Study flags five categories of greenwashing in global tourism sector

A study published in May in the journal Frontiers in Sustainability has identified five primary categories of greenwashing within the tourism sector: eco-certifications, inadequate waste management, misleading carbon offsetting, destination-based overconsumption, and the use of “green development” labels to obscure social and environmental harm. Conducted by researchers in Turkey, the study highlights that businesses often engage in performative gestures to meet environmental and social responsibility demands. The research advises travellers to scrutinise sustainability claims by prioritising credible third-party certifications, such as those from the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) and EarthCheck, while avoiding self-created credentials. Genuine sustainability is indicated by specific details on energy sources, water conservation, local sourcing, and community engagement, whereas vague promises and reliance on carbon credits without direct emission reductions are flagged as red flags.

The authors note that businesses facing demands for environmental and social responsibility frequently engage in gestures that are largely for show. They argue that sustainability must be viewed as a structural commitment that is measurable, inclusive, and ethically embedded, rather than a communication strategy. The study underscores that the gap between sustainability claims and actual practices can be significant, particularly in the luxury sector where corporate chains are often associated with problematic greenwashing.

Independent and robust certification systems play a crucial role in distinguishing genuine efforts from marketing ploys. The researchers recommend looking for credible third-party certifications from programs that set scientific benchmarks and involve mandatory audits, such as GSTC and EarthCheck. In nature-rich regions, the nonprofit Rainforest Alliance also certifies hotels that meet certain sustainability and biodiversity conservation standards. Conversely, the study warns against self-created credentials or eco-awards, which are often the result of paid promotions or vague marketing claims.

The paper also distinguishes between different types of certifications, noting that LEED, while best-in-class for construction, offers limited insight into daily operations. Instead, the study advises looking for specific details on energy sources, water conservation practices, local sourcing of materials, and community engagement. Businesses that put in the work tend to share explicit details about their operations, such as whether they grow food on-site or name particular communities they source ingredients from.

Ownership structure is another key indicator, with the study suggesting that locally owned businesses are more likely to operate with their community and ecosystem in mind. In contrast, distant corporate chains may have less incentive to coexist with their neighbours. The researchers also highlight that all-inclusive resorts are often fundamentally at odds with sustainable living due to high water usage, reliance on imported food, and significant waste generation, although some may mitigate these issues through local sourcing and recycling.

With no regulations governing what companies can say about their eco-friendliness, the burden of proof lies with the company. The study advises travellers to evaluate whether a company is reducing its own emissions or relying on carbon credits to make its claims. If details are scarce or vague, the researchers suggest looking elsewhere, as meaningful sustainability efforts take time and money to implement and verify.

The study concludes that the ecotourism sector is a hotbed of sustainability falsehoods, often amplified by influencers and social media. The best way to evaluate an ecotourism hotel or tour operator is to look at how specific it is in its claims. Businesses that are genuinely committed to sustainability will provide concrete evidence of their practices, from waste reduction to community engagement, rather than relying on general promises or misleading imagery.