COMPANIES make misrepresentations all the time – some harmless, others severe – but one type of falsehood is particularly insidious in current times: greenwashing.

It’s hardly hyperbole to say that the world is already burning. Last Monday (Mar 20), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) delivered what was widely viewed as the “final warning” on the climate crisis, urging policymakers to take action immediately to cut emissions or “miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity” to avert disaster.

Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is achievable, but would require a “quantum leap in climate action”, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. Essentially, it’s do it now or never – efforts to develop climate resilience will become increasingly futile if global warming levels exceed 1.5 deg C and outright impossible in some regions once warming breaches 2 deg C.

The desire to save the planet has spurred a growing number of consumers and investors to be more conscious of where they put their money in recent years. It is heartening to see that people increasingly want to ensure the companies they support are helping the environment, whether it involves clean energy, plastics or recycling.

But this enthusiasm to be eco-conscious can also be easily exploited by corporates that want to further their own agenda or maximise earnings. This could take the form of misleading claims or dubious solutions for environmental problems. Greenwashing, if uncovered, can lead to disenchantment among consumers and an erosion of trust towards corporations in general. In the long run, it could foster deep cynicism, causing people to give up on doing good for the environment if they start to believe their efforts are futile. Organisations that greenwash don’t just deceive their customers, but are in fact doing a great disservice to mankind. They should be seen and treated as saboteurs in humanity’s ultimate fight to rescue the world.

It is thus imperative for governments to strengthen regulation against greenwashing, alongside other measures to cut emissions and improve sustainability. On Mar 22, the European Commission took a step in this direction, unveiling a regulatory framework for environmental labels, which it said must be reliable and based on science. Green groups were quick to point out though that allowing companies to buy carbon offsets and tree-planting are akin to greenwashing since these actions are less effective than cutting emissions.

A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU

Friday, 12.30 pm

ESG Insights

An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues.

Sign Up

Singapore is also studying developments on greenwashing in other jurisdictions, “to assess if any specific guidance or regulations would be useful” in the local context, as Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Alvin Tan, told Parliament recently. Meanwhile, current laws are “sufficiently broad” to address greenwashing claims, he said, adding that consumer watchdogs have not received any specific complaints.

Relying on consumers to sound the alarm is a tall order, since consumers do not know what they do not know, and greenwashing is precisely designed to deceive them. Instead, there is arguably greater scope for the government to use its executive powers to compel organisations to be truthful about their environmental impact. One good way to start is to come down harder on offenders with harsher penalties that can perhaps then be channelled towards legitimate environmental causes.