ASIC has repeatedly warned issuers and market participants about greenwashing risk. Its published guidance emphasises clear labels, defined sustainability terminology, and accurate explanation of how sustainability considerations are applied.
This matters beyond managed funds. Any Australian organisation making sustainability-related statements should expect scrutiny of how claims are framed and what evidence supports them.
Problems usually arise when organisations publish broad claims that are not anchored to definitions, boundaries, evidence, or accountable owners.
Examples include unqualified statements about being sustainable or net zero, vague claims about product or portfolio characteristics, and unsupported assertions about supplier or emissions performance.
A robust process defines terms, preserves source support, records review comments, and links claims to underlying calculations and policies.
That same discipline improves annual reporting quality because it reduces the gap between internal evidence and external language.
Greenwashing risk is often an operating-model problem, not only a legal drafting problem. If evidence and approvals are fragmented, the organisation cannot reliably defend what it publishes.
A controlled reporting platform gives teams version history, ownership, reviewer sign-off, and a clearer basis for internal and external challenge.
Official sources
For detailed and current requirements, use the Corporations Act, ASIC sustainability reporting guidance, AASB materials, and other relevant Australian regulators.