In 2025, the credibility of sustainable finance raised eyebrows with the growing popularity of green and sustainability-linked loans that provided a smokescreen for financing environmental destruction.
It was also a year when marketing environmental and social credentials evolved into more sophisticated forms of deception, including greenrinsing, a new form of greenwashing highlighted by the United Nations in October, in which companies set ambitious net zero targets to attract investors – only to water them down or quietly drop them later. Multinationals, including Air New Zealand, Shell, BP, Unilever, Volvo and Coca-Cola, have weakened or delayed their sustainability targets.
The fossil fuel sector leaned heavily on carbon capture use and storage (CCUS) technologies to justify ongoing expansion this year, while in Southeast Asia the misuse of carbon credits was identified as the most common form of greenwashing, with oil and gas major Petronas found to be the most common perpetrator in recent years.
At the COP30 climate talks, oil and gas giants unleashed a torrent of online advertisements in Brazil, flooding the internet with climate-friendly messaging ahead of talks that were swamped with fossil fuels lobbyists – and ultimately ended without an agreement to phase out dirty energy.
But regulators in some jurisdictions raised their game to combat greenwashing in 2025. Australia led the Asia Pacific region with more than AU$40 million (US$26 million) in penalties from court cases brought by the country’s finance regulator and competition commission.
In South Korea, which has seen a surge in greenwashing cases in recent years, the country’s antitrust watchdog issued a flurry of enforcement actions as the country moved toward fining firms for false green claims.
Singapore released long-awaited guidelines to curb misleading sustainability advertising in October, while Japan did the same in February, though falling short of regulation.
European regulators wobbled over anti-greenwashing regulations as the regional bloc lurched to the political right, with the withdrawal of the European Union’s Green Claims Directive proposal in June. But at the national level, European states such as Germany, Spain and France continued to turn the screw on vague and unsubstantiated sustainability claims.
While the Trump administration has made life easier for polluting corporations in the United States, the country’s courts were still busy adjudicating greenwashing cases, although a case against Lululemon, the athleisure company, was dismissed by a Florida judge in February, who ruled that they did not adequately link claims of overhyped environmental statements to any kind of economic injury.
In this listicle, Eco-Business chronicles the times companies were flagged for making sustainability claims that did not appear to stand up to scrutiny.
A green loan for chopping forest
Tengah “forest town” is the site of the highest rates of deforestation in Singapore in recent decades [click to enlarge]. Image: Googlemaps/2 December 2025
A green loan issued to develop a “biodiversity-friendly”, “nature-aligned” mixed-use project at Tengah, Singapore’s new “forest town”, stretched the credibility of sustainable finance by building on recently cleared forest. “There is little that is ‘eco-friendly’ about replacing regenerating forests with concrete – regardless of how many green walls or rooftop gardens are included in the design [of the property],” wrote a reader of the launch story in Business Times. The loan was issued according to the Loan Market Association (LMA)’s Green Loan Principles – the first being that the loaned project should offer clear, verifiable environmental benefits. DBS, the lead issuer of the US$540 million green loan argued that the cleared land was “abandoned land forest” – not primary forest. But Singapore only has 0.3 per cent primary forest cover left, and Tengah’s secondary forests have served as an ecological corridor connecting nature reserves and are home to critically endangered species such as Sunda pangolins.
Driving false solutions
Toyota, which is responsible for 1.5 per cent of global emissions, promotes biofuels as a climate solution. Image: Toyota
Toyota, the world’s biggest carmaker, was called out by Greenpeace for promoting biofuel-powered prototype vehicles as a decarbonisation solution at COP30. The non-profit said that expanding biofuel production threatens tropical forests, food security, and climate goals, and noted that the Japanese carmaker – which is responsible for 1.5 per cent of global emissions – is already lagging on electrifying its fleet. Greenpeace pointed to studies that project that by 2030, biofuels could emit 70 million tonnes more carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year than fossil fuels.
