The Eco-Spin Cycle: how brand’s sustainability claims come out in the wash
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has published anti-greenwashing guidelines for businesses making environmental and sustainability claims. Despite these efforts, media coverage of greenwashing, particularly focusing on senate inquiries and regulatory court cases against major offenders, continues to expose brands and industries stretching the truth in their sustainability messaging. This exposure is causing a growing disconnect between consumers and corporations, as audiences increasingly call out misleading practices and question the authenticity of corporate sustainability claims.Isentia’s sister brand, Pulsar conducted recent research exploring media and public discourse around sustainability. Part of this report examines how greenwashing is covered in the news and on social media, particularly in relation to the broader sustainability discourse. Let’s investigate those themes in more depth here.
Social media data is decreasing while online news activity re-engages, indicating incident-led conversations. Regulatory bodies like the ACCC, and state and federal governments are tackling greenwashing by identifying major corporate offenders and their misleading actions, such as ‘recyclable’ packaging, carbon credit misuse, lack of transparency in fossil fuel investments, and exploitation of government climate programs. Audience conversations often align with news coverage on these matters. The term in Australia particularly gained traction among social audiences around November 2022 when the UN called out the Australian government for allowing the use of carbon offsets in corporate emissions reduction strategies. News of the apparent collusion between the government and large corporations has caused public faith and trust in both to dwindle. As these stories emerge, Australia’s positive sustainability impact on the international stage is significantly undermined.
When we look at which sectors are most discussed within the greenwashing topic, energy, finance, and food take the lead.
Much of the discussion regarding the energy and finance sectors emphasises their interconnectedness, particularly the investment by financial institutions, including super funds, in environmentally harmful industries. Despite some super funds claiming to offer options that avoid unsustainable investments, reports have revealed that they collectively hold millions of shares in the fossil fuel industry.
Many industries are being criticised for using carbon credits, such as REDD+ offsets, to appear more sustainable. Advertising, marketing, and public relations also play a significant role in promoting misleading sustainability initiatives, thereby contributing to greenwashing. However, stakeholders are aware that the advertising and communications industries have a huge impact on the profitability and success of an industry or product. The European Union’s Product Environmental Footprint classification system, for example, has been criticised by Australia’s wool industry for being unfair to wool products and for greenwashing. This, they argue, not only undermines the pursuit of a green transition within fashion but also damages a vital industry.
Mercer stands out as a most mentioned brand within the topic of greenwashing. This is due to ASIC pursuing a civic penalty case against them which alleged they misled members about its sustainability investments. This is groundbreaking for audiences to witness as it would be the first time the consumer watchdog has taken a company to court for alleged greenwashing.
Australian Securities & Investments Commission sues Mercer Super in first greenwashing case alleging members of Sustainable Plus fund misled by claims carbon intensive fossil fuels excluded but it had invested in 15 stocks including AGL Energy, BHP, Glencore and Whitehaven Coal
Much of the conversation focuses on misinformation and lack of transparency in communication and marketing. Certifications like Fair Trade are being questioned, particularly for products like chocolate, and eco-certification for farmed salmon. It particularly muddies the waters for political figures when they get entangled with brands coming under scrutiny for such greenwashing.
‘No word has been more readily purloined for greenwashing than “sustainable”, but Tassal does it with particular flair. Getting Australia’s PM to rig up as its advertising board was a corporate coup.’ All the salmon farms are overseas owned. -Bob Brown https://t.co/acQUH1vqgS
Furthermore, some companies feature in the media conversation due to their involvement in a senate enquiry initiated in March 2023, with a report expected by June 28th this year.
Analysis of the ANZ reveals a shift in mindset, with consumers emphasising individual actions for solutions like composting or guerilla campaigns on mislabelled environmentally friendly salmon products. Grassroots and individual activism leading to actions like divestment from conflicting companies. Community groups like uni student clubs showcase how groups with shared values and experiences can make noise and incite change with how universities invest. However, there are ongoing debates as to whether it’s the role of sectors like higher education or Super Funds to prioritise the environmental implications of their decisions.
