Sustainability trends have become ubiquitous in the business world, mainly due to the attention ESG is receiving. To state the obvious, this is a positive trend as it helps push companies to consider their impact on the environment, employees, and customers and ensure their governance practices are sound. However, it also incentivizes actors in the business world to try to game the system through marketing campaigns to improve their reputation.

Through the use of artificial intelligence and other technologies, we embarked on a mission to analyze the sentiment on the web and uncover to what extent companies are incurring reputational laundering techniques to deceive investors, customers, and other stakeholders but also to identify the ones that are actually performing actions to have a positive impact around them.

This analysis dives into the concept of greenwashing and reputational laundering. It reveals the nuanced interplay between genuine sustainability efforts and deceptive practices, offering a new lens to distinguish genuine from false corporate sustainability claims.

Beyond Greenwashing: Reputational Laundering

Let’s start with some definitions. Reputational laundering is deliberately hiding unethical behavior with highly visible positive actions. Greenwashing is just one component of reputational laundering. Another component is the social aspect of it, and it includes various forms of color washing such as purplewashing, pinkwashing, purpose washing, etc. So far, in 2023, greenwashing accounted for 55% of all the volume of reputational laundering mentions on the web. So, the remaining 45% represents color-washing.

TerraChoice defines greenwashing as “the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental performance and positive communication about environmental performance."

Colorwashing, on the other hand, refers to a strategy used by organizations to create a positive public image by associating themselves with specific causes, ethics, or moral standpoints.

Beyond the conventional understanding of deliberate greenwashing, there’s a more nuanced concept and less discussed: unintentional greenwashing, where companies inadvertently convey misleading environmental claims. This can occur due to a lack of understanding of the true impact of their products or services, unverified claims, overlooking hidden consequences, unintentional confusion in marketing materials, or insufficient transparency. While these companies may not have malicious intent, their actions can inadvertently misrepresent their environmental efforts and mislead consumers about their commitment to sustainability.

Reputational laundering at a glance

Over the past eight years, reputational laundering mentions have increased steadily. However, from 2021 onwards, they’ve grown a staggering 3.3x. The mentions of reputational laundering are coming from different topics, from false advertising, and misleading practices to lawsuits regarding greenwashing. Furthermore, we have observed a growing number of references regarding the declining trust of the public in corporate pledges, such as those related to 'net-zero' climate goals.

This increase can be attributed to two main reasons: the actual increase in reputational laundering and, more interestingly, the growing awareness from stakeholders (i.e., Investors and eco-conscious consumer base).

According to a report published by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), climate change lawsuits have continuously surged over the past five years.
Consequently, we analyze mentions of lawsuits related to environmental breaches and detect a significant increase in 2021 – which continues to the present day.

Lawsuit mentions have increased by more than 3x since 2020. These litigations span a spectrum of environmental issues, extending well beyond planned obsolescence practices by major consumer goods manufacturers. We also observe the rise of youth-led climate change lawsuits, instances of oil spills, wildfires, pollution-related legal actions, and the pervasive issue of PFAS contamination.

Breakdown by type of washing

While greenwashing often dominates the conversation around reputational risks, it's crucial not to overlook the social dimension, which tends to receive less attention from the public. Since 2020, we've observed a significant uptick in mentions of greenwashing and its less-discussed counterpart, colorwashing.

Historically, up until 2020, the distribution of mentions leaned toward one-third greenwashing compared to two-thirds colorwashing. However, post-2021, this pattern has shifted. We've witnessed a rise in the frequency of greenwashing mentions, surpassing those of colorwashing and signaling an evolution in the focus of reputational laundering concerns.

During the COP27 conference at the end of 2022, a call was made to verify carbon and other environmental claims and show zero greenwashing tolerance. As a result, there has been a rise in scrutiny, and data now shows an increase in the number of allegations related to greenwashing. Here are a few examples:

June 2022: Head of Deutsche Bank’s DWS stepping after ‘greenwashing’ raids,
October 2023: Suncor accused of greenwashing
September 2023: Greenwashing cases against airlines in Europe, the US,

In analyzing advertisements, we found instances of reputational laundering through various means. Some companies engaged in social washing, while others used sportwashing to bolster their reputation. The mining and energy industries were particularly guilty of this practice. Meanwhile, the communication industry, including companies such as Netflix and Disney, was associated with black and whitewashing.

Inspecting the Regulatory Landscape

To analyze the regulatory environment of reputational laundering, we studied the effects of different legal frameworks and government organizations on greenwashing and other forms of reputational laundering. We measured the influence of legal frameworks and regulatory bodies on greenwashing by analyzing the quarterly growth of greenwashing mentions over the study period.

