Perspectives · Greenwashing

How to Recognize Project Greenwashing: A Case Study

We need to talk about Greenwashing in projects. In the GPM P5 Standard for Sustainability in Project Management, we provide prescriptive guidance on 49 sustainability topics. Among them is one that’s critical in today’s world: green claims and greenwashing. This issue has become increasingly prevalent as organizations rush to signal sustainability without committing to the substance of it. Greenwashing is, in essence, a facade. It involves making false or misleading environmental claims to create the illusion of sustainability. This can range from exaggerated marketing language to selective reporting, or even outright lies. These tactics mislead stakeholders and consumers, diverting attention away from meaningful progress and contributing to the erosion of trust. The challenge with greenwashing lies in its ambiguity. When terms like “sustainability” or “eco-friendly” are used without definition or context, they become empty buzzwords. They sound good but mean little. And when organizations fail to clearly define or understand what sustainability entails, they risk perpetuating harm—even unintentionally.

Why We Need Granular Definitions

Sustainability isn’t just a feel-good term. It’s a complex, multidimensional framework that requires deliberate effort and understanding to implement. This is why the GPM P5 Standard goes beyond platitudes, providing actionable guidance for project managers. According to the standard, project teams must:

• Tell the truth about a project’s environmental impacts.
• Adopt a zero-tolerance policy for greenwashing.
• Verify suppliers’ practices and reject those making false claims.
• Provide transparent and measurable data in ESG disclosures​.

Without clear definitions, how can project managers recognize greenwashing? How can they ensure that their projects align with true sustainability goals? The truth is, they can’t. And this is where most frameworks and standards fall short: they rely on high-level ideals without equipping professionals with the tools and knowledge to deliver.  If you are reading a standard on sustainability and it just says "sustainability" and doesn't go any deeper than that, how is that helpful?  Hint. It isn't.

The Case Study: Selangor’s "Siera Alam"

During a holiday in Selangor, Malaysia, I saw firsthand the devastating impacts of unchecked development. December in Selangor is rainy season, but in recent years, the rains have brought more than just water—they’ve brought catastrophic flooding. Streets transform into rivers, displacing families and disrupting livelihoods. What was once an anomaly has become a predictable disaster, with environmental degradation at its core. While driving, I encountered a housing development that perfectly encapsulated the greenwashing phenomenon. Named “Siera Alam,” the project proudly displayed a logo featuring a golden leaf, a symbol of harmony with nature. Below it, the tagline proclaimed: “Kelestarian Biodiversiti Untuk Kesejahteraan Komuniti”—“To Biodiversity Sustainability for Community Well-being.”

I recorded a video of the development so you can see the stark reality for yourself.

In the footage, you’ll notice the barren landscape where thriving biodiversity once existed. This destruction is not an unfortunate byproduct—it’s a direct contradiction of the sustainability claims plastered across the development's branding. What’s left behind is a scarred ecosystem and a community more prone to flooding than ever before

https://youtu.be/tgkKSiy6tkg

. As you saw in the video, a vast stretch of mountainside had been razed to make way for housing units. What once was an ecosystem teeming with life had been reduced to barren earth. The natural infrastructure that used to trap rainwater and prevent flooding had been obliterated. Calling this “biodiversity sustainability” isn’t just inaccurate—it’s an insult to the concept. Yet the development itself told a very different story. A vast stretch of mountainside had been razed to make way for housing units. What once was an ecosystem teeming with life had been reduced to barren earth. The natural infrastructure that used to trap rainwater and prevent flooding had been obliterated. Calling this “biodiversity sustainability” isn’t just inaccurate—it’s an insult to the concept. Here is a photo I took of flooding after just a couple hours of rain not more than a few minutes drive from the site.   This visual evidence underscores the dangers of greenwashing: grandiose sustainability claims masking practices that exacerbate environmental harm. What’s worse, when I contacted the PKNS State Development Corporation, the developer of “Siera Alam,” to question their claims, I received no response. This silence reinforces a pattern—bold assertions of sustainability, but no transparency or accountability when challenged.

Over the past decade, Shah Alam and the broader Selangor region have experienced significant biodiversity loss, primarily due to rapid urbanization and deforestation. The Shah Alam Community Forest (SACF), part of the Bukit Cherakah Forest Reserve, has been a focal point in this struggle. Despite its rich biodiversity—including 106 bird species, 455 plant species, 94 butterfly species, 32 reptile species, and 21 amphibian species—SACF faces threats from development projects. In 2024, residents and NGOs united in a last-ditch effort to save SACF from imminent destruction, highlighting the ongoing battle between development and conservation in the area. [SRC]

Additionally, a 2022 report indicated that Selangor could lose up to 4,000 hectares of pristine forest to development, further exacerbating biodiversity loss. These developments underscore the urgent need for sustainable urban planning and conservation efforts to protect the remaining biodiversity in Shah Alam and its surrounding regions.

