From the very beginning, I was one of the few who openly talked about misconduct.
Ever since the start of my career in sustainability, I have worked with different companies.
This is how I fund our activities, and of course, this is also how I gain access to information that nobody outside would normally see – information that I am then able to share with you.
But we also know this is why many people deviate from their original path of boldly addressing shortcomings.
Why? Because at some point, money becomes too important.
Since this has not happened to me, and as I am one of the few people in the field with the necessary technical expertise, I want to talk about something I often address in my advisory practice.
I want to give you some examples because I want to help you avoid falling prey to this kind of misguidance.
Pitfall #1: Negative Carbon & “Certifications”
A major trend at the moment is materials made from biogenic sources – for example, plant waste streams.
But one of the biggest problems I see is the claim of a negative carbon footprints.
How is that possible? I would argue it isn’t.
It’s just a mathematical trick.
Yet, combined with clever marketing it becomes misleading as we see only the final number, not how it was calculated.
Here’s how it works: biogenic carbon refers to carbon that plants absorb from the atmosphere and store in their biomass.
I.e., if we make materials from plants, we’re storing atmospheric carbon and therefore ending up with a negative footprint.
However, this thinking only applies when materials are used for a long time (like in construction for 50-150 years).
But there is the workaround: companies are allowed to conduct only cradle-to-gate life cycle analyses, i.e., from material sourcing to the point the product leaves the factory.
That allows them to claim biogenic carbon storage without accounting for what happens after use – even if the item is incinerated just two days later.
Even worse though is that companies can certify these numbers.
For instance, ISCC certification is available for such claims.
When we hear “certification,” we assume reliability. In my view, what ISCC is doing here is either naïve or negligent.
> They allow companies to certify cradle-to-gate analyses, enabling misleading marketing claims.
And to make matters worse, companies can back these claims with ISO certifications few consumers are educated about.
The issue is twofold: many ISO standards merely tell companies what to do, not how to do it. They outline for example that “Cradle to …” boundaries have to be defined but not which ones.
On top of that, not all ISO standards are certifiable. Some are just frameworks, especially those related to life cycle assessments.
That means: in practice, companies can design their assessments to get the most favorable results, calculate within that limited setup, and still get certified.
Especially in this case, certification only verifies their bookkeeping, not the applicability of their sustainability claims.
Fittingly, ISCC has already faced scrutiny:
And even if we conduct a full life cycle assessment:
We can refer to the “neutrality assumption” (meaning the carbon fixed by plants equals the carbon released, setting emissions from those to 0).
And still, we have emissions from manufacturing, transport, and end-of-life treatment. Every product has a footprint.
A “negative” footprint implies that the more you buy, the better for the planet which is simply not true.
PS: Apart maybe from a few selected waste streams that end up in the construction sector.
Pitfall #2: False Sense of Transparency and Information
I generally support take-back programs. This is also why I’ve promoted them previously.
However, a line is crossed when marketing goes too far, because none have convincingly proven their sustainability officially.
While a fraction of companies at least share where their recycling plants are located, they rarely disclose transport details.
If small batches travel long distances, the transport footprint can outweigh the recycling benefit.
For the larger fraction that doesn’t disclose their recycling sites, it’s even worse.
Since waste management chains are often opaque, there’s always the risk that your waste is incinerated or landfilled instead of recycled.
I suspect that most companies lack data to verify where their collected waste actually ends up.
In short, we’re working with a black box – nobody really knows the true footprint of these programs.
As if that weren’t enough, some of these programs claim “closed-loop” recycling.
In reality, they use a fancy term and show you a facility – but not its limitations.
On average, recyclable plastics can only be recycled about five to eight times before their quality degrades too much.
Chemical recycling could, in theory, extend this – but it’s still not scalable and has a much higher footprint.
So “closed-loop” usually means a single loop before virgin materials have to be added – not an infinite one.
Pitfall #3: Best-Case Assumptions
Companies with great innovations often make sustainability claims that are theoretically correct but practically unrealistic.
They assume the best-case scenario for their product, often based on very local or purely theoretical circumstances.
Moreover, there’s no regulation forcing them to compare against a defined baseline.
That means they can select any reference point that makes their results look good – claiming large “savings” that may not hold up in reality.
For example, when a product is labeled “biodegradable,” we rarely know what that means in practice.
Definitions vary, composting facilities are scarce, and contaminated lab waste can’t be composted anyway.
Manufacturers assume ideal conditions, but in real life, these products are often incinerated or landfilled.
If they assume landfilling, they’re allowed to compare against a product that is incinerated and whether they consider “waste-to-energy” or simple burning is up to them.
The same applies to manufacturing claims about greener plastics.
PLA and other new materials come with additional environmental burdens but whether and how these are considered is up to the company.
Applying The Knowledge
Sometimes, working with a sustainability advisor can be crucial.
Why? Because following misleading marketing claims might lead you to choose a product that sounds greener but isn’t.
In the future, you might have to report your sustainability practices to a funding body or agency.
Using flawed data could mean your proposal is rejected or sent back for correction, creating a huge amount of extra work that you have to handle.
Therefore, pay attention:
- “Verified by …” ≠ objective truth. Certifications are helpful, but they don’t guarantee objectivity.
- What don’t you know about the process you invest in?
- What is the best-case scenario vs. what really happens? Follow impressive numbers – but ask what baseline was used?
Written by Patrick Penndorf
Join our Educational Series | Connect with me through LinkedIn