The Global Greenwashing Report #5
- John Pabon
- Oct 2
- 5 min read
Welcome to this edition of The Global Greenwashing Report. Each week I'll bring you the latest news, views, and trends in the world of greenwashing.
In April 2025, German asset manager DWS (part of Deutsche Bank) was fined €25 million in connection with misleading statements made about its approach to ESG integration in its investment decision making. That's not a typo, and makes it one of the largest greenwashing penalties in financial services history.
Here's what should terrify every CFO reading this. DWS didn't engage in traditional "green product" marketing. They made claims about internal investment processes that proved impossible to substantiate. This represents a critical evolution in enforcement. Regulators are now targeting the machinery behind sustainability claims, not just the marketing output.
As we close out September and head into Q4, we're seeing a pattern emerge: regulators have moved from policing product claims to auditing entire organisational systems. This week's analysis explores why Australia's mandatory climate reporting regime starting January 2026 will accelerate this trend, how the financial services sector became ground zero for systemic greenwashing enforcement, and what the next generation of regulatory scrutiny may look like.
This Week’s Greenwashing Big Three
1. Australia's Mandatory Climate Reporting: The Countdown to 2026
The Situation: Corporate sustainability claims and greenwashing remain a key focus for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). With mandatory climate reporting commencing in January, Australian organisations' disclosure obligations are about to dramatically expand.
The Greenwashing: This isn't about specific violations, per se. It's about a fundamental shift in Australian corporate governance. Companies will no longer be able to make sustainability claims without comprehensive, auditable systems to support them.
John's Take: January 2026 is Australia's regulatory inflection point. The combination of enforcement muscle and new mandatory reporting requirements creates a compliance ecosystem where greenwashing becomes systematically detectable. Every Australian company claiming sustainability credentials, even if you don't fall within the first tranche of companies having to report, will need to prove them through standardised disclosure. Now, there's really nowhere to hide.
Business Impact: Australian boards should be in emergency planning mode right now. The companies that treat this as a reporting exercise rather than a systems overhaul may be the first headlines in 2026.
2. DWS's €25 Million Fine: When Process Becomes the Problem
The Situation: In April 2025, in a particularly high-profile example of the regulatory crackdown on greenwashing, German asset manager DWS was fined €25 million in connection with misleading statements made about its approach to ESG integration in its investment decision making.
The Greenwashing: DWS claimed to integrate ESG factors systematically into investment decisions but couldn't demonstrate the internal processes and controls to support these claims. This went beyond a misleading product brochure and into the realm of fraud. By their own admission, DWS said they may have been too exuberant in their messaging.
John's Take: This case rewrites the greenwashing playbook. Regulators are no longer just asking "what did you tell customers?" They're asking "can you prove your organisation is capable of delivering what you promised?" The €25 million penalty reflects the severity of systemic misrepresentation versus isolated marketing errors.
Business Impact: Every financial institution needs to audit not just their marketing materials, but their actual ESG integration infrastructure. Claims about "ESG-integrated" processes require documented workflows, trained personnel, and verifiable decision-making frameworks. Altruism only matters when you can back it up.
3. The UK's 10% Global Revenue Penalty: Six Months In
The Situation: Since spring 2025, UK regulators have had the power to impose fines of up to 10 percent of global turnover for misleading green claims, with companies facing penalties of up to £300,000.
The Greenwashing: While no company has yet faced the maximum 10% penalty, the regulatory architecture is now fully operational and companies are restructuring global compliance programs in response.
John's Take: The absence of a 10% penalty case shouldn't provide false comfort. If anything, it suggests companies are taking the threat seriously enough to avoid triggering it. The real story is the massive compliance investment happening behind the scenes. Multinational companies are effectively letting UK standards dictate their global sustainability communications.
Business Impact: Australian companies with UK exposure are caught between two regulatory powerhouses: mandatory disclosure starting January 2026 and the CMA's revenue-based penalty regime. Multinational companies operating in the UK also have their own pressures to comply. The complexity is forcing organisational changes that ripple across all markets.
Educational Spotlight: The "Systems Verification" Era of Enforcement
The DWS case marks a fundamental shift in what regulators scrutinise. Let's break down this new enforcement paradigm.
Old model: Claims verification
Regulator examines marketing materials
Checks if specific product claims are substantiated
Penalties based on consumer impact
New model: Systems verification
Regulator audits organisational capabilities
Investigates whether internal processes can deliver promised outcomes
Penalties based on systemic misrepresentation
Why this matters for your business
The systems verification approach means regulators now want to see:
Documented processes: Written procedures for how ESG factors are integrated
Personnel qualifications: Evidence that staff have relevant expertise
Decision audit trails: Records showing ESG considerations in actual decisions
Quality controls: Systems to verify claims before publication
Board oversight: Governance structures for sustainability commitments
Red flags that may trigger audits
Claims about "comprehensive" or "integrated" ESG approaches without supporting infrastructure
Rapid scaling of sustainability products without proportional capability building
Inconsistent claims across different markets suggesting ad-hoc processes
High turnover in sustainability roles (indicating inadequate organisational commitment)
My advice? Before making any claim about how your organisation operates (versus what your products deliver), conduct an internal audit asking: "If regulators demanded to see our systems documentation tomorrow, what would we show them?"
This Week's WTF Moment
Meatwashing. I'm coining it, even though I never thought we'd be here.
Next week, the European Commission will vote on a proposal to forbid the use of 29 meat-related terms (like veggie "burger" or tofu "sausage") from being used on plant-based food product labels. The argument from lawmakers is that consumers are confused by such labels (which is pretty silly in this day and age).
But even more nefarious is the impact this might have on speeding up positive change from the agriculture sector and adoption of plant-forward diets. It's an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that benefits entrenched interests more than consumers.
You can find more information here.
There's just three short months to go until Australia's mandatory climate reporting begins. Is your organisation ready to prove every sustainability claim you've made? I help companies build the systems infrastructure that turns compliance obligations into competitive advantages. Visit johnpabon.com to discover how authentic capability development can help your organisation capitalise on the new regulatory environment.
Value in these insights? Share with your board and leadership team. The organisations that prepare systemically, not just procedurally, today will be the ones leading their sectors tomorrow.
Comments