As the effects of the climate crisis become increasingly clear, the market for “eco-friendly” products has become more and more lucrative, and politically significant. From household cleaner brands to gas utility companies, many businesses have found success by advertising their products as greener than the alternatives. The problem? Those claims aren’t always true.
It’s not just individual consumers who are swayed by savvy marketing, either. Elected officials can make impactful decisions based on false or misleading industry lobbying, leading to policies that aren’t as environmentally beneficial as they claim to be— if they’re not outright damaging.
Some Oregon legislators have proposed a possible solution to the problem through Senate Bill 680, which would ban greenwashing—a term describing false or misleading environmental marketing—statewide. The bill aims to make the practice illegal under the state’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA) and subject to a small fine.
The legislators sponsoring the bill say greenwashing presents a major roadblock to effective climate action in the state. During a February 26 hearing for SB 680, bill sponsor Senator Jeff Golden said greenwashing is worse than just an “annoyingly dishonest” marketing tactic.
“It threatens our survival,” Golden said. “It promotes false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay concrete and credible action.”
SB 680 has found detractors, particularly from groups representing business interests. They say the proposed policy is unnecessary under current laws, impossible to enforce, and harmful to product innovation.
But climate advocacy groups have come out in support of the bill, and took the legislative hearing as an opportunity to point out notable examples of alleged greenwashing that has so far been largely overlooked by policymakers and consumers. The bill has also found some support from consumer rights advocates, who say the public is entitled to know pertinent information about the products they purchase.
“It is incredibly disheartening to have to continuously work to dismantle public misperceptions based on the massive marketing and lobbying budgets of multinational corporations and big oil companies,” Cherice Bock, climate policy manager at advocacy group 350 PDX, wrote in a letter of supportive testimony. “Businesses and industries cannot be allowed to deceive and mislead the public about their environmental and climate impact.”
SB 680 seeks to minimize greenwashing in the state by prohibiting a person, or commercial entity, from publishing an “environmental marketing claim, net zero claim, or reputational advertising that is materially false, misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent.” The bill is sponsored by Golden and Senator James Manning Jr., and it has found support from other Democratic legislators including Senators Wlnsvey Campos, Lew Frederick, Chris Gorsek, Deb Patterson, Floyd Prozanski, and Kathleen Taylor.
In including greenwashing as a violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the bill would allow plaintiffs to come forward with charges against people or companies that have violated the policy. If the claims are found to be substantiated, the defendant would face a $200 fine.
The bill states an environmental marketing claim can be deemed greenwashing if it is intended to be relied on as a reason to patronize the company or purchase its products. The bill lists other criteria that the claim must meet, including that it “consists of or includes material that is provably false,” “is not supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence, if the person asserts that a scientific basis exists for the claim,” “is so overly broad and general that the person cannot substantiate the claim,” or “fails to mention or discuss potential costs or tradeoffs,” among other potential metrics.
One example environmental advocates point to is Oregon utility company NW Natural’s marketing of renewable natural gas and hydrogen blending as a way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from gas utilities. Danny Noonan, climate and energy strategist at Breach Collective, Emily Bowes, Sierra Club’s Oregon chapter policy strategist, and Dineen Crowe, campaign manager at 350 PDX, focused on NW Natural in a letter of supportive testimony for SB 680.
The letter states “greenwashing claims are an increasing concern,” with “potential to confuse the public and hinder the transition away from fossil fuels.” Noonan, Bowes, and Crowe say greenwashing claims have increased in Oregon due to the Department of Environmental Quality’s Climate Protection Program, which holds gas utility companies to stricter emissions standards.
“Gas utility NW Natural has heavily marketed itself as being on a pathway to achieving net zero emissions through a suite of so-called ‘gas decarbonization’ technologies,” the letter reads. “These claims have continued to be made in spite of mounting real-world evidence indicating that the utility’s gas supply remains almost 100% sourced from fossil fuels. These claims arguably have provided the company with cover to attack climate regulations at multiple levels of government.”
