environmental standards
(Mitchell & Ramey, 2011). This is exemplificative of the complexity of the
greenwashing mechanism along the supply chain, as evidenced by the phe-
nomenon of ‘vicarious greenwashing’ (Pizzetti et al., 2021), already discussed
in Chapter 3 par. 3.
More generally, however, sustainability standards and ratings make use of
different measures to evaluate the sustainability of companies’ actions, but
they cannot exclude the possibility of unethical practices that are masked in
the process of being included in these sustainability indexes or ratings.

3.1 Background to the Case

Golden Agri-Resources (GAR) Ltd. is a multinational company in the

agri-food sector, headquartered in Singapore, which deals with all phases of
palm oil transformation, from the cultivation and harvesting of palm oil trees,
extraction of crude palm oil (CPO), refining into edible oils (margarine,
cooking oils) and into biodiesels, and merchandising of palm products for
consumption. GAR operates in 12 countries and distributes its products in
more than 70 countries around the world. This includes China, India, and the
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 81

United States, as well as in various countries in Europe and the Middle East.
By vertically integrating its activities, GAR is able

to guarantee efficiency, quality and sustainability throughout our

supply chain. Our operations are driven by innovation and
sustainability, to ensure that GAR remains a global leader in
sustainable palm oil production.
(GAR official website, www.goldenagri.com/about-us)

According to the above quotation, GAR emphasises sustainability issues in

its communications by evoking these issues in the corporate mission, vision,
and shared values.
Among the most controversial activities of GAR, the cultivation of palm oil
plants in Indonesia has long been in the spotlight of the international media, as
in the well-known Greenpeace campaign against Nestlé, which showed the
effects of deforestation on endangered animal species. In March 2010,
Greenpeace in fact published a report stating Nestlé was buying palm oil from
unsustainable sources in Indonesia and West Africa. Greenpeace used a
combination of conventional media relations, guerrilla marketing and
sophisticated use of the Internet and social media for its campaign. The
communication campaign included the simultaneous launch of multiple
websites across the world, each with localised materials for followers to
download and spread the message, and a shocking emotive video clip
(awarded for Best Viral 2010 at Viral Video Awards), where an office worker
opens a Kit Kat chocolate bar and finds inside an orangutan’s finger.
Wang (2020) reported that GAR suffered accusations of land grabbing and
deforestation in Indonesia since 2013, when two ENGOs, Forest Peoples
Programme and TUK-Indonesia, accused GAR of having obtained villagers’
land without the consent of local communities. Nevertheless, in 2017 GAR
was the first (and the only) palm oil company to be included in the Dow Jones
Sustainability Index (DJSI). The inclusion was confirmed in 2018. In the fall
2018, the ENGO Friends of the Earth (FoE) accused both DJSI and GAR of
greenwashing, by stating that there was evidence of actions by GAR against
ethical and sustainable behaviour (Wang, 2020).
Other allegations of greenwashing against GAR (and its partner company
GVL in West Africa) have been presented during 2018, exposing some com-
plaints about the handling of community relations, such as intimidation of
villagers into signing agreements and demolition of religious sites. GAR was
also accused of using their membership to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm
Oil (RSPO) to evade their responsibilities. GAR spokeswoman, Wulan Suling,
82 Greenwashing

rebutted allegations, stating that GAR did not have full control of GVL
activities, even if it is the majority investor (Wang, 2020).
Following allegations of greenwashing, FoE asked GAR to recognise its
faults and DJSI to exclude the company from the index. RobecoSAM (inter-
national independent score provider of DJSI index) responded that inclusion in
DJSI was determined by a robust and uniform methodology and GAR was
then fully eligible for inclusion. GAR also stated that they collaborate with
RobecoSAM in the evaluation process and the issues with GVL were disclosed
(and the score in the index adjusted accordingly).
In 2019, however, DJSI removed GAR from its sustainability index after
some executives of GAR were arrested for corruption related to environmental
issues in Indonesia. The London Stock Exchange however has not considered
these facts sufficient to remove GAR from its sustainability index, FTSE4Good
Index, declaring that the company has however reached the threshold to be
listed. Currently, GAR’s ESG rating in the FTSE4Good Index is 3.3 out of 5,
due to its initiatives to implement the completion of Traceability to the
Plantation (TTP) for its entire palm supply chain (GAR reached 88% of TTP
at the end of 2021) and over 40 community relations projects, such as
Alternative Livelihood projects that helped people to improve food security
during the pandemic.

