From red scares to green flares: Using CIA Cold War tactics to unmask impact laundering

While assembling resources for a training programme aimed at raising awareness of impact laundering and reporting misrepresentation, I explored historical intelligence methodologies to evaluate their applicability to today’s challenges. During this research, I inadvertently found some declassified CIA documents outlining techniques such as source verification, network analysis and detecting psychological manipulation.

Surprising relevance of Cold War tactics

Originally designed to counter Cold War propaganda, these tools prove unexpectedly relevant in uncovering misleading sustainability claims. Impact laundering, which overarches greenwashing as one of its most commonly cited categories, is a subtle and calculated approach to misrepresentation. It encompasses various deceptive practices, including greenwashing (misrepresentation of environmental initiatives), bluewashing (overstating water stewardship), and social washing (inflating social contributions). These tactics are designed to exaggerate, distort or fabricate an organisation’s environmental and social efforts, often leaving investors and stakeholders with a false sense of confidence in their sustainability credentials.

From dubious net-zero commitments to inflated social impact metrics and narratives of circularity, misleading sustainability stories have become alarmingly prevalent. The growing complexity of sustainability reporting has allowed organisations to use tactics like omitting inconvenient data, such as Scope 3 emissions, or overemphasising minor achievements while ignoring significant shortcomings. For instance, a company pledging net-zero emissions by 2050 might exclude critical operations, rely on unproven carbon capture technologies, or focus disproportionately on offsetting rather than actual reductions. Without thorough scrutiny, these omissions can go unnoticed, creating an illusion of progress.

Borrowing from the CIA’s playbook

The CIA’s approach to analysing propaganda offers a simple but powerful framework: Collect, Analyse, Act.

Step 1: Collect – Gathering comprehensive data

The first step in intelligence is gathering as much information as possible from diverse sources. The same principle applies to sustainability claims. Corporate sustainability

reports are just one piece of the puzzle; external validation from third-party audits, certifications, and NGO investigations often reveals gaps in self-reported data. Stakeholder feedback, including community insights and supplier interviews, can offer a ground-level perspective that glossy reports fail to capture. AI-powered tools further enhance this process, analysing large datasets to flag overused buzzwords like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘green’ and identify shifts in language or omitted metrics over time.

Step 2: Analyse – Identifying patterns and context

Once data is collected, the next step is making sense of it through pattern recognition and contextual understanding. Linguistic red flags, such as vague promises (‘reduce emissions significantly’) or claims lacking measurable outcomes, often indicate attempts at misrepresentation. Comparing historical data reveals shifts in reporting methodologies or disappearing metrics, both of which may signal attempts to conceal unfavourable information. Contextual analysis against industry benchmarks and peer performance is equally critical. For example, a company claiming leadership in renewable energy may still heavily rely on fossil fuels compared to competitors. Cross-referencing claims with lifecycle assessments or independent studies strengthens analysis and ensures objectivity.

Step 3: Act – Categorising and reporting

Analysis must inform actionable steps. Risk categorisation, such as a Red-Amber-Green (RAG) system, can classify organisations based on the credibility of their claims. Red flags highlight significant concerns, Amber signals caution, and Green indicates alignment with genuine impact. Clear, concise reporting can guide stakeholders in holding organisations accountable or redirecting resources to more credible initiatives. For instance, a company boasting of 90% recyclability may, upon closer examination, only achieve this under ideal conditions unavailable in most markets. Highlighting such discrepancies empowers stakeholders to push for realistic and impactful solutions.

Modern analysts have access to powerful tools, but these must be used judiciously. AI-based platforms like natural language processing (NLP) and sentiment analysis enable efficient processing of large datasets, helping to identify patterns and tone shifts that could signal defensive narratives or reactive positioning. However, technology alone is insufficient. Human insight is indispensable for interpreting results, recognising nuances, and understanding industry-specific contexts. The combination of AI’s precision with the critical thinking of human analysts creates a robust approach to detecting impact laundering.

The road ahead: Institutionalising transparency

Addressing impact laundering requires systemic change. Collaboration among investors, regulators, and auditors is essential to establish unified standards for assessing sustainability claims. Education and training will play a crucial role, and there are promising signs of development in this space, with new tools and frameworks emerging to enhance the ability to detect, identify, and report instances of misleading practices. These efforts are critical to fostering a stronger culture of accountability.

Regulators, too, must play their part by setting clear guidelines and enforcing penalties for misrepresentation. A transparent and standardised approach to sustainability reporting will not only protect investments but also restore trust in organisations genuinely working towards positive impact.

Impact laundering isn’t just a challenge—it’s an opportunity to raise the bar for sustainability. By adapting intelligence methodologies to the world of sustainability claims, we can unmask misrepresentation, protect stakeholders, and foster meaningful progress. This isn’t about vilifying organisations but about fostering a culture of honesty, transparency, and accountability. In a world where the race towards sustainability is as urgent as it is complex, the truth remains our most powerful ally. Let’s ensure we use every tool at our disposal to uphold it.