Greenwashing in the paint industry: how to see beyond the label

What does it really mean when a tin of paint is described as ‘eco-friendly’? Does ‘water-based’ mean it’s natural? And how much can we learn about a paint’s environmental impact from the claims printed on its packaging?

As consumers become more conscious of the materials they bring into their homes, environmental credentials have become an increasingly important selling point. But not every claim tells the full story.

For Edward Bulmer, founder of Edward Bulmer Natural Paint, the problem isn’t simply the language manufacturers use. It’s the information they leave out.

What is greenwashing?

Greenwashing occurs when a company presents its products or activities as more environmentally responsible than the evidence justifies.

Sometimes this involves exaggerated claims. In other cases, it can be a matter of emphasising one positive feature while overlooking other, less favourable aspects of a product.

A recyclable tin, for example, is a good thing. But it tells us very little about the ingredients inside it, how those ingredients were produced or the environmental impact of the finished paint.

As Edward puts it, the problem is that customers are too often given the information manufacturers would like them to have, rather than everything they need to make an informed decision.

The problem with ‘eco-friendly’ paint

The paint industry has become particularly fond of environmental terminology. Words such as ‘natural’, ‘green’, ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘sustainable’ appear frequently, yet they don’t necessarily tell us how a product has been made.

Take ‘water-based’ paint. It sounds reassuring, and water-based formulations can offer advantages over traditional solvent-heavy alternatives. But many also contain acrylic or vinyl binders derived from petrochemicals.

As the water evaporates, those synthetic polymers remain, forming the coating on the wall.

Likewise, a ‘low VOC’ label can provide useful information about one aspect of a paint’s formulation, but it doesn’t tell us whether the product contains fossil-derived binders or how its other ingredients have been sourced.

None of these descriptions is inherently misleading. The difficulty arises when a single characteristic is used to imply a broader environmental benefit that hasn’t been demonstrated.

A paint should be judged by its complete formulation, not its most marketable ingredient.

Why ingredient transparency matters

Most of us are accustomed to checking the ingredients in the food we eat or the skincare products we use. Yet when it comes to paint, we rarely expect the same level of detail.

Edward believes this needs to change.

Paint covers enormous areas of our homes and buildings. Its ingredients determine not only how it looks and performs, but also the raw materials used to manufacture it.

At Edward Bulmer Natural Paint, we’ve chosen to make our formulations more transparent, using plant-based binders in our natural emulsion and a carefully selected palette of earth and mineral pigments.

We believe customers should be able to understand these choices, ask questions and compare products on more than their marketing claims.

Greater transparency would also encourage manufacturers to consider the environmental implications of their ingredients, rather than relying on broad descriptions that are difficult for customers to assess.

When environmental claims are challenged

Edward has experienced first-hand how difficult it can be to substantiate environmental claims.

In 2018, Edward Bulmer Natural Paint faced a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority concerning the use of ‘natural paint’ and ‘the most eco-friendly’ in its marketing.

The complaint about describing the product as natural paint was not upheld. However, the comparative claim ‘the most eco-friendly’ could not be substantiated to the standard required, because demonstrating superiority over all comparable products demands appropriate evidence.

It’s an important distinction, and one that illustrates a wider problem: environmental claims must be supported by evidence, however strongly a manufacturer believes in its product.

For Edward, the experience reinforced the need for clearer information throughout the industry. Without meaningful disclosure of ingredients and environmental impacts, how can customers — or manufacturers themselves — make fair comparisons?

Beyond the label

Reducing environmental impact requires more than adopting the right language.

It means examining the raw materials used to make a product, understanding its manufacturing processes and being open about where improvements are still needed.

No paint is without an environmental footprint, including our own. But we believe manufacturers have a responsibility to explain what they’re doing to reduce that impact and provide evidence for the claims they make.

Customers should be able to ask straightforward questions and receive straightforward answers.

What is the binder made from? Where do the pigments come from? Does the paint contain fossil-derived materials? What evidence supports its environmental credentials?

These aren’t unreasonable demands. They’re the questions that should help shape a more responsible paint industry.

A more honest approach to paint

Greenwashing thrives when environmental language becomes a substitute for meaningful information.

For Edward, the solution begins with transparency. Rather than expecting customers to take an ‘eco-friendly’ label on trust, manufacturers should explain what their products contain, how they’re made and why their choices matter.

At Edward Bulmer Natural Paint, that’s the principle behind our approach to natural paint.

Because if we’re serious about reducing the environmental impact of decorating, we need to look beyond what’s written on the tin and start asking what’s inside it.

Words inspired by Edward Bulmer, founder of Edward Bulmer Natural Paint.