3.2 Case Analysis

The exploratory analysis of the GAR case study followed the same approach
as in the above-mentioned Nestlè study. Accordingly, social media commu-
nication is considered central to understanding how a company communicates
its sustainability efforts to the public and how those acts of communication
risk being accused of greenwashing.
A total of 185 posts have been analysed from the GAR Facebook page,
almost equally divided between September and October 2021. A coding
scheme has been developed to categorise the content of each post (1 5 pres-
ence; 0 5 absence). Sustainability issues have been classified into eight cate-
gories, namely palm oil (content highlighting the effectiveness of a
reformulated product), benefits to the immune system, food security, work
inclusion, community issues, animal food, animal protection, and biofuels. As
for greenwashing signals, six main categories have been considered. Lastly,
main communication goals have been identified.
As expected, the most discussed topic (Fig. 4.3) is palm oil, GAR’s core
product, which appears in almost two thirds of posts (62.2%). The #palmoil
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 83

140

120 62.2%; 115

100

41.6%; 77
80

60
24.3%; 45
40 18.9%; 35

20 8.1%; 15 7%; 13
4.9%; 9
2.7%; 5
0
Palm oil Community Food security Work Benefits to Animal Biofuels Animal food
issues inclusion immune protecon
system

Fig. 4.3. Frequency of Sustainability Issues in GAR FB Posts

(September–October 2021).

hashtag is frequently used to classify posts but also to facilitate the search and
subsequent visualisation of all conversations where the same hashtag is pre-
sent. For example, in the post of 29 October 2021, it is stated that ‘#Palmoil
plays an important role in healthier global diets […]’. The other issues present
in the Facebook posts with higher frequencies are community issues (41.6% of
total posts), food security (24.3%) and inclusion in work contexts (18.9%).
Fig. 4.4 illustrates instead the distribution of the different greenwashing
signals. The most frequent category is ‘Vagueness’ (68.1% of the total number
of posts) as GAR communicates several sustainability initiatives, but it is
hardly to get the full picture of the problem. For example, the term ‘healthier’
is used nearly in 7% of total posts, and in most of them it is difficult to

140
68.1%; 126
120

100
47%; 87
80
30.8%; 57 29.2%; 54
60
23.2%; 43
40 15.7%; 29

20

0
Vagueness* Lack of Irrelevance Mandatory Lack of reliability Lack of credibility
completeness practices

Fig. 4.4. Frequency of Greenwashing Signals in GAR FB Posts

(October–November 2021). Note: * ‘Vagueness’ Includes Also ‘Lack of
Clarity’ Category.
84 Greenwashing

