Key points:
- Higher education should adopt a robust governance framework for sustainability communications
- Rebuild or reuse? Making strategic space decisions that last
- Student-centered campus design begins in the spaces between
- For more on sustainability, visit eCN’s Campus Leadership hub
Many colleges and universities have set ambitious sustainability goals to demonstrate leadership on climate change and environmental stewardship. As institutions encounter unforeseen challenges–such as evolving regulatory frameworks, financial constraints, and changing stakeholder expectations–some are finding it necessary to revise their sustainability targets.
While updating these goals may be prudent, such revisions can expose schools to heightened risks of so-called “greenwashing” allegations if their changes are not carefully communicated and substantiated.
Evolving risks
Colleges and universities have for years faced scrutiny related to their environmental impacts, especially their fossil fuel-related investments. This scrutiny has generally taken the form of campus protests and, more recently, complaints filed by students with state attorneys general. In 2022, for example, students at three higher education institutions urged state attorneys general to investigate whether university investments violate the Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMFIA), which has been adopted by 49 states and requires nonprofit institutions to consider their charitable purpose when investing and exercise prudence and loyalty. While public pressure campaigns have been real, there has not, so far, been substantial litigation; a case brought by students to compel fossil fuel divestment by Harvard University was dismissed by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in 2015 for lack of standing.
More broadly, there is a growing trend of state attorneys general and environmental nonprofits suing companies to challenge companies’ sustainability targets. Although most key cases to date have targeted companies that sell consumer goods, because the allegations target broad statements about the defendants’ sustainability strategies and goals, the trend is also relevant for colleges and universities that have set Net Zero targets or other strategic sustainability goals.
Most lawsuits to date been brought under state statutes restricting false advertising or unfair or deceptive acts or practices (UDAP) and include allegations that sustainability targets and goals are “misleading,” particularly where companies fail to take concrete steps necessary to meet their targets. Some cases also include common law claims, such as public nuisance, fraud (or fraud by omission), breach of express or implied warranty, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, and/or product liability (failure to warn). Recent case examples include:
- Earth Island Institute v. Coca Cola Co.: The D.C. Court of Appeals allowed claims to proceed where the plaintiff plausibly alleged that Coca-Cola misled consumers by setting and publicizing sustainability targets despite practices showing no intention of meeting them; the case is pending on remand.
- New York v. PepsiCo, Inc.: The trial court dismissed claims in 2024, holding that PepsiCo’s promises to reduce plastics were not deceptive, despite allegations that the company repeatedly revised sustainability targets as it failed to meet them; the New York Attorney General has appealed, and the appeal remains in preliminary stages.
- People of the State of New York v. JBS USA Food Company: The parties settled in 2025. The settlement required reframing “Net Zero by 2040” as a “goal” rather than a commitment, substantiating claims about “taking steps” to meet the goal, internal review of consumer-facing statements with certification to NYAG for three years, and a payment of $1.1 million to Cornell University.
- Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (D.C. CPPA): The court denied a motion to dismiss, finding plausible claims that Tyson Foods’ “Net Zero by 2050” commitment and related messaging could be false or misleading; the case later settled with commitments to cease certain claims absent expert verification.
These cases highlight that aspirational language may not shield companies if their other statements imply concrete progress or feasibility without substantiation, and that plaintiffs scrutinize whether interim steps, plans, and metrics align with a company’s stated goals. The lessons for higher education are clear: Institutions must ensure that all sustainability statements–whether forward-looking or reflecting current progress–are accurate, substantiated, and regularly reviewed for alignment with actual practices.
Best practices for managing greenwashing risks
To mitigate greenwashing risks, higher education institutions should adopt a robust governance framework for sustainability communications. This includes:
- Ensuring internal coordination among legal, sustainability, communications, and academic teams.
- Documenting the rationale and data underlying any revisions to sustainability targets and ensuring that public statements accurately reflect updated goals and methodologies.
- Disclosing the reasons for any changes, new assumptions, or limitations, and providing transparent explanations for the evolution of targets.
- Avoiding overly broad or unqualified statements about environmental achievements or future plans.
- Regularly reviewing sustainability disclosures to ensure consistency with current practices and available data.
- Tracking regulatory developments and litigation trends to remain informed about emerging risks and expectations.
Tracking stakeholder sentiment to identify areas of growing risk (e.g., investment/divestiture campaigns) and align the institution’s response and engagement strategy with its broader communications about sustainability.
When revising sustainability targets, institutions should consider the potential for external stakeholders to scrutinize not just the substance of revised commitments but the process by which changes are made. Detailed documentation of the decision-making process, including input from relevant experts and stakeholders, can serve as important evidence of good faith and due diligence. Organizations should regularly update their disclosures to reflect changes in science, technology, or institutional capacity, and should consider proactively address gaps between past commitments and current realities.
It is also prudent for colleges and universities to establish a process for ongoing stakeholder engagement, including periodic updates for students, faculty, alumni, and the broader public. Proactive stakeholder education can help reduce the risk of misunderstanding or allegations of greenwashing by clarifying the reasons for target adjustments and demonstrating the institution’s ongoing commitment to transparency and accountability. Regularly benchmarking disclosures against peer institutions and emerging industry standards can further strengthen credibility and reduce risk exposure. The benefit of these measures should be weighed and tailored to minimize risks that may be associated with voluntary disclosure.
Conclusion
As colleges and universities revisit their sustainability commitments, clear and accurate communication is essential to minimize legal and reputational risks. By implementing robust governance practices, proactively documenting and explaining changes, and staying abreast of regulatory and litigation developments, higher education institutions can more confidently navigate the evolving landscape of sustainability disclosure. Ultimately, transparency and diligence not only help manage risk, but also support credibility and long-term leadership in environmental stewardship.
In this environment of heightened scrutiny and rapidly changing expectations, it is critical that institutions see sustainability not as a static objective, but as an ongoing process that requires regular reassessment and honest communication. Institutions that embrace this approach will be best positioned to fulfill their sustainability missions and maintain the trust of their communities.
Amy Fabiano and Brigid Harrington are senior attorneys with Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, focusing on higher education.
Gerard T. “Gerry” Leone, Jr. is co-head of Hunton’s higher education and private schools practice. He is a former General Counsel of the University of Massachusetts.
Rachel Saltzman is a partner in Hunton’s Administrative Law Group. She is a former enforcement attorney with the U.S. EPA.