Widening the goal posts
Japfa was accused of greenwashing because it picked unambitious targets with easy KPIs to secure a sustainability-linked loan. Image: Japfa
In a curious case of setting the wrong goals, Singapore-based agribusiness giant Japfa was flagged by environmental groups for a US$150 million sustainability-linked loan that omitted targets on deforestation-risk commodities and human rights – despite long-standing scrutiny over these issues. Instead, the loan, arranged by DBS and Rabobank, focused on reducing freshwater use and phasing out the company’s tiny coal consumption, raising questions about the relevance and ambition of the key performance indicators behind the loan.
Sheinful
Shein was hit with a US$1.2 million fine for misleading claims about the sustainability of its products. Image: Shein
Singapore-headquartered ultra-fast fashion brand Shein was slapped with a €1 million (US$1.2 million) fine by an Italian court in August for greenwashing. The Dublin-based operator of Shein’s European website was called out for sustainability messaging that the court ruled was “vague”, “feel-good”, or “simply misleading”. Claims made across its #SHEINTHEKNOW, evoluSHEIN and social responsibility pages reportedly overstated recyclability, suggested circular systems that don’t really exist, and puffed up the eco-credentials of the “evoluSHEIN by design” line. Regulators also took issue with Shein’s climate targets – to cut emissions 25 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 – calling them generic and inconsistent with the brand’s rising emissions in 2023 and 2024. The watchdog added that Shein should know better, given that ultra-fast fashion is one of the world’s most polluting industries and demands extra care when making green claims.
Sustainability-linked groans
MUFG was accused of sustainable finance greenwashing. Image: Robin Hicks/Eco-Business
Japanese megabank MUFG, in lending millions in sustainability-linked loans to resources company RGE despite its links to deforestation in its supply chain, was guilty of sustainable finance greenwash, Rainforest Action Network alleged in a report in August. RAN said the company’s SLLs sidestep its most material risk – deforestation – by relying on vague performance indicators, opaque definitions of no-deforestation compliance, and structures that allow “shadow” subsidiaries to keep clearing land while the wider group benefits from lower-interest financing.
Reef unfriendly
Banana Boat claimed to be “reef friendly” because it did not contain some reef-harming chemicals – but it contained others. Image: Banana Boat
Personal care company Edgewell Group, maker of Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropical Sunscreen brands, was sued in the United States in March and Australia in June for making claims such as “reef friendly”, “reef safe” and “harmless to coral reefs” in consumer marketing. While the products are free of some chemicals that harm coral reefs, such as oxybenzone and octyl methoxycinnamate, they contain other chemicals that are toxic to corals, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Santa Clara County District Attorney claimed in their lawsuits. Despite being sued multiple times in different markets, the brands have not stopped using environmental claims in China, one of their key markets.
Pulped policy
An APP logyard in Sumatra. The company changed its no-deforestation cut-off date, which Greenpeace called “a deception of progress.” Image: Vaidehi Shah/Eco-Business
Unveiled to great fanfare in Jakarta in September, Asia Pulp & Paper’s (APP) US$30 million “Forest Positive Policy” was greeted with protest from Greenpeace – the non-profit that helped the paper giant craft its landmark no-deforestation policy more than a decade ago. The environmental group said that the new policy was a downgrade of APP’s long-standing pledge, as the company had shifted its no-deforestation cut-off date from 2013 to the end of 2020, meaning that tens of thousands of hectares of forest clearance by APP and its suppliers over that period are now considered “acceptable”. “APP’s rollback of its cut-off date is nothing short of a deception of progress,” said Kiki Taufik, Greenpeace global Indonesian forests campaign lead.