understand to what it refers concretely. In the vast majority of cases, the claims
are backed up by links to official websites and corporate employees the main
sources to support these claims. As for signals in the category ‘Lack of
completeness’, it emerges that posts seem to omit important information that is
relevant to evaluate the environmental impact of its products. For example, the
post of 7 September 2021 states: ‘Supporting certified #sustainablepalmoil is
the way to go. Small steps in educating end consumers about ethical palm oil
goes a long way.’ and a link to the website pointing to a generic ‘News’ sec-
tion. It is not clear what certified palm oil means or the specific role consumers
play in the process. In little less of one third of posts, posts focus on less
relevant themes, for example when stating: ‘There are many steps needed
before we get that golden palm oil you see at the supermarket.’ whose sig-
nificance is not clear or at least mostly self-referential. In addition, the signal
labelled as ‘mandatory practices’ is present in about 30% of posts. A case in
point is represented by the two posts published on 3 September 2021: ‘At
GAR, we are committed to ensure the rights of all our workers are respected,
including freedom of association and trade union membership & occupational
health and safety (OHS).’ and ‘#DYK that GAR has more than 20 commit-
ments on labour practices in our GSEP? These are aligned with the Indonesian
Labour regulations and the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and
Rights at Work.’ in which the company brags to respect fundamental rights of
their workers. In a small part, GAR posts seem to lack of reliability. The
frequent use of emphatic words or superlative expressions, such as ‘super
ingredient’ (to describe palm oil) or the ‘most versatile vegetable oil’ (n 5 5)
could be at risk to be perceived as insincere, mainly due to the lack of
third-party support to these claims.
The results from the analysis of greenwashing signals resonate with GAR
main goals expressed by its FB posts. Over 80% of the time, it seems the
company would like to inform and educate customers about the benefits of
palm oil (and related products), and in about two thirds of instances, the
company would like to improve its brand image.
A news report from Bloomberg shows however that accusations of
destruction of forests and complaints of local communities in Indonesia and
West Africa are still an issue for GAR (de Bassompierre, Kishan, & Sguazzin,
2021). The company is under media scrutiny for its business practices that put
at risk biodiversity and underpay local communities.
More generally, however, this poses serious questions about the inaccuracy
of measurement by ESG ratings that paradoxically can ‘protect’ greenwashers
because these indexes do not exert enough pressure to change organisational
behaviour. This has led to protests against investment funds and banks that
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 85

continue to make profit by acquiring shares in controversial industries, such as

palm oil companies. For example, BlackRock (one of the largest multinational
investment management corporations) declared that they expect that the giant
oil palm company should pay more attention to environmental and social
issues (de Bassompierre et al., 2021) but the fund continues to invest in such
type of companies.
The problem with sustainability indexes and rankings seems linked to the
use of self-reported information and weighting criteria. These factors are
somehow biased as they allow to hide the most controversial aspects of
companies’ operations (Wang, 2020). On these lines, by investigating DJSI
World selection process, Arribas et al. (2021) found that, while companies
accused of poor behaviour in social and environmental fields are less likely to
be included in the index, the number of controversies seems to have an impact
only on already listed companies. In other words, the number of controversies
is not likely to affect the probability of being included for a company which
was not included in the DJSI the previous year. This is an alarming result as
companies with poor environmental and social performance, or even whose
behaviour is clearly irresponsible, are not excluded from being listed in sus-
tainability indexes and ESG ratings. This situation can also damage the
credibility and reputation of the same indexes, as it reveals that the selection is
not thorough. Further research is needed to understand how to make the
screening criteria currently used by ESG agencies more stringent, by avoiding
greenwashers to be listed together with authentic sustainable companies.
The rush towards the creation of ‘new’ sustainability metrics and rankings
is therefore likely to lead to inconsistencies, as found in the GAR case. On the
other hand, however, the greater visibility of the companies included in sus-
tainability indices can create more stakeholder pressure and public scrutiny. It
remains necessary for companies that would like to communicate their sus-
tainability efforts properly to follow guidelines that allow them to avoid
accusations of greenwashing. This is valid for virtuous companies that can be
unprepared in managing communication and, due to the rising stakeholder
scepticism (Nyilasy, Gangadharbatla, & Paladino, 2014), could be at risk of
(unfair) greenwashing accusations.

4. MANAGERIAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR

SUSTAINABILITY COMMUNICATION

From the analysis of the above-described case studies, a variety of situations

were found, ranging from intentional greenwashing phenomena in which
86 Greenwashing

companies’ willingness to mislead stakeholders is clear to more blurred situ-

ations in which companies’ intentionality cannot be determined safely. To
manage these different instances, and to avoid the risk of greenwashing
accusations when a company’s actions are truly sustainable, appropriate
management of corporate communication is required, both at a strategic and
operational level.
From a strategic standpoint, three types of activities can be considered as
crucial for limiting greenwashing risks (Vollero, 2013):