NW Natural is among the groups vocally opposed to SB 680. In a letter to the legislature, NW Natural Director of State & Federal Affairs Nels Johnson wrote the policy would “stifle genuine discussions about the important issues of climate change and energy policy and would result in limiting information and sowing confusion for both companies and consumers alike."
“This bill will disincentivize many organizations and companies from providing the public with information regarding environmental programs and progress important to making decisions regarding energy choice,” Johnson wrote. “SB 680 appears motivated not by a concern for consumer protection but by an opposition to certain viewpoints on climate change and energy policy.”
NW Natural has been the subject of greenwashing allegations in the past. The company is a defendant in separate lawsuits filed by Multnomah County and NW Natural customers, with both parties alleging it has engaged in greenwashing tactics to pass its product off as more environmentally friendly than it really is.
In one notable incident, NW Natural offered activity booklets to schools, promoting natural gas in a child-friendly presentation. The lawsuit filed by NW Natural customers states the company misrepresented a program it advertised as a way for customers to offset the carbon emissions caused by their natural gas use.
Other business groups have also come out against the bill. Fawn Barrie, representing the Oregon Liability Reform Coalition, which was founded to “support public policy limiting adverse impacts on businesses, taxpayers and communities,” testified against SB 680, saying it’s overly broad and confusing.
Sharla Moffett, senior policy director with Oregon Business and Industry, said the bill is “extremely problematic because its provisions are not well defined, and its standards are extremely vague and subjective.” Moffett also said her organization is concerned the policy would have a chilling effect on companies using “aspirational marketing claims” about their climate goals.
“If a company is stating aspirationally that their goal is to be net zero by 2050, does that present something that could be a violation?” Moffett asked. “In general, we see aspirational advertising as positive because businesses are committing to achieving environmental objectives…and stating publicly what the goal is they’re trying to achieve.”
Bill sponsors didn’t directly address these questions at the February 26 hearing, but Golden indicated there is potential to add language to the bill that may clarify some concerns, specifically around whether or not the policy would apply to candidates seeking public office or lobbyists. (Golden said that isn’t the intention.)
The bill’s scope is also narrowed due to the policy it sets for how plaintiffs can bring a greenwashing claim to legal action, stating the person filing the lawsuit would need to prove they purchased the product or service based on reliance on the “materially false, misleading, deceptive or fraudulent claim or reputational advertising.” It’s unclear how such intent would be proven.
Tyler Gilmore, a volunteer with 350 PDX, wrote in testimony that although he supports the intent of the bill, he would like to see an anti-greenwashing policy fine violators more than $200. He also said he thinks it’s limiting to restrict plaintiffs to people who have purchased from greenwashing companies.
“I greatly appreciate this effort to give the public/consumer back some power. The power imbalance in our extractive capitalist economy has been too big for too long,” Gilmore wrote.
“However, I have concerns that this bill doesn’t provide strong enough accountability for corporations…I have earnestly held concerns that this bill would be ineffective and therefore fall flat and potentially make future greenwashing accountability efforts less viable.”
Despite the bill’s potential flaws and oversights, climate advocates are generally supportive of expanding consumer protection laws to include greenwashing. They say strong policies against false environmental claims are particularly important as the federal government, under President Trump, abandons climate commitments in favor of protecting big businesses.
“This legislation is a necessary response to a surge of corporate greenwashing nationwide, which is likely being promoted to a significant number of Oregonians,” Corey Riday-White, managing attorney at the Center for Climate Integrity, wrote in a supportive statement to the legislature.
Riday-White said in the past, federal agencies have addressed misleading environmental claims, leading to penalties. For example, the US Securities and Exchange Commission stepped in after Keurig advertised its K-Cup single-use coffee pods as more recyclable than they really are.
“We cannot expect that the same enforcement will now take place given staffing cuts and changing priorities at those federal bodies,” Riday-White said.
SB 680 is currently in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, with no future committee meetings or floor events scheduled at this time.
