Greenwashing Terms Explained: What They Actually Mean 

Sustainability is full of terminology that can feel confusing, especially as regulations around environmental claims become stricter. Terms that were once common in marketing are now being challenged by regulators, while others have very specific meanings that organisations need to understand before using them. 

Whether you’re writing website copy, creating a sustainability report, or trying to understand the language around climate action, here’s a glossary of some of the most important greenwashing terms to know. The key is understanding what they mean, and ensuring every claim is backed by evidence.

Greenwashing 

Greenwashing is the practice of making a business, product or service appear more environmentally friendly than it really is. Sometimes this is deliberate, but more often than not it isn’t. Businesses can greenwash by: 

• Using vague language
• Overstating environmental benefits
• Leaving out important context
• Making claims without evidence  

Even organisations doing impactful sustainability work can mislead customers if their communications aren’t accurate or substantiated. 

Greenhushing

Greenhushing is almost the opposite of greenwashing, but still something to avoid. 

Instead of exaggerating sustainability efforts, businesses avoid talking about them altogether because they’re worried about saying the wrong thing, and avoid the risk of disclosing targets they can’t meet. 

Whilst this may seem safer, it can reduce transparency and make it harder for customers and stakeholders to understand the positive work the business is undertaking – but is too concerned about greenwashing to talk about.

Net Zero 

Net Zero means reducing greenhouse gas emissions across Scope 1, 2 and 3 as much as possible, typically by around 90%, before neutralising the remaining emissions. Simply saying your business is “working towards Net Zero” isn’t enough; the same goes for a super-in-the-distant-future goal that you don’t have near-term action points to work toward.  

A credible Net Zero claim should include: 

• A published reduction pathway  
• A target date
• Interim milestones
• Evidence of ongoing progress

Without these, the claim becomes difficult to substantiate.  If Net Zero is feeling a little blurry for you, take a look at our article on building a Net Zero roadmap.

Carbon Offsetting

Carbon offsetting involves funding verified projects that remove or avoid greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere to compensate for emissions that cannot currently be eliminated. Offsetting can play a legitimate role in climate action, but businesses should clearly explain: 

• Which offsetting scheme they use
• What emissions are being offset
• That offsetting is used for compensating for emissions, not removing the need to reduce them  

Carbon Neutral 

Carbon Neutral was once a widely used marketing phrase, but it’s now considered a much higher-risk claim, and is something we have dropped at Positive Planet to avoid any confusion. The standards governing carbon-neutral claims changed in January 2025, introducing stricter requirements for verification and offsetting. 

Organisations should only use this term when it complies with the latest standards and can be independently verified. In many cases, there is a shift away from using the phrase altogether in favour of more specific, evidence-based language.   

Science-Based Targets (SBTi) 

Science-Based Targets are emissions reduction targets that align with climate science and are validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). 

Importantly, businesses shouldn’t claim to have science-based targets until those targets have been formally submitted and approved.

Insetting

Insetting focuses on reducing emissions within your own supply chain rather than paying for reductions elsewhere. 

Examples might include: 

• Working with suppliers to reduce emissions
• Investing in lower-carbon materials
• Improving agricultural practices within your supply chain  

Because the reductions happen within your own operations or value chain, insetting is often viewed as a stronger long-term approach than relying solely on offsetting.

Nature-based solutions

Nature-based solutions are projects that use natural systems to tackle environmental challenges while also delivering social and economic benefits.

Examples include woodland creation, peatland restoration, and habitat regeneration.

Claims around nature-based solutions are most credible when they’re linked to specific projects with measurable outcomes rather than broad environmental statements.

Eco-friendly

Despite being one of the most common sustainability claims, “eco-friendly” has no fixed legal definition and is one of the more common greenwashing terms. 

Without supporting evidence, it tells customers very little and is increasingly viewed as a high-risk claim. 

Instead of saying a product is “eco-friendly”, explain exactly what makes it environmentally better and provide evidence. 

Sustainable

Sustainable is another broad term that often lacks context and leads organisations astray. A product, service or organisation can’t simply be described as “sustainable” without explaining why. 

Businesses should support the claim with measurable actions, recognised standards or independently verified data rather than relying on the word alone.

Natural and Chemical Free

These terms are frequently misunderstood. Natural doesn’t automatically mean environmentally friendly, while “chemical-free” is often scientifically inaccurate. 

Claims like these can unintentionally mislead consumers if they’re not properly explained.  

Recyclable

Describing something as recyclable may be technically correct, but context matters. 

If local recycling infrastructure can’t actually process the material, or customers may reasonably be misled. 

Businesses should provide clear information about how and where products can be recycled whenever possible, as clearly as possible.