Summary.    Whether you call it propaganda or greenwashing, companies have long used marketing to tout the good they do for the environment while obfuscating any negative externalities of their businesses. However, thanks to the rise of the internet and social...

The term greenwashing was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986 as a rebuke to companies that claimed to be environmentally friendly without offering any evidence to back up their claims. Recall, for example, Chevron’s 1980s ad campaigns featuring employees lovingly protecting cute sea turtles while the company was spilling oil into wildlife refuges and violating clean air laws.

But greenwashing existed well before that in a form that could instead be described as incredibly effective propaganda. Consider “Keep America Beautiful,” the nonprofit founded by beverage makers including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Anheuser-Busch in the 1950s as they were beginning to rely more heavily on plastics. Its purported mission was to encourage environmental stewardship, but the ulterior motive seems to have been to shift the blame for plastic waste pollution from the companies to their customers. In 1971, with the Ad Council, the group released its infamous “Crying Indian” TV commercial, which showed a Native American — actually an Italian-American actor with a feather in braided hair — crying over trash on the ground. This supposed public service announcement leveraged collective guilt over the nation’s history of violence against indigenous people to convince viewers that they were to blame for any litter generated by the new, disposable packaging that was improving corporate profits. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, those same companies aggressively fought legislation that would have made them more responsible for plastic disposal.

Decades later, BP followed the same playbook in developing the phrase “carbon footprint” and trying to persuade individuals that their personal choices were driving the climate crisis, when in reality 100 companies, including BP, had been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. In 2018 marketing materials, BP urged consumers to go on a “low-carbon diet” and touted its extremely modest forays into renewable energy, which amounted to less than 2.3% of its annual budget.

Whether you call it propaganda or greenwashing, the tactics worked well for a time, and myths around individual responsibility for global crises persist today. However, thanks to the rise of the internet and social media and the proliferation of data on ESG performance, the tide seems to be turning. Consumers (and employees) now understand that corporate marketing doesn’t always reflect reality and are doing more than ever to pressure companies to practice what they preach.

While extensively researching solutions to environmental challenges I’ve spoken with dozens of advocates, regulators, consumers and business leaders — not only those who’ve tried to obfuscate poor environmental records with creative ads but also those truly working to improve their ESG records and market those efforts. After years of these conversations, I’ve concluded that the most powerful way for businesses to prove they are not greenwashers or propagandists is to support meaningful regulations to ensure that their entire sector or industry will do the right thing.

As a first step, companies can exit trade groups that lobby against regulations that would better protect the environment and human health, or use their influence within those groups to oppose those lobbying efforts. They can also communicate more openly and consistently with regulatory agencies about the support needed and the timelines that are reasonable to efficiently transition to more sustainable business practices.

When companies that will have to adhere to new regulations endorse them, it makes a strong statement to customers and prompts competitors to follow their lead. A prime example: In 2020, large auto manufacturers including Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Ford, Volkswagen, and BMW announced they wouldn’t adhere to the Trump administration’s rollback of emission standards and would instead continue to comply with the previous standards enacted by the Obama administration to reduce planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions. The move was a PR boon for these companies, but more importantly, a significant win for the planet.

BeautyCounter, a makeup and personal care producer and retailer, offers another case study in how to get this right. In addition to making products free of a long list of toxic chemicals banned in many other countries but still legal in the United States, the company actively advocates for health-protective legislation at both the federal and state level, initiating or supporting more than 2,100 meetings, 16,000 calls, and 200,000 emails to lawmakers about this issue.

When consumers see actions like these, they know for certain that corporate ESG efforts aren’t just for show. Advocating for appropriate, science-backed regulations that will protect people and the planet shows true commitment to sustainability.