Ethics-washing is the practice of wrapping an organisation’s actions or inaction in ethical language to create the impression of moral responsibility, while avoiding any meaningful change.
It’s an umbrella term for a family of related behaviours: Greenwashing cloaks environmental harm in sustainability branding; Woke washing deploys progressive rhetoric while maintaining inequitable practices; Rainbow washing flies the flag while opposing LGBTQ+ protections; Fem washing uses feminist language while exploiting women workers.
Ethics-washing covers the larger pattern of using the form of ethics, the principles, the committees, the press releases, the mission statements, to deflect scrutiny from what is actually happening within the organisation.
The term has been used lately in critical AI ethics research where scholars noticed that tech companies were publishing ethics guidelines as a way to wash away concerns about the very policies those guidelines should have questioned. But the behaviour predates AI by decades, as a way of making ethics look like a solution without actually fixing the problem.
We want the organisations we choose to say something about who we are. It feels good to buy from a business that treats people well, or to work somewhere you can proudly talk about at a party, or donate to an organisation that is changing the world. Organisations know this; they are very good at using ethics discourse to align themselves with their audiences.
Researchers have documented five mechanisms that help this tactic work.
Once a company makes a public promise on sustainability, diversity, or AI safety, people tend to give it credit for that promise and stop asking hard questions. The public statement becomes a kind of moral credit; moral licensing happens both at the individual and organisational levels; the more ethical an organisation looks, the more leeway people give it when its behaviour contradicts that image.
Organisations don’t need to be ethical to appear ethical, they just need to use the same words that ethical people use. Concepts like justice, fairness, and responsibility are abstract and positive, which means simply connecting your brand to them creates a sense of legitimacy. Some organisations publish reports and issue statements not to be held accountable, but to manage how they are perceived. The wording in these cases is often deliberately vague, because vagueness sounds right without committing to anything measurable.
When a company is known for one positive trait like innovation or market success, people automatically assume it has other positive traits, like good governance or fair labour practices. Ethics-washing triggers this bias by providing the exact language that triggers the halo. Acts of goodwill do this even when they have nothing to do with the product; for example, consumers rate the products of companies seen doing good as performing better, and the effect runs entirely on believed benevolence. The halo does the heavy lifting that actual ethics work should do, which is why borrowed ethical language is worth so much.
Creating an ethics board, publishing principles and naming an internal champion are concrete actions, but they can still be performative. They look like governance to outsiders, reducing external pressure while remaining too weak or isolated to stop harmful decisions. The guardrail exists on paper but has no power over the organisation’s direction.
When employees see their company ethics-wash, they learn that saying the right things counts as doing the right thing. They become less likely to push for substantive change because the performance satisfies both management and their own moral identity.
When brands use moral language to cover up harmful practices, they undermine the whole idea of ethical responsibility, making it harder for truly ethical organisations to be heard. Audiences start doubting every ethical claim, genuine ones included. At the organisation level that shows up as perceived hypocrisy, caught between the pledge and the practice, and it damages trust and credibility. At the societal level, researcher Elettra Bietti calls the result ethics bashing: the reflex of writing off ethics talk altogether because washing cheapened it. The real work gets thrown out with the fake, and the cost lands on everyone still doing it honestly.
A recent study of LGBT+ employees whose employer runs rainbow-washing campaigns, found they report lower wellbeing and lower commitment to the job as a direct result. Black, Hispanic and Latin job seekers who saw a company’s stated diversity values beside a leadership team that did not reflect them became less likely to apply. The statement promised access while the contradiction pushed people away from the jobs, pay and influence it claimed to open. An organisation can release a diversity pledge while maintaining unequal pay, hiring and promotion criteria, or publish an AI ethics policy while deploying biased algorithms. The communities that should be protected end up absorbing the harm, and those facing the actual inequities rarely have a seat at the table where the messaging is decided.
Members of the organisation hear commitments in staff meetings and corporate communications, while watching the same practices continue. The distance between leadership’s words and the reality of the workplace wears people down over time, and it is what discourages them from pushing for change from the inside.
Turn ethics into a press release or an intranet checklist and years of real moral reasoning flatten into branding. Confusing ethics-washing with genuine commitment makes it much harder to demand standards, leaving us with messaging that protects existing power structures instead of values that actually change behavior.
Naming ethics washing is necessary, but the same instinct that catches it can overcorrect. Treating every ethical statement as performative flattens the difference between genuine work and ethics-washing, and stops us from recognizing organisations that are actually trying to do better. Genuine ethics work is often uneven from the start. It gets built from the ground up, through individual effort and often personal risk, and the results it produces are inconsistent by nature, not by dishonesty.
