The visibility gap: why good products with good ESG stories still get overlooked

There is a strange paradox playing out across consumer goods right now. Brands are investing real money and real effort into sustainable sourcing, ethical labour practices, and better packaging — and a large share of that effort never reaches the consumer in a way that changes a buying decision. The product is good. The ESG work behind it is real. But the story gets lost, or worse, gets mistaken for spin.

Trust has cratered, and vague claims are the casualty.

The reason is not consumer indifference — it's consumer fatigue. Skepticism toward sustainability marketing has become the default position rather than the exception. Recent research puts the scale of this in stark terms: 88% of Gen Z consumers say they distrust brands' ESG claims outright, and more broadly, 91% of consumers now believe that at least some brands are greenwashing [1][2]. Belief that organisations are exaggerating their sustainability efforts has grown sharply too — from 33% of consumers in one recent year to 52% shortly after [3]. In this climate, a generic "eco-friendly" label doesn't build trust — it triggers suspicion.

Where the messaging actually breaks down?

Three patterns show up repeatedly in how good ESG work gets communicated badly:

Claims without evidence: An EU-coordinated review of environmental marketing found that more than half of green claims were vague or unsubstantiated, and 40% came with no supporting evidence at all [4]. A claim a brand can't back up is functionally identical, to a skeptical consumer, to a claim that was never true. Label overload: Europe alone has roughly 230 different sustainability labels and certifications in circulation [4]. For a shopper trying to make a fast decision, this isn't reassurance — it's noise that cancels itself out. Jargon that speaks to auditors, not shoppers: Sustainability reports are written to satisfy regulators and investors. That register — dense, technical, hedged — rarely survives the translation to a product page or shelf display, so the story simply doesn't travel.

The caution isn't just reputational anymore — it's legal

Regulators and courts are now treating overclaiming as a genuine liability, which pushes many brands toward saying too little rather than risk saying the wrong thing. Litigation is already targeting sectors like airlines over net-zero claims, on the legal theory that, as one attorney put it, "these statements induced consumers to pay a premium" [5]. The practical effect is that many brands with genuinely good practices go quiet rather than risk a claim they can't fully substantiate — and quiet is functionally invisible.

What closes the gap?

The brands that do get through share a few habits: they lead with a specific, verifiable fact rather than an adjective ("30% recycled ocean plastic" beats "eco-conscious packaging"); they show the evidence — a certification, a number, a named auditor — rather than asserting it; and they translate the sustainability report into the language a shopper actually uses, not the language a regulator requires. Consumers are not rejecting sustainability claims wholesale — 54% of UK consumers say they are ready to boycott brands specifically over misleading claims, which implies the inverse is also true: credible claims still move people [4].

Where IPM fits in?

This is precisely the gap IPM was built to close. Good ESG practice and good product visibility shouldn't be two separate projects — they should be the same narrative, built once and told consistently across sourcing documentation, retail messaging, and distribution partnerships. We help brands translate real sustainability work into a story buyers, retailers, and consumers can actually trust and act on.

---

**References**

1. Zippia, "20+ Shocking Greenwashing Statistics" (2026), zippia.com

2. Adopter, "45 Greenwashing Statistics You Need to Know in 2026" (2026), adopter.net

3. Woola, "50+ Greenwashing statistics to detect fake sustainability claims" (2026), woola.io

4. Content for Good & Co., "Greenwashing statistics roundup" (2025), contentforgood.co

5. Thomson Reuters Institute, "Greenwashing landscape in 2025: How to handle the increasing complexity" (2025), thomsonreuters.com