The ethical issue highlighted is the risk of greenwashing. Many firms promote ESG initiatives in their reports but fail to implement meaningful change. This practice misleads stakeholders, undermines trust, and slows progress toward sustainability. The article stresses that genuine ethical commitment—particularly in governance and labour practices—is crucial for real impact.

The findings show that companies with strong governance and integrated ESG strategies outperform peers in sustainability metrics and stakeholder trust. For example, firms that design products with lifecycle sustainability in mind not only reduce environmental harm but also strengthen consumer loyalty. This evidence demonstrates that ethical business conduct is not just a compliance exercise but a strategic necessity. However, the study also notes that reporting standards remain inconsistent, leaving space for superficial ESG claims.

From a Kantian perspective, businesses have a duty to act truthfully and respect stakeholders as ends in themselves. Greenwashing violates this principle because it deceives consumers and investors, treating them as a means to profit. A company that publishes misleading sustainability reports is not acting in accordance with the categorical imperative, which requires honesty and universal moral law. For Kant, even if greenwashing brings short‑term financial gain, it remains unethical because it cannot be justified as a universal practice.

By contrast, Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences for overall well‑being. From this view, authentic ESG practices generate long‑term benefits for society and the environment, while greenwashing produces harm by delaying climate action and eroding trust. Although greenwashing may benefit shareholders in the short term, the negative consequences for communities, ecosystems, and future generations outweigh these gains.

Together, these theories highlight why greenwashing is ethically unacceptable. Kantian ethics stresses the duty of honesty, while Utilitarianism emphasises the broader harm caused by deception. Both frameworks reinforce the article’s conclusion that genuine ESG integration is essential for sustainable development.

The article by López‑Cabarcos et al. (2025) shows that when ESG factors are implemented holistically—combining governance, labour, and environmental practices—companies make genuine contributions to the SDGs. However, when ESG is treated as a marketing tool, progress becomes symbolic rather than substantive. This tension illustrates why ethical business conduct is critical: without it, the SDGs risk being reduced to branding exercises rather than real global change.

• The United Nations SDG website provides official targets and indicators for SDG 12 and 13.

• Reports from NGOs such as Greenpeace highlight real‑world cases of corporate greenwashing.

• Academic studies, such as AlHares (2025) on ethical leadership and Long (2025) on environmental ethics, reinforce the importance of authentic ESG practices.

These resources show that greenwashing is not just a theoretical concern but a practical barrier to sustainability. They also provide examples of how ethical leadership and transparent reporting can help align business practices with global goals.