(1) organised listening activity, which is designed to understand the expec-

tations of the public (Cornelissen, 2008; Invernizzi, 2004) and to define
the most appropriate sustainability orientation and initiatives;

(2) reflective communication, an activity that aims to support the members of

the dominant coalition, through the transfer of useful information about
the expectations and perceptions of the public (Van Ruler, 2015). The
communication manager can guide the vision and encourage any revis-
itation of the guiding values, to make strategic sustainability decisions in
line with the expectations of the various stakeholders. This activity
therefore provides the inputs to translate the results of the listening
activity into responsible behaviour;

(3) communication strategy. The communication strategy serves to provide

distinctiveness to sustainability actions of a company. Decisions relating
to the communication strategy for sustainability (Morsing & Schultz,
2006; Vollero, Conte, Siano, & Covucci, 2019) play a central role in
determining possible accusations in terms of greenwashing.

These strategic activities and decisions are followed by operational

communication decisions (D) which represent the most visible part of
communication and are more frequently subjected to public scrutiny (Vollero,
2013).
In Table 4.5, the main triggers of greenwashing risk are presented for each
type of sustainable communication management activity.
As for organised listening activity (A), it must be noted that being in contact
with stakeholders does not mean considering them as mere receivers of
communication activities (one-way approach) but truly understanding the
specific characteristics of each group through effective involvement, mutual
responsibility, sharing of information and open dialogue (Miles, Munilla, &
Darroch, 2006; Waddock, 2001). In fact, constructive approaches to
communication maintain that symmetrical two-way communication is based
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 87

Table 4.5. Sustainability Communication Management and Triggers of

Greenwashing.
Sustainability
Communication
Management Triggers of Greenwashing Risk

Strategic management of communication

Organised listening A1 One-way (or asymmetrical two-way) approach
activity (Schultz & Wehmeier, 2010; Vollero et al., 2019) with
few touchpoints with stakeholders (Palazzo, 2019;
Peloza & Falkenberg, 2009)
A2 Gap between the statements/claims of
sustainability and the actual perceptions of
stakeholders (Crilly et al., 2016; Signitzer & Prexl,
2008; Swaen & Vanhamme, 2004)
A3 Short-term commitment to sustainability and
opportunistic behaviour (Pomering & Johnson,
2009; Truong & Pinkse, 2019)
Reflective communication B1 Decisions made exclusively by top managers, not
fully communicated to other parties (Basu &
Palazzo, 2008; Ligeti & Oravecz, 2009)
B2 Lack of coordination in CSR internal communication
(Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Pollach et al., 2012)
Communication strategy C1 Unclear communication strategy (Dawkins, 2005)
aimed to hide negative aspects (Laufer, 2003;
Vollero et al., 2016)
C2 Profit as the main motivation for company’s
commitment in sustainability (Becker-Olsen et al.,
2006; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013)
Operative management of communication
Communication mix D1 Attractive messages (fluffy language,
nature-evoking symbols, etc.) with excessive
emphasis on positive (but marginal) aspects of
sustainability (Marquis & Toffel, 2012; Parguel,
Benoit-Moreau, & Russell, 2015)
D2 Generic descriptions of initiatives, without the
support of facts/data (Jaworska, 2018; Pomering &
Johnson, 2009)
D3 Lack of third-party endorsement or positive word of
mouth (Du et al., 2010; Fieseler et al., 2010;
Matthes, 2019)
88 Greenwashing

