Greenwashing Archives - Financial Planning in Surrey

What’s the Label?

Dominic Thomas
Nov 2025 • 2 min read

What’s the Label?

I don’t know when it occurred, but at some point several decades ago a clothes label on the outside of a garment would be removed, all labels were on the inside. Marketing geniuses decided that branding would propel the fortunes of a company and nowadays a label or logo is often not simply proudly displayed, but often seems to be the design itself. We attach ideas, values and narratives to a brand. It’s not a particularly new concept – for example religious iconography has been used for centuries (is there a more recognisable icon than a crucifix?).

Labels are also helpful in guiding us to better decisions about our purchases, ‘healthy food’ and so on. We know that these are often problematic and can be rather too subjective.

The financial world has tended to use labels to describe funds – a risk score, or whether it’s ‘green’ or ‘ethical’. The regulator has been attempting to address the often problematic use of terms like these to avoid misleading investors into believing and assuming things about a fund. “Greenwashing” is a term used to reduce the problem into one word. Progress is being made, (with Sustainability Disclosure Requirements – SDR) but the truth is that any label is reductionist.

This problem is obviously not unique to the investment world. Recently the ASA banned the farming “Red Tractor” campaign which, argued the clean rivers charity Rivers Action, implies environmental standards that are not actually observed, citing the pollution of rivers by a number of “Red Tractor” farms. Red Tractor countered that they never implied environmental care, but animal welfare … which I personally think is a stretch; they admitted to not even checking environmental standards for the farms. Supermarkets and no doubt consumers will now be confused by yet another problematic label.

Labels are by nature simply too reductionist, think of the term ‘doctor’ and how broad that can be – or indeed ‘financial adviser’. These days I see all sorts of unqualified people on social media talking about financial strategies, tax, pensions and so on and barely any are responsible or regulated for their advice (financial journalists aren’t either).

The problem of course is the deliberate play on assumptions that we make. We as consumers are left to fend for ourselves when faced with the rebuttal “we never said that” (but it was seemingly implied).

So, be warned – even without the deepfake artificial intelligence now here, we are often deliberately mislead into parting with our money based on our assumptions.

Reference:

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

Does everything have to cost the earth?

Dominic Thomas
Oct 2025 • 3 min read

Does everything have to cost the earth?

I’ve been advising clients and helping them to invest for their future since 1991 and it was only when I became an Independent Financial Adviser in May 1992 that I could offer anyone ethically screened investment choices. The sector and choices have evolved an awful lot since then resulting in some rather cynical funds launched by investment companies keen to get on the bandwagon rather than actually improve the way we treat each other and the planet. The term “greenwashing” was apt for this as we witnessed misleading marketing imagery (windmills, trees etc) to suggest something that wasn’t always true.

The regulator (another reason why we do need one) rightly stepped up and called time on this practice and have reset the bar for labelling such funds. The approach has, as is often the case, been far from perfect, laborious and probably bureaucratic, but is well intended. However, we are now gradually ‘getting there’ so that both advisers and investors can have greater confidence in what is said and done being aligned.

Unfortunately, despite the data and scientific evidence, a number of politicians and media owners have decided that saving the planet from climate crisis is not a priority and not worth doing (paying for and changing). We have one planet and there isn’t a viable alternative that we can reach.

At a recent socially responsible investment conference, we discussed the current challenges and some solutions, but the stark reality is that the transition that needs to happen within our economies means that we must engage with the ‘villains’ (the polluters and abusers) of the piece. We might term this as a choice between the extractive and exploitative economy versus a solutions economy. We have to counter the narratives with facts and appeal to shared values of protecting our families, homes and countries of the future. Who, after all, doesn’t want clean air and water, and other than a psychopath, who would not want this for everyone.

The investment piece is therefore far from pure or perfect. What many either don’t know (or don’t understand) is that these funds advocate and engage with companies, attempting to induce positive changes in their behaviour. You cannot really do that if you simply exclude, point and shout … much as the idealist in me would wish to. It means engaging with the perpetrator and holding a stake in their business, buying the right to be in the discussion and leading them into a better future.

This is far from easy to accept, it can feel like placating an abuser and it’s something that most activists, who are ultimately the thought leaders at the front of a movement that will eventually benefit all, often struggle to admit. I was at a screening of the documentary by Fiona Cunningham-Reid Ackroyd & Harvey: The Art of Activism and we discussed the contents with her, Dan Harvey and Heather Ackroyd. They have been actively engaged in expressing concern about the environment for their entire adult life, making some truly remarkable art and living out their ethics. They remain hopeful and thankful whilst engaged in the problem and using their creativity to highlight concerns. They don’t stay in their studio preaching, but are actively engaged in the local and global community, using art to focus our engagement.

There was a moment in the discussion where this very issue reared its head – where opinion was divided about engagement and exclusion. Context and purpose are everything and I favour the way they have chosen – not to take the easy money from corporations to help them gain greener credentials (such as the Board of Monsanto wanting a Board member piece in their iconic grass image – this was a hard “no”, but that doesn’t preclude engaging with Monsanto – who we need to change their practices if we are to prevent an agricultural disaster).

This is obviously the more expensive and harder path, whilst the orange felon throws his tantrums and threatens corporations and civilians, it has become harder to resist and easier to capitulate to folly, but whilst it sometimes appears that the ‘bullies’ and dullards are winning, the reality is that the language may have changed, but the processes have not. DEI may not be the term, but companies understand that a fairly employed workforce that represents the real world is one with a future and energy saving ultimately benefits their bottom line. We all want a future and our planet is our only home.

Talk to me to discuss how your financial plan and your portfolio can be based on your values. Investing doesn’t have to cost the earth.

BACK TO ALL BLOGS