The Silence of Greenwashing

These are not just isolated events; they point to a broader issue of greenwashing—a practice where sustainability is used as a marketing tool while harmful actions persist unchecked. I reached out to the PKNS State Development Corporation, the entity behind the “Siera Alam” housing project, to question their sustainability claims. Predictably, I received no response. This silence is emblematic of greenwashing. Organizations make bold claims at the forefront—using terms like "biodiversity preservation"—while avoiding transparency and accountability when challenged. Greenwashing thrives in the absence of scrutiny, and companies rely on the assumption that most people won’t dig deeper.

Why Greenwashing is Dangerous

Greenwashing isn’t just unethical—it’s actively harmful. It undermines public trust, diverts resources from genuine sustainability efforts, and exacerbates the problems it claims to solve. For every project like “Siera Alam,” where biodiversity is sacrificed for profit under the guise of sustainability, we collectively step backward in our fight against climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental degradation. It’s not just the environment that suffers; greenwashing erodes the credibility of organizations genuinely working to improve their environmental performance. When such claims are exposed as false or exaggerated, the public becomes skeptical of all sustainability efforts. This creates a ripple effect, diluting the impact of genuine initiatives and fostering distrust.

Are They Gaslighting Us?

In cases like this, greenwashing often takes the form of gaslighting. Developers present actions that are clearly destructive—such as deforestation or ecosystem disruption—while framing them as beneficial to the environment. Words like “ecosystem protection” or “biodiversity preservation” are used in marketing materials to distract from the visible harm. When challenged, these organizations either remain silent or dismiss criticism, further confusing the public and deflecting responsibility. This creates a false reality where harmful projects are celebrated as sustainable—a textbook example of gaslighting. It’s not just misleading; it’s a deliberate attempt to rewrite the narrative and suppress accountability.

Recognizing the Signs of Greenwashing

For project managers and stakeholders, recognizing greenwashing is critical to ensuring accountability and real sustainability. Here are some red flags to watch for:

1. Buzzwords Without Backing: Claims like “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” without specific, measurable evidence.
2. Selective Transparency: Highlighting minor environmental benefits while omitting significant negative impacts.
3. False Certifications: Using meaningless certifications or labels that don’t align with rigorous industry standards.
4. Contradictory Actions: Promoting sustainability while engaging in practices that directly harm the environment.
5. Silence Under Scrutiny: Avoiding transparency or failing to respond when questioned.

The Role of Project Managers in Combating Greenwashing

Project managers are uniquely positioned to challenge greenwashing and ensure sustainability is embedded throughout every phase of a project. As the bridge between strategy and execution, they have the tools and influence to demand transparency and accountability. Here’s what project managers can do:

• Adopt Transparency as a Core Principle: Support every sustainability claim with evidence and make this information accessible to stakeholders.
• Verify Supplier Claims: Partner only with suppliers who can demonstrate genuine sustainability commitments, supported by data and third-party verification.
• Engage Stakeholders Honestly: Communicate openly about the true impacts of a project—positive and negative—and avoid overselling benefits.
• Use Established Standards: Frameworks like the P5 Standard provide detailed guidance for aligning projects with real sustainability goals and avoiding greenwashing traps.

A Call for Accountability

It’s important to note that this is not about singling out PKNS or “Siera Alam.” Greenwashing is everywhere, from large-scale multinational projects to local community initiatives. This piece is not about shame; it’s about education and action. If we don’t define what sustainability truly means—and hold organizations accountable for their claims—we risk perpetuating the very harm we seek to address. Words like “biodiversity,” “regeneration,” and “sustainability” hold immense power. But that power is only realized when paired with measurable, meaningful action. If we allow these terms to be co-opted and diluted, they become tools for deception rather than progress. Project managers have a crucial role to play in this fight. By enforcing rigorous standards, demanding transparency, and prioritizing integrity, we can combat greenwashing and ensure that sustainability remains a principle worth striving for—not just a buzzword. It’s time to demand more—from ourselves, our organizations, and the projects we bring to life. Together, we can ensure that sustainability is more than just a promise—it’s a commitment we uphold every step of the way.