Nic Seton.
Australians are becoming more informed and less forgiving and nowhere is this shift more powerful than among parents. Recent polling by Parents for Climate shows that 7 in 10 parents are paying close attention to companies’ climate claims. Over half of them have already switched brands for everyday household service providers, like banking, energy or super companies, or are considering it because they distrust green marketing.
As a dad to two myself, I see this shift every day. Our wallets have become an extension of our values and we’re very willing to vote with our dollars. With 12.5 million parents across Australia, this collective is one of the nation’s most powerful consumer blocs - and they are actively switching brands based on trust and transparency. For families navigating both climate anxiety and cost-of-living pressures, trust really is everything. And trust, once broken, is very hard to rebuild.
Misleading climate claims are no longer just risky, they are legal and reputational landmines and companies are being forced to wake up to this reality the hard way. Just recently, Clorox was fined $8.25 million by the ACCC for making misleading claims to consumers that some GLAD products were partly made of recycled ocean plastic. We’ve also seen a wave of more than a hundred companies exit the ClimateActive scheme, aware that they are fully accountable for the environmental claims they publicly make and that the long-criticised federal government labelling scheme is an inadequate defense to rely on.
Marketers and agencies are the ones on the frontlines of climate credibility and the stakes are real, and rising for the brands they represent. At its core, greenwashing is about marketers misleading consumers, whether intentionally or by omission.
Parents have frequently reported to us that they’re coming across vague or unverifiable claims like “carbon positive” or “eco-friendly” without clear evidence; brands compensating with ‘offsets’, which implies that buying credits erases actual emissions - they don’t; tokenistic actions, like sponsoring school activities while expanding fossil fuel pollution.
Deciphering these unclear eco-claims can be exhausting for those just trying to do their best for the planet, and for our kids. For parents, seeing brands trivialise climate action through murky behaviour deepens cynicism and anxiety. In a crowded market, trust is your only real asset and greenwashing erodes it faster than any competitor could.
Those involved must come to terms with the fact they are no longer just brand storytellers but are stewards of climate credibility. In today’s environment, every tagline, every ad, every offset-backed claim is a live wire. Get it wrong, and the fallout won’t just hit your ad metrics. It will ripple through your brand’s reputation, legal exposure, and bottom line.
Regulators like the ACCC are sharpening their focus on greenwashing. The Climate Active scheme is under review. The European Union has already banned “carbon neutral” product claims based on offsets and Australia is moving in the same direction.
This means agencies, CMOs, and brand leaders must act now to lift their climate communication standards or risk being left behind.
Brands serious about leading in the next economy need a new approach: radical transparency and meaningful action. Here’s a quick checklist for marketers:
- Disclose emissions fully: Show emissions data upfront and don’t bury it.
- Cut first, offset last: Prioritise real reductions over purchasing offsets. Offsets may support worthwhile projects, but they can not be relied upon to compensate for real emissions.
- Substantiate every claim: Link every green statement to verifiable, public evidence.
- Align actions and words: Real climate action must be consistent across your supply chain, investments, and lobbying activities.
Ultimately, your climate communication should be able to pass not just a regulatory review, but the kitchen table test. In marketing and advertising, you can never forget who your end audience is. Marketers and advertisers need to be asking themselves whether a climate-concerned parent would believe it. Would they trust you enough to buy from you, recommend you, or defend you?
Clearer standards benefit not just consumers, but brands too. That’s why Parents for Climate is calling for stronger ClimateActive guidelines and stronger guidance from the ACCC. We’re looking for direction similar to that provided by the European Union, or by the Dutch financial regulator which advises “offsetting” style claims should be avoided because of their tendency to mislead consumers.
A clear framework means brands can communicate real achievements without fear. It rewards leadership, punishes spin, corrects market distortion, and will ultimately lead to a healthier, more resilient climate for our kids to grow up in.
Marketers should spot this trend and the opportunity for credibility to lead the change. Not with flashy slogans but with honesty, ambition, and integrity. That’s what today’s consumers demand. And it’s what we all deserve.
Nic Seton, CEO of Parents for Climate