iteratively on the processes of sensemaking and sensegiving (Morsing &

Schultz, 2006). The most frequent mistake (A1) is to propose a limited set of
touch points that limits collaboration activities with stakeholders (Palazzo,
2019; Peloza & Falkenberg, 2009). When two-way communication is imple-
mented in a superficial way without effective stakeholder involvement (Schultz
& Wehmeier, 2010; Vollero et al., 2019), there is an increasing risk of
generating a boomerang effect, due to the rising scepticism of stakeholders
(Elving, 2014). A real participatory approach to CSR programs seems to have
beneficial effects in terms of perceived self-efficacy and stakeholders’ intentions
to generate positive word-of-mouth related to the company’s CSR efforts (Park
& Kim, 2021).
In the organised listening activity, a further trigger of greenwashing risk
(A2) can be identified in the gap between the statements/claims of sustain-
ability and the actual perceptions of stakeholders. This gap can lead to
negative effects for the firm and its products (Crilly, Hansen, & Zollo, 2016;
Signitzer & Prexl, 2008; Swaen & Vanhamme, 2004), also due to the distance
between perceived and desired identity (Balmer, Fukukawa, & Gray, 2007;
Van de Ven, 2008). In this case, the risk of greenwashing essentially coincides
with the reputational risk, identified as a mismatch between the promises
expressed in the company’s communication and the results perceived by the
various stakeholders (Siano, 2012).
Finally, greenwashing allegations referring to this activity (A3) may be
indicative of a short-term company’s commitment (Pomering & Johnson,
2009; Waddock, 2001). In line with attribution theory, the company’s posi-
tion is deemed as mainly opportunistic, aimed at capitalising on the potential
advantages of a green image (Truong & Pinkse, 2019).
Several studies show that the initiatives presented in the sustainability
reports often do not explain the ways in which stakeholder expectations,
needs, etc., derived from the organised listening activity, are effectively
translated into operational indications (Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Pedersen,
2006; Wickert, Scherer, & Spence, 2016). It often happens, however, that
decisions on sustainability and the related communication strategy are taken in
most cases by top management without being fully shared within the com-
pany, nor communicated to interested parties (Basu & Palazzo, 2008).
Generally, employees are not constantly involved in the decision-making
process regarding sustainability and usually receive one-way messages on
the decisions made by the CEO and top managers (Ligeti & Oravecz, 2009).
These types of top-down messages are at high risk of being perceived as
insincere (B1) and do not allow companies to fully exploit the potential of
employees as ‘active communicators’ of sustainability (Dawkins, 2005), that
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 89

is, as credible sources of information for other stakeholders (Cramer, Jonker,

& van der Heijden, 2004).
The lack of intra-organisational coordination can also lead to problems in
external communication. For example, there is a risk that some data may be
misjudged by communication managers within the company, causing an
overestimation of the sustainability aspects (Delmas & Burbano, 2011;
Pollach, Johansen, Nielsen, & Thomsen, 2012). A case in point is the Lexus
RX 400h, advertised with the following headline: ‘High performance. Low
emissions. Zero guilt’. Although from a technical point of view the car had the
lowest emissions in the 4 3 4 segment, the claim of ‘zero guilt’ was a clear
overstatement, considering that by type (SUV) the car could not have a zero
environmental impact. The advertisement in question was indicated by the
Advertising Standards Authority (independent control authority on adver-
tising in the United Kingdom) as an example of greenwashing, demonstrating
that a good result achieved in terms of sustainability performance risks is at
risk of having opposite effects, if communicated improperly (Vollero, Palazzo,
Siano, & Elving, 2016).
The development of a clear communication strategy (C1) that considers the
aspects of the responsibility program that best align with the corporate
reputation and the concerns of stakeholders is the first aspect of the commu-
nication strategy to keep in mind (Dawkins, 2005). If a company fails to define
the core themes that distinguish its sustainability actions, it frequently reveals
an attempt to hide the nature of the problem (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Laufer,
2003), to conceal the negative consequences of its conduct, and to dispel
allegations of poor sustainability (C2). This constitutes a practice of attention
deflection (Marquis & Toffel, 2012), which serves to avoid revealing the real
performance on certain critical aspects in terms of sustainability.
A further trigger of greenwashing is represented by the attributions of
motivations perceived by stakeholders (Parguel, Benoı̂t-Moreau, & Larceneux,
2011). As shown in attribution theory studies on greenwashing, consumer
scepticism appears to be higher when profit (C3) – and other extrinsic moti-
vations – appear to be the main reason for commitment to sustainability
(Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Elving, 2014; Skarmeas & Leonidou,
2013; Van de Ven, 2008). However, it must be noted that other studies (Foreh
& Grier, 2003; Hafenbrädl & Waeger, 2021) have argued that a clear
explanation of the objectives (including instrumental reasons) of communi-
cation, can increase the credibility of the messages. The two positions should
not be seen in contrast: the fit between the motivation of a sustainability
initiative and the company’s core activities is generally appreciated by con-
sumers (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006).
90 Greenwashing

