Hello, hello storymaker.
One of the first rules I learned as a journalist wasn’t how to tell great stories. It was about showing the truth.
I’ll never forget when one of my journalism professors told me:
“If you say dog, show the dog.” In other words, don’t just tell people what’s true. Show them. (s/o Rick Brunson, UCF Professor of Journalism 🙌).
It’s an idiom (or better yet, a rule) borrowed from filmmaking, but it applies to everything, especially brand story-making. If you're going to say something, you'd better back it up in a way your audience can see and feel.
My ‘hot’ take: If we all embraced the “say dog, show dog” rule, we would be truly authentic.
Because it's about finding alignment between what you say and what you show, it should never be in conflict. And yet, that’s precisely where so many brands find themselves in 2025. Saying all the right things, while showing something else entirely.
Lululemon launched a “Be Planet” campaign, while emissions continue to rise.
Edgewell labeled its sunscreens as “reef-friendly” while retaining coral-harming chemicals in the formula.
Charmin leaned into forest-friendly language while sourcing from endangered boreal regions in Canada.
And Adidas was blocked from advertising their climate neutrality goal because they didn’t say or show how they’d get there.
Here’s the thing: I'm not asking to be perfect, but I'm making the case for being honest, truthful, and finding alignment between operations and messaging.
So today, we’re doing a mid-year reality check.
In this issue, we’ll break down:
Why these four brands got called out (and in some cases, sued)
What today’s regulators are looking for
How conscious leaders, marketers and brand storytellers can protect trust while staying bold
Because if your brand story can’t hold up to scrutiny, it’s not ready for the spotlight.
Greenwashing Cases Conscious Leaders Should Know
A breakdown of brand missteps that reveal where sustainability messaging can go wrong and what every conscious leader should take from it.
Lululemon’s “Be Planet” Campaign (USA)
Launched a campaign promoting bold sustainability goals under the banner “Be Planet”
At the same time, company-wide emissions increased compared to 2020 levels
A class-action lawsuit alleged misleading marketing but was dismissed on technical grounds
Critics called out the gap between messaging and measurable progress
Lesson: Aspirational branding requires objective evidence. Broad claims raise expectations.
Edgewell “Reef-Friendly” Sunscreens (Australia)
Over 90 Hawaiian Tropic and Banana Boat sunscreens were labeled “reef-friendly”
ACCC sued, citing harmful ingredients still present in the formulas
The term had been removed in the US, but was still used in Australia until late 2024
No independent testing or evidence was provided to back the environmental claim
Lesson: Consistency and science matter. Regional messaging gaps and weak substantiation invite legal risk.
P&G Charmin’s “Protect. Grow. Restore.” Campaign (USA)
Charmin used forest-positive language and eco-certifications to promote its toilet paper
Lawsuits allege the paper was sourced from boreal forests, key to global climate stability
FSC and Rainforest Alliance logos were present, but clear-cutting practices persisted
Plaintiffs argue that certification use misled consumers about real environmental impact
Lesson: Certifications are not a shield. Sourcing transparency is essential to credible claims.
Adidas “Climate Neutral by 2050” (Germany)
Advertised a goal to become climate neutral by 2050
A German court ruled the ads misleading due to a lack of a plan or explanation
Activist group Deutsche Umwelthilfe challenged the campaign
The court concluded the company failed to disclose how the goal would be achieved or whether offsets would be used
Lesson: Ambitious timelines must come with actionable roadmaps. Goals alone are not enough.
Why This Matters Now
Regulators are cracking down
Lawsuits and legal scrutiny are rising worldwide. The FTC Green Guides are being updated, and courts are treating green claims, such as “reef-safe” or “climate neutral,” as potential forms of deception.
Consumers want proof
Gen Z and Millennials are watching closely. “Eco” is no longer enough. They want receipts.
Vague marketing is now a legal risk
What used to be feel-good fluff is now subject to regulatory action. Storytelling ≠ free pass.
What’s at stake?
Legal liability
Customer trust
Internal misalignment
Brand equity
Movement credibility
Why Conscious Leaders Should Care
Your supply chain = your liability
If your partners mislead, you’re still accountable.Messaging clarity is ESG currency
Broad values aren’t enough; transparency is the differentiator.Reputation is at the core
One off-brand claim can undo years of earned trust.
What to Do Instead
Start with operations:
Define your claims:
Connect values to actions:
Embrace imperfection:
Audit your sourcing, packaging, and claims before telling your story.
Avoid buzzwords. Be specific about impact.
Show the proof. Use storytelling to explain how you live your values.
Don’t wait for perfect. Be honest about what’s working and what isn’t.
When one conscious brand greenwashes, it makes it harder for everyone else doing the real work. But when conscious brands lead with truth, they set a new standard.
So keep posting your values.
Keep working on your supply chain.
Continue asking hard questions.
Because conscious brand story-making isn't about the optics, it’s about the follow-through.
When in doubt? Say dog, show dog.
Till next time,
Camila from Conscious Voices
Sources
Vogue Business. “Lululemon’s reliance on fossil fuels undermines sustainability claims,” Feb. 2025.
ArentFox Schiff LLP. “Going Green: Lessons from Lululemon's Defense in a Greenwashing Class Action,” Feb. 21, 2025.
The Guardian. “Popular sunscreens accused of greenwashing by ACCC over 'reef-friendly' claims,” July 1, 2025.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. “Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic owner in court over alleged greenwashing claims,” press release, July 1, 2025.
News.com.au. “Popular sunscreen brands targeted by consumer watchdog over greenwashing claims,” July 1, 2025.
Reuters. “Procter & Gamble accused of greenwashing Charmin toilet paper, lawsuit says,” Jan. 17, 2025.
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “Lowry v. Procter & Gamble Co.,” Climate Case Chart, accessed July 2025.
Sustainability Magazine. “German court bans Adidas climate neutrality advertising,” March 25, 2025.
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “Deutsche Umwelthilfe v. Adidas,” Climate Case Chart, accessed July 2025.