The focus on environmental issues pushes companies to market products as eco-friendly, often leading to misleading claims. What is the risk of exaggerating “green” credentials to improve corporate image? This practice, known as greenwashing, may have serious legal and reputational consequences.
A recent case of greenwashing involved a multinational company based in the Netherlands operating in the logistics sector, including the Italian market. The company was sanctioned for unfair commercial practices by the Italian Competition Authority (i.e. Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM), an independent administrative body responsible for ensuring fair competition and monitoring commercial practices in Italy. This measure was adopted in accordance with the Consumer Code, an Italian regulation designed to protect consumers from unfair and misleading commercial practices. The AGCM’s findings focused on three main aspects. The first concerned the promotion of the “Climate Protect” project. According to the AGCM’s investigation, the company presented this project as a CO2 emission offsetting program, claiming a strong environmental commitment without providing adequate proof. The company had, in fact, disseminated vague and unverifiable environmental claims that did not clearly specify whether the project involved a real reduction in emissions or merely their offsetting. Furthermore, statements on the company’s website suggested that all of its facilities were powered by green energy and that its entire fleet of vehicles was emission-free. The investigation revealed that these objectives had only been partially achieved at the time of their promotion. The AGCM’s sanction was not due to the dissemination of entirely false information but rather to presenting goals yet to be achieved as already accomplished.
Secondly, the investigation highlighted that a specific certificate, advertised as evidence of CO2 offsetting only confirmed compliance with a methodology for calculating and reporting energy consumption according to a selected standard. It did not certify the actual quantity of emissions offset or the amount of energy used. Moreover, it was found that the reported results referred to the total CO2 emissions of the European group to which the company belonged, rather than just the Italian branch, thereby creating a distorted perception of the data.
Finally, the Authority found that the company imposed an economic contribution on customers to finance the project without clearly outlining the cost distribution between the company and the customers. Additionally, there was no transparent information about the possibility of opting out of this contribution, leading most customers to pay the surcharge unknowingly.
In conclusion, the AGCM sanctioned the company, emphasizing that it gained an economic advantage from the initiative while shifting costs onto customers without directly bearing the promised expenses. Furthermore, the Authority found that the company’s commercial communication conveyed a level of environmental commitment that was greater than what had actually been demonstrated.
This case demonstrates that greenwashing is not only an ethical issue but also a legal one: misleading communication regarding environmental commitments may backfire. Companies face sanctions, compensation claims, and, most importantly, severe reputational damage that undermines consumer and stakeholder trust. Therefore, while promoting sustainability remains crucial for ecological transition and competitive advantage, it is essential to do so transparently, avoiding vague or misleading statements.
