A few months ago, I reviewed a sustainability-linked portfolio with an asset manager. One bond caught my eye—it was labeled green, backed by a reputable certification body, and issued by a large utility. But the underlying project? A gas pipeline. Labeled “transition” under a national taxonomy, but no clear path to low carbon.

It wasn’t an isolated case. Around the world, sustainability labels and ESG certifications are everywhere—from buildings to bonds to entire portfolios. They promise credibility, transparency, and accountability. But many don’t live up to the claims.

We’re entering an era where labels often outpace impact, where frameworks meant to fight greenwashing end up enabling it. Let’s talk about how we got here, what’s going wrong, and how to spot greenwashing before it hits your portfolio.

The Race to Look Green

Globally, ESG investing is booming—projected to exceed $50 trillion by 2025. Companies and asset managers are under pressure to prove they’re aligned with sustainability goals. Certifications, ratings, and taxonomies offer a solution: a seal of approval that’s easy to communicate and track.

But this demand has created an ecosystem of fragmented standards and inconsistent definitions. What qualifies as “sustainable” in one region may be questionable in another.

Case in point: the EU Taxonomy, considered one of the most rigorous sustainability frameworks. In 2022, it controversially included natural gas and nuclear as “green” investments. While the intent was to support energy transition, the decision drew criticism across Europe. Environmental groups called it political greenwashing. The framework built to fight credibility issues had become a target of them.

When Green Becomes Grey

At the core of this issue is form over substance.

Many certifications rely on self-reported data.
ESG ratings often prioritize policies over performance.
One-time audits don’t guarantee long-term outcomes.

Let’s break it down with examples:

1. ESG Ratings Are All Over the Place

A 2023 study revealed that ESG scores from different rating agencies vary wildly. Companies saw their scores jump or drop overnight—not due to any change in behavior, but due to methodology updates. MSCI, one of the largest ESG raters, openly states that its ratings assess financial risk, not environmental or social impact.

So, a company with a high carbon footprint might score well if it manages that risk profitably. That’s fine—if understood. But too often, high ratings are mistaken for high sustainability.

2. LEED-Certified Doesn’t Always Mean Low-Carbon

LEED buildings are praised as environmentally friendly. Yet several studies found that 28–35% of LEED-certified buildings consume more energy than comparable conventional buildings. Why? Because LEED often rewards design features (like bike racks or certain materials) without tracking real-world performance.

In short, buildings get certified for intent, not always for impact.

3. Green Bonds Have Funded Fossil Activities

Green bonds are meant to finance climate-positive projects. But definitions vary. In China, “clean coal” was eligible under green bond rules until recently. Billions were invested under this label. Meanwhile, a bond certified under a globally known standard was criticized in 2022 for financing waste incineration in cement kilns—one of the world’s most carbon-intensive sectors.

READ MORE: The Data Drought in Green Finance: What We’ve Seen, What We’ve Learned, and What’s Next

ESG’s Most Confusing Moment: The Tesla vs. Exxon Example

In 2022, the S&P ESG Index removed Tesla from its list due to governance and disclosure concerns—while ExxonMobil remained one of its top constituents.

How could the world’s leading EV company rank lower than an oil giant?

Because the rating was based on exposure to ESG risks, not net environmental impact. Tesla lacked disclosures, Exxon improved relative to peers. The result? Public backlash. Elon Musk called ESG a scam. For many professionals, it was a wake-up call: you can’t rely on ESG scores alone to judge impact.

Voluntary Disclosure ≠ Verified Action

Frameworks like CDP have pushed thousands of companies to disclose emissions. That’s good. But CDP’s own analysis shows that only 1% of companies provide full, actionable transition plans. Many stop at pledges.

You’ll find net-zero commitments on glossy front pages—but with no data on scope 3 emissions, no interim targets, and no capital expenditures aligned to climate goals.

The Great ESG Downgrade in Europe

In late 2022, EU regulators clarified that funds labeled “Article 9” (sustainable investment) must prove 100% alignment. Hundreds of funds—managing over €175 billion—couldn’t. They reclassified themselves under “Article 8”, which has less stringent requirements.

The reclassification didn’t just move funds—it eroded investor trust. Labels had promised sustainability. Under scrutiny, they fell short.

Explore ESG Solutions on our marketplace - OneStop ESG Marketplace

So, What Makes a Certification Credible?

In my experience, credible certifications share four qualities:

Transparency – Clear, public criteria. No black-box algorithms. You should know exactly what a label means.
Independence – Audits or assessments by third parties, not internal teams or pay-to-play models.
Impact-based – Focus on real-world outcomes (like reduced emissions), not just policies or checklists.
Accountability – Ongoing monitoring, with the ability to revoke certification if standards slip.

How to Spot Greenwashing in Practice

If you’re in finance or sustainability, use these filters:

Ask what the certification measures – Is it process or performance? Risk management or real-world impact?
Look at time frames – Is performance verified annually? Or was it certified once, five years ago?
Watch for partial coverage – Is the “green” label tied to a small project within a largely polluting business?
Check disclosures – Are the underlying metrics public? Can you verify them?

And finally: Trust, but verify. Don’t assume a label equals alignment. Treat certifications as a starting point, not a conclusion.

Certifications aren’t the problem. In many ways, they’ve helped push the market toward accountability. But they’re only as strong as their criteria, verification, and the integrity of those who use them.

We need stronger standards. More transparency. More scrutiny.

Until then, it’s up to us—finance professionals, sustainability officers, investors—to look past the label. To ask the hard questions. To demand clarity. Because green should mean green. Not maybe. Not almost. Not technically.

Just green.

Read more insightful articles in the Featured column on OneStop ESG News.

Keep abreast of the top ESG Events on OneStop ESG Events.

OneStop ESG Educate: Your go-to source for top ESG courses and training programs tailored to your needs.