TotallyEmpty promises
TotalEnergies ads were declared illegal for greenwashing. Image: TotalEnergies
In a landmark case in a Paris court in October, advertising for TotalEnergies was declared illegal for greenwashing. The French oil major has a 2050 net zero target and has been claiming to be a “major player in the energy transition” despite continuing to promote and sell more fossil fuels – with plans to drill for oil and gas in Iraq, Denmark, Tanzania and Uganda. The ruling was the first greenwashing judgment ever issued against the oil industry’s decarbonisation narrative, and is expected to have a knock-on effect on how the industry promotes itself in other jurisdictions.
Leave it worse
The Arc’teryx-sponsored “Rising Dragon” fireworks display in Tibet scorched a large area of environmentally-sensitive habitat. Image: Arc’teryx
In September, Arc’teryx, a Canadian luxury outdoor brand that uses the slogan “Leave it better”, drew fire for sponsoring a fireworks display on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau that damaged ecologically fragile grasslands. The “Rising Dragon” event drew criticism for failing to clean up debris left in the area. Chinese journal Southern Weekly pointed out after the event that despite the brand’s claims to be free from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), or “forever chemicals” on its flagship store on WeChat and JD.com, Arc’teryx products do contain PFAS in some countries, including Canada and Australia.
Woolly commitment
Woolworths hollowed out its no-deforestation pledge by listing beef as a “low-risk” commodity for deforestation. Image: Robin Hicks / Eco-Business
In its 2025 sustainability report, Australian retailer Woolworths hollowed out its no-deforestation pledge by listing beef as a “low-risk” commodity for deforestation. Non-profit Wilderness Society said the supermarket was cherry-picking from a flawed rating system – the European Deforestation Regulation, or ‘EUDR’ – to conclude that beef poses minimal risk for Australian forests. In 2024, Woolworths had listed beef as a high-risk deforestation commodity, naming livestock pasture expansion as a key driver of deforestation in Australia.
‘Clean gas’
Hancock Prospecting ad that ran on futureaustralianjobs.com was found to breach Australia’s ad watchdog for its “clean gas claim.
A company belonging to Australia’s richest person, Gina Rinehart, was investigated for allegedly misleading the public about the cleanliness of methane gas. Advertisements for Hancock Prospecting claimed “Our clean gas keeps the lights, and factories, hospitals, and shops open from Tokyo to Toowoomba.” Non-profit Comms Declare lodged a complaint about the ads with Australia’s advertising watchdog, pointing out that “a flammable, toxic and polluting fossil fuel is ‘clean’, fails the pub test and should not be allowed under the law.” It was ruled that the ads breached Australia’s Environmental Claims Code because the term “clean gas” was unsubstantiated and likely to mislead consumers.
Tastes like child labour
Mars brand Galaxy claimed to be “making chocolate better, one piece at a time”. Image: Mars
Polina Zabrodskaya, an advertising executive working for the London office of agency BBDO was allegedly harassed by colleagues for pointing out that campaigns for client Mars were stretching the truth with claims that it was “making chocolate better,” given that child labour, deforestation and low pay are prevalent in West Africa, where Mars sources some of its ingredients, according to reporting by Financial Times. The confectionery and pet food giant declined to comment on what it called “an internal employment dispute” at BBDO, but pointed out that it spends “billions of dollars” to make its business “more sustainable”.
Watch out for carbon neutral claims
Carbon neutral Apple watches? Image: Apple
Apple was sued by seven consumers in a California federal court in February, who objected to Apple’s claim that three versions of the Apple Watch were “carbon neutral” based on the purchase of offsets. The plaintiffs said they wouldn’t have bought the watches had they known that the carbon projects on which Apple relied to meet its emissions target – one in Kenya and another in China – did not provide “genuine” emissions reductions. In August, Apple was banned from making carbon neutrality claims for its watches that were based on a eucalyptus tree-planting project in Paraguay.
Coalescing the press
Future Coal CEO Michelle Manook has said that coal “is a legitimate participant in both economic development and emissions abatement.”