In this analysis, we define the concept of legal frameworks by capturing references related to the 'Green Claims' directive, Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, EU Taxonomy, Green Product Certification, Fair Labeling and Advertising Act, Non-Financial Reporting Directive, FTC Act, FTC Green Guides, etc.

Concepts of Regulation bodies are defined by references to governments and Supranational entities (i.e.,  US government, FTC, SEC, Chinese government, Japanese government, etc.) or regulatory agencies established to safeguard the environment (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), European Environment Agency (EAA), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), etc.)

Over the past three years, mentions of frameworks and laws have grown substantially, with increasing ESG scrutiny, new green claims guidelines, and a focus on sustainability and ESG reporting.

There has been a slight increase in the mentions of regulatory bodies over the years, mainly due to the growing interest in greenwashing, which has peaked during events like COP26 and COP27. Legal frameworks and regulatory bodies have played a significant role in the fight against greenwashing. Although there is no decrease in the mentions of this topic, the growth rate has reduced significantly. In fact, the quarter-on-quarter growth for greenwashing web mentions has been decreasing lately.

The trends reveal an interesting fact that there is a negative correlation between the growth in mentions of frameworks, laws, and regulatory bodies and the growth in mentions of greenwashing. Though the mentions of greenwashing are still increasing, the growth rate has significantly decreased from a 75% quarterly growth rate to 10% in the last year (except for spikes related to controversial events such as Greta Thunberg labeling COP26 as a “greenwash festival,” and not attending COP27).

Conclusion

As we navigate the landscape of corporate sustainability, it becomes evident that distinguishing genuine efforts from greenwashing is not just a matter of skepticism but a necessity. This exploration underscores the importance of vigilant analysis and the role of AI in unmasking deceptive practices. It calls for a collective commitment to transparency and accountability, empowering stakeholders to make informed decisions and advocating for a future where corporate responsibility aligns authentically with sustainable development.

At SESAMm, we used AI to study billions of articles and analyze greenwashing trends. Download this comprehensive ebook for an in-depth understanding of the evolving landscape of reputational laundering, notably greenwashing, and dive into its trends in the corporate world.

SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights

Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.

On April 24, 2022, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, Space X, The Boring Company, and Neuralink—and one of the most popular people on Twitter with one of the largest followings—reached an agreement to buy Twitter for roughly 44 billion dollars. On July 8, 2022, the deal failed to materialize after Musk withdrew from the negotiations due to his concerns about the company's alleged overabundance of fake Twitter user accounts, aka bots. As a result, the Twitter stock price plummeted by 15% after the announcement.

Now that his deal to buy Twitter has failed and culminated in a legal battle, Musk's public sentiment has reached all-time lows. The public sentiment for Twitter has also taken a hit. In general, public sentiment surrounding this deal was largely negative from both sides:

1. Musk's fans were disappointed because they thought it would allow him to spread his message about sustainable energy sources further.
2. Twitter's users were happy because they believed his involvement would have led to changes that would have made the platform less accessible than ever before.

But how exactly was public sentiment affected by the fallout of Elon Musk's failed Twitter acquisition? Let's find out. Here are five effects of the failed Musk-Twitter deal.

Notes: Dates on the charts follow the day/month/year format. Additional timeline source: “A timeline of Elon Musk's tumultuous Twitter acquisition attempt,” ABCnews.com, July 13, 2022.

1. Merger and acquisition sentiment dropped from the beginning

Musk had been exploring the possibility of purchasing Twitter as early as January 2022 when he began increasing his positions in Twitter stock. By March 14, Musk became the largest shareholder in the company, according to a securities filing. And that's when the sentiment toward the acquisition began to drop.

M&A sentiment experienced a further drop when Musk officially announced his offer to purchase the Twitter company on April 14, 2022. On Reddit, for example, members of the r/Economics community posted and engaged with the following: Elon Musk Launches $43 Billion Hostile Takeover of Twitter, a post that since has been removed but represents one of many sources feeding sentiment toward the topic.

In May 2022, Musk announced a hold on the deal, pushing M&A sentiment even farther down. And more recently, in late June and early July when Twitter sued Musk for breaching the M&A agreement, M&A sentiment fell deeper into the negative space.

2. Sentiment for Elon Musk and Twitter declined likewise

But how do Elon Musk's and Twitter's sentiments evolve with M&A mentions?

In measuring and analyzing M&A mentions in web data, we found that Twitter's brand suffered but not nearly as much as Musk's. Both of their sentiments dropped in April when Musk announced his offer. However, Musk's sentiment suffered more when he put the deal on hold in May and again in June when Twitter filed a lawsuit against him.

