After Greta; after a decade: Has Davos actually changed?
They’re back. The private jets, the panels, the promises. In 2016, Greta Thunberg stood outside the gates of World Economic Forum and pointed her finger straight at power, asking a question that still hangs in the Alpine air: are you actually listening, or just applauding yourselves?
“Davos is excellent at convening power; far less impressive at compelling it to act. So will this year be different? We’re not holding our breath.”
Ten years on, Davos 2026 boasts a record-breaking turnout: more CEOs, more heads of state, more “unprecedented urgency” than ever before. And yet the question remains painfully simple - has anything really changed?
Yes, there is one undeniable achievement: Davos succeeds in doing what few places can, dragging the world’s most powerful people into the same room. That matters. Coordination matters. Presence matters. But impact? That’s where the story keeps falling apart. Because when the speeches end and the snow melts, the gap between rhetoric and reality is still vast. Davos is excellent at convening power; far less impressive at compelling it to act. So will the outcomes from this year be different? We’re not holding our breath.
What is Davos?
Each January, global leaders gather under the banner of climate action and economic transformation. At the World Economic Forum, the conversations are ambitious, urgent and often inspiring. Davos 2026 is no different. But as sustainability rhetoric accelerates, so does a harder truth: the gap between what companies say and what they do is widening.
Where Davos still falls short
For all the progress, Davos-style sustainability still has blind spots.
1. Too much talk, not enough proof
Net-zero pledges, nature-positive strategies and glossy sustainability reports dominate the conversation. What’s often missing is hard evidence: lifecycle data, ingredient transparency and independent verification.
Most sustainability claims are vague or unsubstantiated. 53% of green claims in the EU were found to be vague, misleading or unfounded and 40% had no supporting evidence at all. European Commission, 2020 Screening of websites for greenwashing.
"40% of environmental claims could be misleading”
Most “net zero” pledges are based on partial data at best. CDP Global Supply Chain Report found only 1 in 4 companies reporting on sustainability provide quantitative lifecycle or value-chain emissions data (Scope 3). Yet Scope 3 emissions typically account for 70–90% of a company’s total environmental impact, especially in FMCG and chemicals.
Greenwashing is now formally recognised as a systemic issue. Competition and Markets Authority estimates that up to 40% of environmental claims could be misleading. This has driven the UK Green Claims Code and forthcoming EU Green Claims Directive - both focused on evidence, verification and lifecycle data
2. Switching from discussions around phasing out fossil fuels toward energy security
While long-term climate concerns remain, short-term focus has now shifted due to immediate geopolitical and economic issues, disappointingly, reducing emphasis on direct fossil fuel phase-outs in favor of broader resilience and energy security.
Per Tyndall Centre for Climate Research: Fossil fuel CO2 emissions hit a record high in 2025, at 38.1 billion tonnes (a 1.1% increase), despite significant renewable energy growth, because rising global energy demand outpaced clean energy expansion, though total emissions (including land use) remained flat due to recovering land sinks. While clean power met new electricity demand in places like China and India, fossil fuels still grew globally, with overall fossil CO2 emissions reaching a new peak.
At Davos, leaders debate climate risk, water resilience and economic stability, yet the discussion often stops short of confronting some of the most immediate, politically uncomfortable drivers of environmental harm - from continued fossil fuel dependence to chronic pollution entering rivers and seas. Even less attention is paid to the cumulative impact of everyday operational choices, such as the cleaning chemicals used across offices, hospitals, hotels and schools, which quietly contribute to water contamination and human health risks at scale (while crucial to point out that consumer behaviour specifically barely scratches the surface of the climate crisis, buyer behaviours, on mass, can lead to systemic change in brands having to meet consumer demand for better, truly planet conscious options).
3. Greenwashing is still rewarded
Brands with the loudest claims often receive the most visibility, even when those claims are loosely defined or poorly substantiated. This is where trust breaks down.
As Delphis Eco’s CEO, Mark Jankovich, comments:
“Where is the jeopardy for the brands and advertising agencies, and how can the Green Claims Code be so badly abused?”
A prime example of this greenwashing came in the form of a ‘Which?’ deep-dive into the green claims of over 20,000 products - an analysis in which Delphis Eco stood up impressively versus a wide variety of companies claiming to be eco-friendly.
As a company that’s built its name on environmental integrity and transparency, Delphis Eco is proud to say it passed this intense scrutiny with flying colours. Across the entire 168-product portfolio, the only issue ‘Which?’ found was a single word: the use of “highly biodegradable” when the technical standard term is “readily” biodegradable. “We’ll take that 0.6% error rate when 84% of the industry can’t even pass the basics.” added Jankovich.
Why greenwashing is more than a marketing problem
Greenwashing doesn’t just mislead customers. It actively slows progress.
It rewards superficial change over genuine innovation
It undermines companies doing the hard, unglamorous work
It erodes confidence in sustainability as a whole
At a time when regulation is tightening and scrutiny is increasing, greenwashing is no longer a shortcut, it’s a liability.
