With increased access to information about ethical business practices and consumer education, brands are getting wise to the fact that the more ethical they appear, the more likely they are to turn a profit.

There are actually three pillars upon which sustainability should be based: economic, environmental and social. When viewed in the context of business, the much snazzier 4 Ps are used: planet, people, purpose, and profit.

In a world full of unethical corporations, for a brand to demonstrate a commitment to being both environmentally and socially conscious shows they are willing to invest in something other than their bottom line.

Unfortunately, conducting business in a sustainable and ethical way is quite expensive, and things like environmental impact and human rights do eat into a profit margin quite considerably, leading many brands to talk a good game, without actually having to play.

READ MORE: The system is failing on drugs. It needs to change

Greenwashing, a term coined by Jay Westerveld, an environmentalist, is used to define the superficial and misleading ways in which corporations invest money in ensuring they are perceived as environmentally conscious, without actually making the necessary changes to negate or improve the effect they are having upon the planet.

Westerveld initially used it to articulate his frustration at a slogan used by the hotel industry, "save the towel". Ostensibly to create a more environmentally conscious business model, the campaign achieved little other than to reduce hotel washing costs, transfer environmental responsibility to the consumer, and ultimately maximise profits.

Derived from the word whitewashing, it can be as subtle as vague and unclear wording of a sustainability policy, or as obvious as printing environmental platitudes on non-recyclable materials. We now also have pinkwashing (also called rainbow-washing) where a brand purports to be allied with the LGBTQ+ community in a superficial way only conducive to the best interests of the brand and its profits.

Turning a logo into a rainbow or sponsoring pride might seem helpful displays of allyship, but when that is the extent of the involvement, when it begins and ends in the month of June and is neither consistent, nor robust, pinkwashing is nothing more than manipulation of the LGBTQ+ consumers.

There's also blue washing (associating with the UN in order to seem more ethical) and social washing, in which a corporation will claim to be an ethical employer and care about workers' rights but does not fulfil this obligation and creates a hostile, toxic or unfair working environment for its staff. You would think that with all these different types of washing that brands would have no dirt left to uncover, but for every kind of ethical issue, it seems there is a way for brands to attempt to cash in.

READ MORE: Swearing isn't a sign of a poor vocabulary despite what some folk say

Clothing brand Shein recently paid a group of influencers to tour some of their facilities, which unsurprisingly painted the company in an extremely favourable light. Any controversies, environmental and social, were laughed off, with Destene Sudduth, one of the influencers on the trip, appearing to rebut claims that Shein operates sweatshops by saying, “They weren’t even sweating. We were the ones sweating!”.

Eighteen-hour work days and as few as one day off a month have been reported by independent investigations, including one recently conducted by Channel 4 as part of their documentary into Shein’s business practices, which stands in direct contrast to the gleaming air conditioned factory and relaxed working environment Shein showcased.

Since the campaign received a lot of backlash, audiences were quick to notice the facilities being shown appeared to be test and sample factories, and may not be entirely indicative of the conditions most workers employed with the company would experience.

Due to the backlash and the ways in which the campaign did not leave audiences entirely convinced of the transparency, some of the influencers involved in the campaign have terminated their working relationship with Shein. Though fast fashion brands like Shein are extremely cheap, and are widely known as the best places to get alternative versions of more expensive brands which are comparable, if not in quality, in aesthetic, it’s clear that the true cost of fast fashion is a moral one, and an environmental one.

Every step of the manufacturing process needs to be environmentally sustainable in order for a brand to be truly green, not just the creation and distribution but the ways in which a product or its packaging can be effectively destroyed, or recycled.

Making packaging brown and green to evoke a sense of sustainability is often just another marketing ploy to manipulate the consumer, and take advantage of their desire for more ethical consumption.

Throwing away perfectly good products to make room for more “eco-friendly” alternatives might make you feel like you're doing right by the planet, but that's one more perfectly serviceable product that has ended up in landfill to make room for an unnecessary replacement.

A great example of greenwashed packaging is the promotion of refill packs of soap or other liquids, which purport to use much less plastic than their individual counterparts. The problem? The plastic used in the individuals is more often than not the kind that can be widely and easily recycled, whereas the oh-so-eco alternative refill packs could more accurately be called a landfill pack, as all too often they are made from materials which are either hard or impossible to recycle at home, and are often more likely to end up in landfill as a result.

Companies know exactly which materials to use in order to ensure easy and accessible recycling of their products, and it is an active choice not to do so, especially while marketing the product as an environmentally friendly alternative to help reduce waste. Much like the hidden layer of plastic inside much of paper and cardboard packaging, there is a hidden ethical vacuum beneath the veneer of environmentalism.

So is the takeaway not to buy from companies who claim to care about the environment, the LGBTQ+ community or their workers?

No. Consumers who truly want to buy and use more ethically should ensure they are rigorous in their research and don't just accept campaigns and slogans designed to look environmentally or socially conscious. Brands must be called out for trying to manipulate consumers and should be held to a much higher standard, so they don't just appear to conduct themselves conscientiously, but actually take the time and invest the money necessary to be ethical.

We need to encourage brands to ditch the superficial promises and manipulation, and truly clean up their act.

Lennie Pennie is a Scots language activist, mental health advocate and poet