Greenwashing is rarely a deliberate lie. In our experience it is usually an unverified enthusiasm — a claim that ran ahead of its evidence. Here is the five-question test we apply.
1. Is it specific? "Sustainable packaging" means nothing; "packaging from 80% recycled fibre, verified by X" means something. Vague claims are the single most common trigger for regulatory findings.
2. Is it evidenced? Every figure should trace to a source a third party could inspect. If the data lives in a colleague’s spreadsheet, it is not evidence yet.
3. Is it material? Highlighting a minor green initiative while the core business impact goes unmentioned is selective truth — and audiences increasingly recognise it as such.
4. Is it consistent? The claim must match what the annual report, the lobbying record and the employee experience say. Contradiction anywhere undoes communication everywhere.
5. Would you defend it under scrutiny? Not in a press release — in a hearing. If the honest answer is no, the claim is not ready.
We recommend making this test a standing gate in the approval flow, owned jointly by communications and sustainability teams — not a one-off workshop. The test takes minutes; a greenwashing finding takes years to live down.
The reward is not just risk avoided. Organisations known for disciplined claims earn a hearing for their genuine achievements — which is the entire point of communicating them.
A claim you would not defend in a hearing is not ready for a headline.