Figure 2 shows two additional drops in Musk's sentiment for July. These correspond to news events regarding the trial, including news about the trial's start date in October.

3. Musk's brands, Tesla and SpaceX, suffered, too

Unfortunately for Musk, his other brands also experienced a drop in sentiment. For example, Tesla's sentiment experienced corresponding declines compared to Musk's, but not nearly as much as SpaceX's (Figure 3). One reason for this disparity could be the open letter SpaceX's workers wrote. The workers voiced their concern about Musk's behavior in this letter, stating, "Elon's behavior in the public sphere is a frequent source of distraction and embarrassment for us."

Further, in Figure 3, we track Tesla's stock performance. Initial data shows a possible correlation between Tesla's stock price and sentiment. However, further analysis and backtesting are needed to confirm this correlation.

4. Musk's sentiment suffered more than Twitter's

Twitter's sentiment remained relatively stable, seeing only a minor drop when Musk became the largest shareholder. Even Twitter's stock price remained stable, experiencing a temporary increase when Musk purchased Twitter stock but settling after. It's worth noting that Twitter's stock price was declining before January 2022, which might have influenced Musk's decision to buy.

In contrast, Musk's sentiment took a huge hit when he became the largest shareholder.

5. It’s not only about Musk and Twitter

In late 2021 and early 2022, open-source sentiment polarity was dipping. It experienced its biggest dip after February 2022 when Twitter admitted it had mistakenly removed Ukraine open-source intelligence accounts.

However, in April 2022, Musk said that one of the ways he wanted to improve Twitter was to make its algorithms open source to increase trust. How did the open-source community take the news? According to the chart (Figure 5), well. Open-source sentiment polarity jumped back up.

Analyzing the M&A sentiments

Overall, Elon Musk’s sentiment polarity reached lower levels than those of Twitter and his other brands—although SpaceX took a significant hit, too. Whether because of his brash public statements or his employees criticizing his focus and intentions, data shows that netizens were not supportive of his attempted acquisition. And with the Twitter v. Musk court battle scheduled and looming, his sentiment doesn’t seem like it will be improving anytime soon.

Reach out to SESAMm

To learn more about how we analyze web data or to request a demo, reach out to one of our representatives.

SESAMm, the leading provider of controversy data, is pleased to announce that ENGIE has chosen SESAMm to strengthen its ESG risks monitoring of subsidiaries, including positive impact news.

SESAMm delivers real-time controversy data on millions of private and public companies, leveraging multilingual large language models to analyze content from more than 4 million sources in 100+ languages. This enables SESAMm to surface potential red flags such as human rights violations, corruption, and environmental breaches, even in hard-to-assess, non-listed firms, while also highlighting positive impact events.

With SESAMm’s AI-powered platform, ENGIE will supplement its ESG analysis tools for its global operations. This includes early detection of controversies, benchmarking against industry peers, and surfacing positive achievements that reinforce ENGIE’s role in the energy transition.

“We’re proud to support ENGIE in monitoring both risks and opportunities,” said Sylvain Forté, CEO and co-founder of SESAMm. “Our AI-driven insights will help their teams anticipate challenges, benchmark effectively, and showcase progress in building a more sustainable future.”

About ENGIE

ENGIE is a major player in the energy transition, whose purpose is to accelerate the transition towards a carbon-neutral economy. With 98,000 employees in 30 countries, the Group covers the entire energy value chain, from production to infrastructure and sales. ENGIE combines complementary activities: renewable electricity and green gas production, flexibility assets (notably batteries), gas and electricity transmission and distribution networks, local energy infrastructures (heating and cooling networks), and the supply of energy to individuals, local authorities, and businesses. Every year, ENGIE invests more than €10 billion to drive forward the energy transition and achieve its net-zero carbon goal by 2045.  Learn more at www.engie.com.

About SESAMm

SESAMm is a global leader in controversy data, leveraging advanced large language models and generative AI to uncover ESG, reputational, and supplier risks in seconds. Our AI-powered platform surfaces real-time insights, even in low-disclosure markets, on millions of companies and infrastructure projects, supporting more informed decisions, enhanced due diligence, and regulatory alignment at scale. We work with leading firms, including Carlyle, Warburg, Natixis, RBI, Sustainable Fitch, Oddo, and others. SESAMm has raised $50M from renowned investors and operates across four continents. Learn more at www.sesamm.com.

SESAMm’s AI Technology Reveals ESG Insights

Discover unparalleled insights into ESG controversies, risks, and opportunities across industries. Learn more about how SESAMm can help you analyze millions of private and public companies using AI-powered text analysis tools.