Organisations are not single actors moving in one direction, and progress on one front does not imply progress on every front. An organisation might be making genuine strides in environmental sustainability while still causing harm in other areas, and the environmental claim in that case is not washing. What is still true is that the organisation, taken as a whole, is not meeting its ethical obligations. The problem begins when progress in one area is used to make a broader ethical claim that conceals material harm elsewhere.
There is also a difference between falling short and ethics-washing. An organisation that wants to move away from a harmful material but has no viable alternative, or is bound by regulation to keep using it, is not washing when it names that commitment and states that it has not yet met it. This is a sign that the organisation is still in the process of doing the work. Washing is claiming the thing has already been achieved when it has not. What separates the two is the honesty of the account the organisation gives of where it stands.
The way to combat ethics washing, therefore, is not to instrumentalize ethical language, reduce and then dispose of it, but rather to distinguish performative and instrumentalized forms of ethics from valuable commitments to moral principle that promote advancements in self-knowledge and understanding.
The distinction between performative ethics and ethics-washing is where we need to apply our critical thinking, not only to the messages we receive as consumers but to our own claims and communication as organisations. To make this a bit easier, we have adapted work by researchers in fast fashion and the UK competition authority’s principles for environmental claims, which can be readily applied to the whole family of ethics-washing tactics. When evaluating a claim, ask yourself if it is:
Here are some examples, captured in the wild and run against this checklist.
A Conscious Collection – Sustainable style at H&M
Sustainability is a long term trend at H&M and this April as part of the focus on sustainability H&M will introduce the Conscious Collection – The collection which is for women, men and children is made from enviromentally – adapted and greener materials such as organic cotton, Tencel® and recycled polyester. H&M’s designers have been inspired by different shades of white, one of the most important colours this Spring. A minimalist, tailored look is combined with romantic lace, Broderie Anglaise, frills and draping. The Conscious Collection will be on sale in all H&M stores from 14th April.
“It’s not just about organic cotton any more, the possibilities for creating a complete fashion statement with eco smarter materials are huge now. By designing recurring Conscious Collections we have the opportunity to show in a variety of ways what’s possible using more sustainable fabrics,” says Ann-Sofie Johansson, H&M Head of design. “Shades of white are the season’s biggest fashion trend and it feels right for this collection. White creates a romantic feeling with lace and Broderie Anglaise, but is also the basic colour in a sporty, relaxed style and in a preppy tailored look for men.”
Womenswear is inspired by an updated romantic style in which blouses, tunics and T-shirts with Broderie Anglaise are a key trend. Tiered dresses are perfect for day or more dramatic Grecian gowns for night. Long floaty skirts are key as are cut-off shorts. The collection also includes the perfect white blazer and pleated trousers for a more minimalist look as well as Broderie Anglaise and lace lingerie.
Menswear takes on a preppy mood with a white two-button blazer, collarless shirts and T-shirts with Henley detailing at the neck. There are printed and striped T-shirts, as well as a tank top for layering and trousers are either five-pocket jeans or tailored. Meanwhile the Children’s collection is full of white pieces for both girls and boys. It’s all about tiered dresses, tops, skirts for girls, and for boys t-shirts and jeans.
We can spot the washing as the announcement fails on clarity, showing the full picture and fair comparison. A small collection in “environmentally adapted and greener materials”, with no baseline for greener, from one of the biggest operations in fast fashion, an industry that ranks among the world’s most polluting.
The page flies the flag and describes a journey “continually working towards” inclusion, while the same company’s political donations have supported the authors of anti-LGBT legislation. Once again we see a lack of clarity and an ambiguous claim, and important information about the organisation’s activities is missing. The contradiction between the claim and the political actions of the organisation would make you question their truthfulness, and overall the claims are impossible to quantify or falsify.
Ecosia is a Berlin search engine that puts its profits into climate action, mostly tree planting. The claim shows truthfulness, transparency and the full picture. The counter stands at over 253 million trees across 35 countries and 70 listed projects, the monthly financial statements show the income and how much of it became trees, and every step from search to ad revenue to planted tree can be followed, quantified and falsified. The company’s steward-ownership means the profits cannot go anywhere else.
Our progress
In 2024/25, using our updated living income analysis model, and covering all members of 3 of our longest-term partner cooperatives, we found that 40.6% of cocoa farmers reached or exceeded the living income benchmark for Côte d’Ivoire. Our 2023/24 living income analysis, which looked at a sample from the same 3 partner cooperatives, showed that 19.1%[43] of cocoa farmers were earning at or above the living income benchmark, as set by the Anker Institute.
