Remember when bringing your tote bag to the supermarket made you feel special, almost like a sort “climate hero”? Or when swapping your beef burger for a plant-based patty felt like a radical act of environmental defiance? Those days are far from gone, but they’re no longer immune to criticism. Welcome to Greenwashing 2.0 – a new era where the backlash against sustainability narratives is becoming just as powerful as the green push itself. From greenhyping to green scaring, we’re witnessing a rising tide of scepticism, misinformation, resistance and some very valid criticism as well that many times questions the route we are trying to take for genuine progress.
Greenwashing grows up – and gets called out
First came the promises. Climate pledges, recycled packaging, back to buying milk in glass bottles, dumping tote bags in fast fashion stores on sale, introducing new “climate neutral” clothing lines. Then came the questions. Very valid ones as consumers got wiser, regulators looking closer, and journalists began following the full journey of “eco-friendly” recycling programs, which, as Dutch investigative programs uncovered were far from what they were promised to be. They tracked 12 garments donated to major fashion chains and found that despite green marketing promises, most ended up exported to developing countries, often with major negative environmental and economic impacts, while only a few were actually recycled or reused in the Netherlands.
Fashion is a telling case. Fast fashion giants like Zara have launched take-back schemes and “sustainable” collections, but investigations show many of those returned garments are shipped to distant countries, often ending up in landfills or informal resale markets with little to no oversight. The good intention is repackaged, rebranded, and ultimately, rerouted into the same wasteful patterns we were trying to fix. In the end: nothing more than a publicity stunt.
And it’s not just fashion. Brands across sectors have leaned heavily into sustainability` branding, slapping green labels on products and services with little transparency or measurable impact. The EU and other national regulators are beginning to crack down on this, but the damage to public trust is already being felt. People have become more careful, and don’t believe every hyped product just at first sight. And maybe that is not for the worst.
From greenwashing to green scaring
But as greenwashing is being unmasked, another trend is emerging: green scaring. This isn’t just about skepticism, it’s about weaponising fear, fatigue and legit concerns to undermine green progress. The idea that all or most green initiatives are inconvenient, ineffective, or even oppressive has begun to take hold, particularly in today’s polarized political climates.
Take the attack on veganism. Once celebrated for its environmental promise, it’s now increasingly targeted as elitist, performative, “Gen-Z”, and even harmful. The conversation has shifted from advocacy to backlash, with cultural commentators and clickbait headlines casting doubt on the ethics, science, and feasibility of plant-based lifestyles. Yes, there are some valid points, and sometimes the overwhelming vocalisation of veganism can feel uncomfortable, nonetheless, turning things to the polar opposite, and personally attacking anybody who chooses to become vegan is not a solution either.
Similarly, reusable tote bags, once eco-symbols, are now under fire for their environmental footprint. Many times, rightfully so. While it’s true that a cotton tote needs to be used hundreds of times to offset its production impact, the narrative is often stripped of nuance. Yes, companies do use tote bas for greenwashing purposes, yes, dumping hundreds and thousands of them all at once is anything but green. At the same time though, these critiques can lead to a kind of climate nihilism: if even these every day ‘green’ choices are flawed, why should one even bother?
The long history of anti-green pushback
This isn’t a new playbook, though. Decades ago, American cities all over the country had amazing public transport systems. Cities like Los Angeles, ones that we know today as solely designed for cars, had massive streetcar (tram) systems weaving all around the city. All running on: electricity. With the introduction of personal cars, running on gasoline (petrol) General Motors and oil companies successfully lobbied to dismantle (or even purchase and shut down themselves) these electric streetcar systems across the U.S., paving the way, literally, for car dependency. And over the years, they have cashed in unfathomable fortunes because of this. That historic sabotage reminds us that today’s anti-green sentiment has powerful precedents, often fueled by the same short-sighted economic interests that stand to lose from a true sustainability transition.
The resistance to green initiatives has always been twofold: discredit the alternatives and amplify the costs. Whether it’s replacing public transport with highways or challenging climate science with denialism, the objective is to maintain the status quo.
Beyond all the noise: real everyday sustainable choices are still possible
Greenhyping and green scaring are two sides of the same problem: a world struggling to change without giving up comfort, convenience, or control. At Meijer & Co, we believe that cutting through the noise, whether it’s performative sustainability or paralyzing fear, is key to real progress. That means helping businesses act with integrity, build real ESG strategies, and keep long-term impact in focus.
Because doing the right thing shouldn’t be a trend. It should be an everyday habit.
