A standardized method for identifying greenwashing is raising alarm bells among both researchers and corporate sustainability professionals. Two recent studies using the same framework found that 98 percent of meat and dairy company claims and 96 percent of climate commitments from major corporations could be categorized as greenwashing, sparking debate about whether the tool is too strict or revealing a genuine crisis in corporate environmental communication.

What Is This Greenwashing Framework, and Why Does It Matter?

The framework at the center of this controversy was published in 2022 by researchers at the University of Vienna, led by Noémi Nemes. The approach uses 28 questions to evaluate corporate environmental claims, covering everything from lifecycle assessments and carbon credits to marketing budgets and the use of industry jargon. Since its publication, the framework has been cited by more than 260 studies and has become a standard tool for identifying potentially misleading sustainability statements.

The framework's emergence seemed promising. For decades, greenwashing has been difficult to combat precisely because there was no agreed-upon definition of what it actually is. Without a clear standard, companies could make vague environmental claims while regulators and consumers struggled to distinguish between genuine progress and marketing spin. The Nemes framework promised to change that by providing researchers with a consistent set of criteria.

How Are Companies Being Flagged as Greenwashing?

In May 2026, Jennifer Jacquet at the University of Miami and colleagues applied a modified version of the framework to examine more than 1,200 statements made by 33 of the world's largest meat and dairy companies. The result was striking: 98 percent of the statements could be categorized as greenwashing. A separate March study using the same approach found that 96 percent of climate commitments made by 3,500 companies failed on at least one of seven greenwashing indicators.

But what exactly is triggering these high rates? The framework flags several types of claims as potential greenwashing:

• Unsubstantiated pledges: Net-zero commitments made without detailed emission-reduction plans are flagged, even though most companies consider detailed footnotes unnecessary in sustainability reports.
• Statements lacking proof: Claims that lack supporting evidence are marked as potential greenwashing, regardless of whether the company intends to substantiate them later.
• Mentions of "irrelevant" initiatives: Companies are dinged for highlighting efforts like food waste reduction, which may have meaningful but hard-to-quantify impacts on overall sustainability.
• Pilot programs and hand-wavy claims: Companies citing small-scale pilot studies or making vague statements about future plans are flagged as using deceptive tactics.

Jacquet acknowledged the complexity of these distinctions. "It's hard to draw equivalencies across these claims," she stated. "They're not equal." However, she emphasized that sector-wide surveys provide a snapshot of communication practices and can be used to benchmark future changes.

Jacquet

Why Are Experts Concerned About the Framework?

Despite the framework's usefulness to researchers, corporate sustainability professionals and environmental advocates are raising concerns about its real-world implications. The core issue is what some call a "catch-22": the framework treats incremental progress as a red flag, even though climate action is almost always incremental by nature.

"Climate progress is almost always incremental, for example, but the frameworks see incremental statements as potential greenwashing. We need to make sure that honest disclosure of progress is protected, not penalized," said Katie Anderson, senior director for business, food and forests at the Environmental Defense Fund.

Katie Anderson, Senior Director for Business, Food and Forests at the Environmental Defense Fund

Anderson's concern points to a deeper problem: if companies are penalized for reporting honest but incomplete progress, they may stop reporting altogether. This phenomenon, known as "greenhushing," is already on the rise. Companies that fear being accused of greenwashing may simply stop making public sustainability claims, depriving consumers, investors, and regulators of the transparency they need to hold corporations accountable.

The problem is compounded by how media outlets report on these studies. Researchers are careful to describe the framework as producing "indicators" of greenwashing or evidence of "greenwashing risk." But journalists often translate these cautious findings into more definitive headlines. A New Scientist story about Jacquet's research, for example, declared that "98 per cent of meat and dairy sustainability pledges are greenwashing," a claim that oversimplifies the framework's actual findings.

How Can Companies Navigate This Greenwashing Minefield?

The tension between detecting greenwashing and encouraging honest corporate communication is unlikely to resolve quickly. However, several approaches could help bridge the gap:

• Detailed documentation: Companies can strengthen their claims by providing comprehensive footnotes, lifecycle assessments, and third-party verification, addressing the framework's concern about unsubstantiated statements.
• Transparent timelines: Rather than making vague net-zero pledges, companies can outline specific emission-reduction targets for near-term milestones, demonstrating incremental progress rather than distant promises.
• Contextualizing initiatives: When highlighting programs like food waste reduction, companies can quantify their impact and explain how they contribute to broader sustainability goals, rather than presenting them as standalone achievements.
• Distinguishing pilot programs: Companies can clearly label pilot studies as such and explain how findings will be scaled, rather than using them as evidence of company-wide change.

Jacquet emphasized the importance of consumer awareness in this landscape. "Part of this is to make consumers, shareholders, people in the supply chain, more aware of these tactics," she explained. "We all need to become more savvy and ask more questions like, What does that mean for your overall operations? Or for your overall emissions?".

Jacquet

As the debate over greenwashing frameworks continues, one thing is clear: the lack of a universally agreed-upon definition of greenwashing has been replaced by a new problem. A framework that is too strict may discourage transparency, while one that is too lenient may fail to catch genuinely misleading claims. Finding the right balance will be essential to ensuring that corporate sustainability claims are both honest and actionable.