The forthcoming EU Green Claims Directive will require any voluntary environmental claim or label used in B2C marketing in the EU to be specific, evidence‑based, independently verified, and transparently communicated, with significant penalties for greenwashing. Its aims are positive, although it would be best to have mandatory laws rather than focusing on claims related to voluntary certification. It also remains to be seen how easy it will be to apply. Another type of greenwashing, however, may be even more difficult to tackle: greenwashing used as a slur against real or imaginary perpetrators and their enablers, such as consultants. Imagine a pristine beach hosting an endangered species. A developer arrives with the full blessings of a pro-development government (aren't they all) and builds a superb 5 star resort that ticks all sustainability boxes by design. One of the boxes involves a pledge to protect, and support the conservation of, the said (sad) endangered species. The consultants involved with organising the implementation of this pledge in practice could be attacked by local environmental groups, academics in ivory towers, and even other consultants who did not get the job, for greenwashing. But is it really or always greenwashing? I believe a fair rule of thumb is as follows: we ask what is the best option (for the local community and the environment) at each specific point in time. Originally, the best option is no development, just conservation. Next, the development can be fought in the courts, first to block it altogether, and if that fails to get as many concessions as possible in favour of the environment and the local community. The next stage involves implementing all pledges and promises and, finally, monitoring them afterwards. If this process is followed, I believe it is inappropriate to accuse consultants involved at the very end of the process of greenwashing, if they are trying to do their best and save what must be saved. Even if it just means removing beach loungers each night and shutting lights. But whoever dislikes this mainstream approach or finds it lacking, can go ahead and do something better, more genuine, meaningful and heroic. It is of course easier and less tiring to just criticize from the safety of a keyboard or in a firebrand academic article or book. Also fine, but those who do however should also do a little search to see which companies are behind their smart phone, social media, institution or the journals, magazines and publishers and also which companies are involved each time they go on holiday. Personally, I am all for supporting and promoting radical, innovative ideas as long as they are peaceful. But I recognize that unless someone is a survivalist living of some remote wilderness and with no contact or dependency on the outside world, one cannot be outside "the system", Even if you are against the system, you have to make as many compromises as your wallet and personal circumstances require. The system changes, slowly, through collective action, pressure, struggle, not through the actions of an individual consultant, influencer, or academic, so even the greatest greenwashing, let alone imaginary greenwashing, does not stand in the way, when the time is ripe for change. The system does not change by safely criticising others that try to do what they can and earn a living, in a holier than thou fashion.