The rise in curiosity around greenwashing highlights the growing consumer demand for transparency and genuine sustainability from brands. As regulatory scrutiny and public awareness increase, brands must ensure their sustainability claims are genuine or face reputation damage.
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
At Isentia’s Beyond the Barossa panel, industry leaders from tourism, higher education, government, defence, and media came together to discuss how South Australia is being positioned, both to its own people and to the world. The discussion highlighted shared challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of communications in shaping South Australia’s identity.
South Australia’s brand: confidence and complexity
Chris Burford (South Australian Tourism Commission) outlined the dual challenge of building national and international awareness while fostering local pride. While South Australia currently ranks sixth of eight states on “appeal and consideration” as a tourist destination, it leads the nation in state pride. Events like Liv Golf and Gather Round have helped South Australians feel more confident about their state, and post-COVID reflections have driven a greater appreciation for the quality of life.
The SATC’s Celebrate the Simple Pleasures campaign reflects a move toward “place branding,” focusing less on iconic landmarks and more on the lived experience of being in South Australia. The research underpinning the campaign revealed a consistent theme: South Australians want the state to “grow but not change” embracing progress while retaining its distinct character.
Education and global perceptions
Djurdjica Arslanagic (Adelaide University) noted that Adelaide’s perception internationally has shifted from being seen as a regional city to a globally attractive destination for students. South Australia’s reputation as welcoming, safe, and supportive resonates strongly with international families making education choices. With the upcoming merger of Adelaide’s universities, communication is focused on tailoring messages to varied stakeholders, from students to alumni to government, ensuring consistency while meeting different needs.
Defence, industry and the workforce challenge
Sasha Meldrum (Nova Systems) discussed the enormous communications challenge posed by AUKUS and the scale of defence industry growth. With tens of thousands of workers required, from shipbuilders to nuclear scientists, attracting talent locally and globally will demand new policy approaches and fresh messaging. Meldrum emphasised that communicators must also help shift perceptions of defence, reframing it as not only about warfare but also about peacekeeping, security, and technological advancement.
Media fragmentation and targeted storytelling
Verity Edwards (Hughes PR) reflected on the contraction of South Australian newsrooms and the rise of alternative platforms. Traditional prestige outlets like The Advertiser still hold influence, but strategies now require targeting the right audience with the right medium. For some clients, industry publications or regional media can have far greater impact than mainstream outlets. Edwards highlighted the need for nuanced communication strategies that prioritise outcomes over exposure, and lateral thinking to match stories with audiences.
The climate story
A key challenge raised during the Q&A was South Australia’s ongoing algal bloom crisis. Burford noted its severe impact on coastal communities and tourism, with uncertainty around long-term recovery. He stressed the importance of communication grounded in science and transparency to maintain public trust, comparing the challenge to COVID in its unpredictability. The discussion highlighted how crucial clear, proactive communication is, both in explaining what’s happening and in shaping the narrative around next steps.
Key Takeaways:
Confidence in identity – South Australians are more assured in their story, but lifting national and international visibility remains a priority.
Nuanced storytelling – Different audiences, from universities to defence to tourism, require tailored approaches that balance authenticity with strategy.
Collaboration – Industry, government, and academia must align communications to tackle workforce, economic, and reputational challenges.
Think laterally – Success isn’t always about “big hits”; smaller, targeted placements often deliver the most impact.
Beyond the Barossa: Communicating South Australia’s evolving story
At Isentia’s Beyond the Barossa panel, industry leaders from tourism, higher education, government, defence, and media came together to discuss how South Australia is being positioned, both to its own people and to the world. The discussion highlighted shared challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of communications in shaping South Australia’s identity. South Australia’s brand: […]
A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia's housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, 'top-down' discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media.
