It wasn’t long ago, during a client visit in my role as CEO & MD of a paper-based packaging company, that I sat across from the promoter of a grooming products brand, listening to a well-intentioned pitch for a new product labelled “eco-friendly”. The packaging looked the part, subtle greens, nature-inspired visuals, and a catchy slogan about protecting the planet. But when I asked, “What makes it eco-friendly?” the answer was vague.
That moment stayed with me.
Now, with the introduction of India’s Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Greenwashing or Misleading Environmental Claims, 2024, those kinds of moments aren’t just awkward, they carry legal and reputational consequences.
As someone who’s spent decades leading organizations, I’ve seen sustainability move from the fringes of corporate responsibility into the core of business strategy. But with this shift comes a challenge: distinguishing between genuine sustainability efforts and well-disguised marketing spin.
What Is Greenwashing?
Greenwashing isn’t always malicious. More often, it stems from enthusiasm without evidence. It’s when a company presents itself as environmentally responsible without having the substance to back it up. Think vague language like “all-natural” or “eco-conscious,” or using earthy visuals without clear environmental benefits.
In an age where trust is currency, that kind of storytelling can backfire quickly.
The new guidelines push us toward a higher standard. They require that environmental claims, statements about a product’s or service’s environmental impact, must be accurate, clear, and backed by verifiable evidence. In short: no more hiding behind buzzwords.
From Compliance to Credibility
One of the smartest things regulators have done here is define the terminology. “Environmental claims” aren’t just about the end product; they cover the entire lifecycle, from raw materials to its manufacturing process, packaging, and disposal methods. That’s a big shift. It means your product can’t just look sustainable; it must be sustainable throughout.
In my previous role at the global packaging company, we faced this challenge head-on. We wanted to showcase our sustainability journey, but we knew we couldn’t afford half-truths. We leaned on collating information about the materials we used, the energy efficiency of the production process and independent assessments from CDP and Ecovadis. Were they time-consuming? Yes. But they brought credibility and opened the door to more transparent conversations with our customers and investors.
Transparency Is Non-Negotiable
The guidelines recommend using technology, QR codes or URLs linking to detailed information, to support environmental claims in advertisements or other communications. I’d argue we shouldn’t just comply, we should embrace this. Transparency doesn’t weaken a brand; it strengthens it.
Customers today are savvy. They do their homework. If you’re not upfront, someone else will be, especially your competitors or, worse, your critics.
But let’s not pretend this is just a consumer-facing issue. Boards, regulators, and shareholders are asking tougher questions about ESG performance. If your sustainability narrative is built on shaky claims, you risk more than fines, you risk investor confidence and long-term value creation.
Culture Starts at the Top
There’s a deeper leadership question beneath all this: Do we have the courage to tell the truth, even when it’s messy?
Authenticity requires humility. It’s okay to say, “We’re not there yet.” In fact, some of the most respected sustainability reports I’ve read were the ones that acknowledged challenges. They didn’t paint a perfect picture. They painted a real one.
As board members and senior leaders, we must create a culture where teams feel empowered to ask hard questions and challenge feel-good narratives. This means investing in internal systems that track environmental performance, training marketing teams to use responsible language, and integrating sustainability into strategy, not just branding.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
The 2024 guidelines come with enforcement mechanisms under the Consumer Protection Act. That’s significant. But from where I sit, the greater risk isn’t the fine, —it’s the reputational fallout.
Greenwashing is not just a legal risk. It’s a governance risk. A brand that’s caught misleading consumers loses trust fast. And in today’s markets, trust isn’t easily rebuilt. Boards must treat this issue with the same seriousness as financial misreporting or data privacy breaches. It is our responsibility as leaders to foster a culture of integrity within our organizations.
Final Reflection
The guidelines aren’t just a compliance checklist. They’re a mirror.
They ask us, as leaders, to reflect on whether our sustainability messaging reflects reality, or aspiration. Are we committed to real change, or are we chasing a trend?
I’ve found that the organizations that thrive in the long run are the ones that choose honesty, even when it slows them down. They understand that building a sustainable brand is a marathon, not a marketing campaign.
So, here’s a question I leave with you: In your next board or strategy meeting, will you ask not just how green your products look, but how green they really are?
The answers to this question will shape not only our reputations but also the future of our businesses in an increasingly conscious marketplace.