What real sustainability looks like beyond Davos
If sustainability is to mean anything beyond a conference hall, it needs to show up in daily operations. That means:
Science-led formulations
Products designed to reduce harm to people and the environment, not just to meet minimum legal standards.
Full transparency
Clear disclosure of ingredients, impacts and limitations - not selective storytelling.
Independent verification
Certifications such as the EU Ecolabel set a high bar, assessing products across their full lifecycle - from raw materials to disposal. Holding the EU Ecolabel means meeting stringent, independently verified environmental and performance criteria, not simply making eco-friendly claims.
Delphis Eco’s EU Ecolabel accreditation demonstrates what credibility looks like in practice: sustainability built into product design, not layered on afterwards.
From pledges to proof
Davos 2026 will generate headlines, hashtags and hopeful commitments. That’s not a bad thing. But climate action doesn’t happen on panels - it happens in supply cupboards, purchasing frameworks and product design labs.
The real test of sustainability leadership is simple: Can your claims stand up to scrutiny when the spotlight moves away?
Until proof consistently replaces promises, greenwashing will remain the elephant in the room - at Davos and beyond.
What this means for procurement and facilities managers
For procurement teams and facilities managers, Davos-level conversations translate into very real pressures:
Stronger ESG reporting requirements
Greater scrutiny of supplier claims
Increased focus on health, safety and indoor environments
Less tolerance for vague or unverified “eco” messaging
The simplest way to cut through greenwashing is to prioritise verified standards over marketing claims and to work with suppliers who understand operational realities - cost, performance, safety and compliance - as well as sustainability.
That’s why more organisations are embedding independently certified products into their cleaning specifications and procurement frameworks, rather than relying on self-declared claims.
If you’re responsible for sourcing sustainable cleaning products at scale across offices, hospitality, healthcare or education - Delphis Eco works directly with organisations to support credible, compliant and practical sustainability in everyday operations. You can find more information for procurement and facilities teams.
Our buying guide for procurement and facilities managers to assess the green credentials of professional cleaning product suppliers
As sustainability expectations rise - from Davos-level policy discussions to day-to-day operational audits - procurement and facilities teams are under growing pressure to prove that environmental claims stand up to scrutiny.
This guide focuses on how to evaluate sustainable cleaning products without relying on marketing claims.
1. Start with independent verification, not claims
Self-declared “eco” labels are easy to create and hard to trust, as highlighted above in our reference to the Which? Deep-dive into 20,000 ‘eco’ brands. Procurement teams should prioritise independently verified standards that assess products against clear, measurable criteria.
Look for certifications that:
Assess full lifecycle impact, not just ingredients
Set performance requirements as well as environmental ones
Are awarded and monitored by third-party bodies
The EU Ecolabel is widely recognised across Europe for doing exactly this, making it a useful benchmark when comparing suppliers.
2. Ask for ingredient transparency
Cleaning products are used daily in enclosed environments, often by frontline staff. Yet ingredient disclosure is still inconsistent.
Procurement teams should expect suppliers to:
Provide full ingredient information on request
Clearly explain any hazardous classifications
Demonstrate how formulations reduce risks to people and indoor air quality
Transparency here isn’t a “nice to have” — it’s essential for health, safety and compliance.
Here’s Delphis Eco’s Ingredients FAQs section for ease of reference
3. Consider total cost, not just unit price
Sustainable products are often evaluated on price alone, which can be misleading.
A more meaningful comparison looks at:
Dilution rates and usage efficiency
Product performance (does it reduce re-cleans?)
Training and support requirements
Waste, packaging and disposal costs
Lower-impact products that perform well frequently reduce overall operational cost, even if the unit price is higher.
4. Align cleaning with ESG and health objectives
Cleaning sits at the intersection of:
Environmental impact
Worker health and safety
User wellbeing
Procurement decisions should support wider organisational goals, including:
Reduced chemical exposure for staff
Improved indoor environments
Credible ESG reporting
This alignment is increasingly important as ESG scrutiny moves from policy to practice.
5. Build sustainability into specifications
One of the most effective ways to avoid greenwashing is to hard-wire sustainability into procurement frameworks.
That means:
Specifying recognised certifications rather than vague “eco” requirements
Requiring evidence, not just claims
Reviewing suppliers regularly against agreed standards
This shifts sustainability from a branding exercise to a measurable operational outcome.
What this means in practice
For organisations managing cleaning across multiple sites - offices, hospitality, healthcare or education - the goal isn’t perfection. It’s credibility, consistency and continuous improvement.
Working with suppliers who understand procurement realities, compliance pressures and performance requirements makes that process simpler and more robust.
For teams sourcing sustainable cleaning products at scale, Delphis Eco provides information and support tailored to business and public sector buyers here: https://delphiseco.com/pages/business-customers
From strategy to supply cupboard
Global forums like the World Economic Forum help set direction. Procurement and facilities teams make that direction real.
By focusing on verified standards, transparency and performance, buyers can cut through greenwashing - and ensure sustainability claims hold up long after the conference banners come down.
Leave a comment