The operational management of communication for sustainability (D) is the

most critical phase for the risk of greenwashing, precisely because it is
continuously subject to the evaluation of stakeholders. Companies often tend
to use attractive messages not based on reality (Cornelissen, 2008; Jaworska,
2018), with suggestive images and a ‘fluffy language’ (Gillespie, 2008), full of
technicalities (Iraldo & Melis, 2012) or with terms such as eco-friendly or
recyclable (D1), without showing the concrete indicators (KPIs) to which they
refer (D2).
Selective disclosure mechanisms often tend to highlight only certain ele-
ments of the product/service that demonstrate the positive impact of sustain-
ability actions, usually of marginal relevance when considered from a broader
perspective. These mechanisms are closely linked to company-controlled
communication messages (sustainability reports, advertising messages, press
releases, statements from top managers, etc.), i.e., planned communication. In
this regard, the use of independent third-party sources of communication (and
certification) may prove useful for increasing both the accuracy and credibility
of the communication for sustainability (Swaen & Vanhamme, 2004;
Matthes, 2019; Parguel et al., 2011). In other words, ‘there is likely to be a
trade-off between the controllability and credibility of CSR communication;
the less controllable the communicator is, the more credible it is, and vice
versa’ (Du et al., 2010, p. 13). The same favourable effect (D3) can also be
generated by stimulating positive word of mouth from consumers on social
media (Du et al., 2010; Fieseler, Fleck, & Meckel, 2010).
The triggers of greenwashing risk can be considered as guidelines for sus-
tainability communication management. The compliance with these principles
limits the reputational risk (linked to greenwashing) and, on the other hand,
favours the development of reputational capital (Siano, 2012).

4.1 Avoiding the Greenwashing Trap: From Strategic Management to

Media Mix for CSR Communication

To summarise, the most complex challenge concerns the strategic management

of communication for sustainability. Addressing stakeholder engagement and
developing shared (sustainability) meanings means questioning organisational
practices and business processes (often consolidated) to achieve an active
involvement of the company’s stakeholders (Park & Kim, 2021). This
engagement can help companies to elaborate the development of a sustainable
identity and to adopt a more responsible behaviour. Starting from within the
organisation, it becomes necessary to enrich, share and disseminate the
Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 91

founding principles of the approach to sustainability by providing all inter-

ested stakeholders with the most appropriate tools. As a result, it is appro-
priate to abandon a short-term sustainability strategy, and to clarify a
company’s commitment to fulfilling the promises made in its sustainability
communication. Through effective stakeholder engagement, the various
audiences can participate in defining priorities in communication activities and
decisions. In addition, they can contribute to generating CSR programs that
are grounded in sustainability principles. This makes it possible to reduce the
gap with the results perceived by the various stakeholders and to avoid the
related allegations of greenwashing.
By adopting sustainability as the company’s business approach, the
commitment to sustainability must be communicated without ambiguity,
showing which part the company wants to play. The company, as a social
institution, must oversee the process, building a narrative of its contribution to
the shared goal of sustainable development. This can be done by exposing
what each actor (governments, business, civil society organisations, con-
sumers) can do to participate in the entire process. Therefore, merely declaring
a commitment to sustainability, or describing only the company’s own per-
formance in accordance with the specific rules of social and environmental
accountability, will not suffice. To face the challenge of innovation for sus-
tainability, it seems necessary to create common grounds for dialogue and
sharing within the stakeholder network in which the company is embedded.
From the point of view of operative communication management, however,
it is essential to express the commitment to sustainability by adapting it to the
principles of truthful, complete, and transparent communication (Cornelissen,
2008; Siano, 2012; Vollero, 2013). CSR communication that uses precise
supporting data (certified by third parties) and a language that is accessible can
help reduce the risk of greenwashing.
In terms of media mix, a proper assessment of owned, paid and earned
media for CSR communication could be made (Table 4.6) to avoid the
‘greenwashing trap’.
These are the different types of channels (and associated content) a com-
pany can use to reach its stakeholders. Since they refer to company-controlled
channels of communication, owned media are particularly useful to express
the orientation and profile of a company in terms of sustainability. These types
of media (e.g., corporate websites, social media accounts, etc.) can expose a
recognisable CSR identity through mission and vision statements, corporate
values, and improve the distinctiveness of a company’s position. Owned media
also allow enriching the reporting documents with texts, images, and graphs,
92 Greenwashing

