Greenwashing: How environmental falsehoods are undermining Africa’s climate action
A 2023 investigation by the Daily Nation revealed that several carbon credit initiatives in Kenyan community forests overstated their climate impact while offering limited benefits to local communities
What you need to know:
- Greenwashing refers to exaggerating or fabricating the environmental benefits of a product, service or initiative.
- At its core, it is a marketing tactic, using the appearance of sustainability to gain favour without making meaningful changes.
Across Africa, the climate crisis is intensifying. Droughts are growing more frequent, floods are increasingly destructive, and food insecurity is more pronounced. In response, governments and businesses are embracing the language of sustainability, from billboards promoting eco-friendly products to corporate pledges of carbon neutrality. But behind this growing “green” narrative lies a less visible threat- greenwashing.
Greenwashing refers to exaggerating or fabricating the environmental benefits of a product, service or initiative. At its core, it is a marketing tactic, using the appearance of sustainability to gain favour without making meaningful changes. While often associated with developed nations, greenwashing is taking root across Africa, where climate finance, energy transition goals, and public trust are vital.
The practice creates unfair competition by allowing companies that make false claims to gain market advantages over those committed to sustainability. This distorts markets and can discourage businesses from investing in real environmental improvements. When greenwashing is exposed, companies face reputational damage that can be costly. Additionally, persistence of greenwashing threatens Africa’s ability to attract credible climate finance and partnerships, which are essential for scaling up climate solutions.
Africa contributes just 3.8 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet faces some of the most severe climate impacts. This vulnerability has attracted climate finance, green investment flows, and international partnerships aimed at sustainable development. However, when companies or governments misrepresent initiatives as environmentally responsible, they distort the climate action landscape, weaken accountability and divert resources from genuine solutions.
A clear example is found in the use of carbon credits. Intended to offset emissions by supporting environmental projects such as forest preservation or clean cookstoves, carbon markets have expanded rapidly across Africa. Yet oversight remains limited. A 2023 investigation by the Daily Nation revealed that several carbon credit initiatives in Kenyan community forests overstated their climate impact while offering limited benefits to local communities. These projects were branded sustainable but masked exploitative dynamics.
Such practices delay progress. When flashy but unverified green campaigns attract funding and political support, grassroots efforts with robust environmental foundations often struggle for attention. Initiatives led by scientists, conservationists, or local communities risk being crowded out by well-funded but ineffective alternatives.
The problem extends beyond Kenya. The African Climate Foundation flagged similar concerns across West Africa, particularly in the energy sector. In a 2022 report, the Foundation said several “clean” energy projects received substantial funding despite relying on outdated or low-impact technologies. In some cases, fossil fuel infrastructure was rebranded as transitional simply because it emitted less than coal. While promoted as climate-friendly, such investments risk locking communities into another generation of carbon dependency.
Environmental claims
At the heart of the issue is a lack of clear standards for verifying environmental claims. Terms such as “carbon neutral” or “eco-friendly” are frequently used without third-party validation. Without consistent benchmarks or disclosure requirements, separating legitimate initiatives from those making exaggerated claims becomes difficult. This challenge is compounded in Africa, where environmental regulators often lack the resources and capacity to enforce transparency.
This presents a credibility dilemma for consumers, especially in rapidly urbanising regions. Many young Africans are keen to make climate-conscious choices. Yet, without verifiable information, they risk unknowingly supporting products or services that contribute little to sustainability. Over time, this erodes public trust and creates skepticism about all green initiatives.
Greenwashing also has implications for policymaking. State agencies often cite private sector projects as evidence of progress. However, when these projects are based on inflated or misleading claims, national climate strategies risk being built on flawed assumptions. Resources such as land, tax incentives, or fast-tracked approvals may be allocated to ventures that do not deliver real climate benefits.
Government-led campaigns are not immune. Tree-planting drives without follow-up maintenance, or declarations of green cities lacking comprehensive planning, show how public institutions can unintentionally participate in greenwashing. Sometimes, such campaigns are designed to meet donor expectations or bolster political image rather than deliver a measurable impact.
But this does not suggest that all environmental efforts are fraudulent. Across Africa, a growing ecosystem of climate innovators, conservationists and clean energy entrepreneurs continues to deliver impactful work. The challenge is distinguishing these efforts from the noise.
Encouragingly, steps are being taken to strengthen accountability. In 2021, the Nairobi Securities Exchange introduced its Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosure Guidance Manual. While compliance remains voluntary, the framework encourages listed companies to publicly report their sustainability performance, offering a potential model for other African markets.
Education will also play a critical role. Climate literacy among citizens, investors and media practitioners can foster more informed scrutiny of green claims. Stakeholders can challenge misleading narratives and demand greater accountability by asking better questions about carbon footprints, supply chains and impact metrics.