While news outlets focus on interest rates and mortgage advice, the public conversation is a volatile, 'bottom-up' outcry over the lived experience of unaffordability and political frustration. This gap between the financial narrative and the public's emotional reality represents a significant strategic risk for any organisation communicating in this space.
In stark contrast, social media is having a "bottom-up" conversation, focusing on the personal pain points of cost, blame, and political frustration. It speaks from within the economy. At its heart, this conversation is driven by the raw, personal impact of an unaffordable market; users aren't debating abstract forecasts, they're lamenting the "exorbitant" cost of "multimillion dollar postage stamp sized tenancies." This personal frustration then quickly seeks a target, splintering into direct political blame over specific tax policies and a deep-seated criticism of the planning bureaucracy, which is seen as a fundamental roadblock.
The core theme is the lived experience of exorbitant real estate prices, with users directly linking high property values to the unaffordability of everyday life and business. There is a strong undercurrent of blame directed at planners, councils, and perceived bureaucratic inefficiency as a primary driver of the housing shortage. The housing discussion is frequently and explicitly politicised, with users tying the crisis to taxation or economic policies.
Analysis shows a public belief that the government is prioritising private developers over vulnerable citizens. The revelation of stakeholder meetings behind closed doors to discuss 'investment models' for public housing towers for example has solidified a narrative of privatisation by stealth. The call for public housing is a direct demand for the government to re-assert its role as a protector of citizens, not a facilitator for private profit. Underpinning all of these solutions is a palpable sense of moral urgency, driven by the visible 'human cost' of the crisis. But this frustration is not passive. With calls for street resistance and construction unions to refuse demolition work, the message is clear: if these concrete actions are not taken, the conversation will move from online forums to the streets and worksites.
Monitoring and identifying these distinct ideological fault lines is crucial. It allows a communications team to understand the specific arguments and trigger words of each camp. Any government announcement will not be received by a single public, but will land on this fractured community and be interpreted through these pre-existing lenses.
A critical blind spot has emerged in Australia’s housing debate. An analysis of news coverage compared to social discussion reveals that the conversation happening in the news media, a calm, ‘top-down’ discussion of financial strategy for existing homeowners, is dangerously disconnected from the raw, emotional reality unfolding on social media. While news outlets focus on […]
Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters.
In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for customer sales. CRM systems, built for structured pipelines and linear user journeys, have long been the default for managing contact databases. They work well for sales and customer service functions. But for communications professionals managing journalists, political offices, internal leaders and external advocates, these tools often fall short.
Stakeholder relationships don’t follow a straight line. They change depending on context, shaped by policy shifts, public sentiment, media narratives or crisis response. A stakeholder may be supportive one week and critical the next. They often hold more than one role, and their influence doesn’t fit neatly into a funnel or metric.
Managing these relationships requires more than contact management. It requires context. The ability to see not just who you spoke to, but why, and what happened next. Communications teams need shared visibility across issues and departments. As reporting expectations grow, that information must be searchable, secure and aligned with wider organisational goals.
What’s often missing is infrastructure. Without the right systems, strategic relationship management becomes fragmented or reactive. Sometimes it becomes invisible altogether.
This is where Stakeholder Relationship Management (SRM) enters the conversation. Not as a new acronym, but as a different way of thinking about influence.
At Isentia, we’ve seen how a purpose-built SRM platform can help communications teams navigate complexity more confidently. Ours offers a secure, centralised space to log and track every interaction, whether it’s a media enquiry, a ministerial meeting, or a community update, and link it to your team’s broader communications activity.
The aim isn’t to automate relationships. It’s to make them easier to manage, measure and maintain. It’s about creating internal coordination before the external message goes out.
Because in today’s communications environment, stakeholder engagement is not just a support function. It is a strategic capability.
Across the communications landscape, teams are being asked to do more with less, while staying aligned, responsive and compliant in the face of complex and often shifting stakeholder demands. In that environment, how we track, report and manage our relationships really matters. In too many organisations, relationship management is still built around tools designed for […]