Table 4.6. Operative Communication for CSR: Recommended Use of

Owned, Paid and Earned Media.
Owned Media Paid Media Earned Media

Communicating the social Confusion risk with other Providing space for
responsibility of companies ADV messages that are third-party sources to
by more directly linking it to intrinsically commercial and contribute to the credibility
their mission, vision, and persuasive of CSR information
corporate culture
Giving a more identifiable Risk of reinforcing a Fostering corporate CSR
identity to CSR scepticism toward CSR communications and actions
communication by using communication, since these to be proactive
corporate communication are paid channels
tools and channels (advertisements)
Enriching the transmission of Inability to transfer a wealth Promoting co-creation in
CSR information by of information on CSR CSR communications
incorporating specific KPIs activities
into the reporting process
Enabling two-way CSR Proactivity and interaction Encouraging two-way CSR
communication are not favoured communication

thus presenting specific KPIs in a more accessible and transparent way.

Properly implemented, these media can also enable stakeholders’ interactivity,
thus favouring symmetrical two-way communication.
Paid media (such as SEM, display, video or print ads) instead may be at risk
of causing misperceptions with more commercial advertising activities. Offline
and online sponsored initiatives are at risk of reinforcing scepticism towards a
company’s sustainability communication, as they can be perceived as less
sincere and genuine. Due to specific ads formats, they rarely give the possibility
to present rich sustainability information and engender instead the risk of
making trivial a company’s commitment to sustainability.
Lastly, earned media, namely word-of-mouth recommendations, consumer
comments, natural inclusion of a company’s message into external media, may
reinforce a company’s CSR communication by adding the trustworthiness of a
third party. Earned media can indeed favour the co-creation of CSR com-
munications, for example user-generated content by consumers or other
stakeholders, that can foster a proactive approach to CSR and increase a
company’s social legitimacy.
 Case Studies and Managerial Guidelines 93

The use of non-corporate sources in communication, in fact, through the

endorsement of independent third parties that provide accurate information on
the sustainability of business processes, can help reduce the scepticism of
stakeholders, increasing the credibility of the messages. For the same purpose,
the use of media channels based on a many-to-many approach, such as social
media, can encourage activities to stimulate extroversion (e.g., customer
engagement to encourage the creation of user-generated content on sustain-
ability issues), thus reducing the perceived distance between the parties
(Vollero, 2013).
Understanding of the key elements that determine the risk of greenwashing
is very useful for identifying a series of operating principles and practices.
These principles and practices are capable of neutralising, or at least miti-
gating, this danger. To avoid the risk of greenwashing, communication for
sustainability cannot simply be interpreted as a persuasive communication
method. Instead, it means understanding it as an approach from which com-
panies can draw motivations and resources to continually renew their own
license to operate.

Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges all the members of Sustainability Communi-
cation Centre (SCC) of University of Salerno, and particularly prof. Alfonso Siano,
prof. Francesca Conte, dr. Sara Amabile for collecting the data, analysing, and
providing useful insights for the elaboration of the Volkswagen case study. The
Author is also grateful to former master students Antonella Genua and Roberta
Guzzon for helping with the collection of data for Nestlè and GAR cases.

View publication stats