Australia’s National Press Club, one of Australia’s most influential public forums, platformed Future Coal chief Michelle Manook – despite pleas from advocacy group Comms Declare to cancel her keynote address on 18 November. Future Coal – the World Coal Association, with a fresh coat of paint – promised to unveil “the path to real sustainability” in Manook’s talk. Comms Declare pointed to the lobby group’s history of climate obstruction, and armed journalists with “climate obstruction bingo” cards to track the expected talking points – like pitching “clean coal.”
Cruising on ‘clean’ fuel
Cruise1st claimed that its cruise liners are “powered by LNG, the world’s cleanest marine fuel” and “use new green technologies”. Image: Cruise1st
Four travel groups had ads banned in the UK for giving a misleading impression of the environmental impact of cruise ships, which each produce the equivalent emissions of about 12,000 cars or double the emissions of flying. The firms – which included Barrhead Travel, Sunshine Cruise Holidays/Cruise1st, Travel Circle/Cruise Circle and Cruise.co.uk/SeaScanner – made claims including “Powered by LNG, the world’s cleanest marine fuel”, “Uses new green technologies”, “Strong focus on sustainability and eco-friendly practices,” and “one of the most eco-friendly cruise ships afloat”. The UK’s ad watchdog ruled that claims had not been fully explained or backed up with evidence, and so were likely to mislead.
Farmed with harm
The UK’s ad watchdog ruled that Red Tractor had provided “insufficient evidence” that its farms complied with basic environmental laws to substantiate its “farmed with care” claims.
An ad for farm products supplier Red Tractor was banned in the UK for exaggerating its environmental benefits with its “farmed with care” claims. A campaign group alleged that Red Tractor members are more likely to pollute the environment than non-assured farms, so its claims were misleading. Red Tractor hit back, claiming that the scheme’s focus was on animal welfare, not environmental standards.
Equinot capturing much carbon
An ad promoting Equinor’s carbon capture capacity. Image: Reuters.com
Norwegian energy giant Equinor had been massively overclaiming the performance of its carbon capture facility at the Sleipner gas field in the North Sea, according to an investigative report by climate journal DeSmog in February. Equinor’s carbon capture facility is often held up by carbon capture evangelists as proof that the technology can work. But DeSmog found that the company’s claims – that it captures about 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year – were overestimated by a factor of 10. Equinor subsequently withdrew its claims.
‘Fly green’
VietJet claimed its customers can “fly green” by saving paper on e-tickets. Image: VietJet
VietJet claimed that flying for less than the price of a round of drinks from Singapore to Vietnam could help its passengers “contribute to a greener future” because the regional airline has a fuel-efficient fleet and digital services that save paper. The promotion was banned in Singapore after a complaint.
Capturing approval
An ad for Woodside, which observers say is using carbon capture technology to greenwash a massive gas extraction project. Image: Woodside
Australian oil and gas giant Woodside Energy used a carbon capture and storage (CCUS) proposal to gain approval for a massive natural gas project in the Browse Basin, which is estimated to produce 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2070, the country’s Green Party said at the start of the year. The CCUS project would sequester up to 14,200 tonnes of CO2 per day. However, the “carbon dumping” project near Scott Reef would put already endangered species like the pygmy blue whale and the dusky sea snake at serious risk, the Greens said.
‘Sometimes exuberant’
Asoka Woehrmann resigned as CEO of DWS after a police probe. Image: DWS on Twitter
DWS, the investment arm of banking giant Deutsche Bank, was fined €25 million (USD$27 million) over charges that it misled investors over its sustainable investing credentials – ending a long-running saga that started in 2021 and peaked in 2022 when Deutsche Bank’s Frankfurt offices were raided in 2022 as part of the investigation. DWS’s then CEO resigned the following day. In a statement following news of the fine in April, DWS said that it has “acknowledged that in the past our marketing was sometimes exuberant,” and that the firm had improved its control processes to eliminate greenwashing.
This story is part of Eco-Business’ Year in Review series, which looks back at the stories that shaped the world of sustainability in 2025.