This substantial increase was driven by higher farmgate prices (which in recent seasons have risen above the LIRP) as well as additional premiums paid. Still, 59.4% of cocoa farmers remain below the benchmark, with most earning between 61 and 99% of a living income. A targeted approach and realistic goals are needed for cocoa farmers to reach (and sustain) a living income.
Results
| 40.6% of cocoa farmers at our 3 longest-term partner cooperatives are earning at or above the living income benchmark.[44] | This substantial increase in farmers crossing the living income benchmark compared with last year (in 2023/24 this number was 19.1%) can be explained by the higher farmgate prices and additional premiums paid. Fairtrade noted similar results in a 2024 study assessing cocoa farmer income.[45] |
| 59.4% of farmers at our 3 longest-term partner cooperatives are earning below the living income benchmark. Of these… | |
| 24.9% earned 81–99.9% of a living income | Promising progress. This shows how higher farmgate prices can significantly shift the needle on living income. |
| 27.9% earned 61–80% of a living income | Clear opportunity. This group stands to benefit from targeted interventions, especially through our new productivity scheme (see p. 70). |
| 6.4% earned 41–60% of a living income | Inclusive impact. We believe it’s essential that our approach strengthens leverage for change across the full spectrum of farmers and farm conditions (see p. 71). |
| 0.2% earned less than 40% of a living income. | Favourable circumstances. This segment of farmers may rise again if cocoa prices drop, which highlights the importance of long-term commitments to safeguard progress and stability. |
| The median household across our longest-term partner cooperatives fell 9% below the benchmark.[46] | |
Tony’s Chocolonely is a Dutch chocolate company working to end exploitation in cocoa. The report passes on clarity, completeness and fair comparison. It opens with the shortfall, 40.6 percent of farmers at its longest-term partner cooperatives at or above the living income benchmark, 59.4 percent below, the median household 9 percent under, measured against a benchmark set by an outside institute, and it names higher farmgate prices and premiums as what moved the number.
To make sure our ethics commitments are not just washing, we need an honest internal audit. The starting point is the same criteria used to distinguish washing from genuine work.
Are the principles designed to drive internal change, or are they primarily intended for external communication and brand reputation? If the language serves only the marketing department, it is washing. Genuine commitments are embedded in operational decisions, not just press releases.
Vague language is the easiest way to wash without consequence. Specific targets, timelines, and independent oversight mechanisms turn ethical principles into actionable standards. Without measurable criteria, there is no way to be held accountable for progress or failure.
An organisation that admits where it is falling short is far more credible than one presenting a flawless facade. Transparency about the difficulties of implementing change signals genuine engagement. It shows that the organisation understands ethics is a messy process, not a finished product.
When an organisation is held accountable, how does it react? A genuine commitment treats external feedback as data for improvement. Washing treats it as a reputational threat. The ability to adjust course in response to valid criticism is the ultimate test of an organisation’s ethical framework.
These are the sources we have read, verified and can account for, drawn from real cases, scientific research and journalistic reportage. They are not exhaustive.
If you know of one that belongs here, reach out.
The library is not finished. We want these tactics and flips to come out of the
discussions and experience of the people who use them. Our members can lead what we look at, how we think about it, and where we go next. Join us to participate.
The tactic
A ‘secret recipe’ is when someone claims they have an exclusive secret to success, or a shortcut, that no one else has. There is no ONE solution to a problem, and claiming that there is creates a sense of lack and loss aversion that are hard to resist.
The flip
An approach described plainly, without the mystery. Nobody has the only solution to anything, and saying so out loud costs less than it seems.
The tactic
We are led to expect something of value and what arrives does not match, as when a webinar turns into a sales pitch. The bait primes us to receive, so when the value is pulled away we are anxious to fill the gap with almost anything, and quick to feel we owe something back.
The flip
When a pitch is attached to something of value, say so in the invitation and again at the start, so people arrive knowing. Keeping it under about five percent of the time, or moving it into a separate conversation entirely, leaves the value you promised intact.
The tactic
Calling something free when it is paid for with information, time and attention. Free is hard to resist, and an email address is a low-bar agreement that makes saying no harder next time. Once we have handed something over, we are more receptive to whatever arrives.
The flip
The offering available without signing up to anything else, and the list as its own invitation with a plain account of what it is for. Where the two cannot be separated, the sign-up box should say that emails are coming, unsubscribing should be easy, and what arrives should stay on the subject people signed up for.
Not ready to pledge? We’ll only use your email for our newsletter. Privacy notice.
Fields with * are required
