After the couple behind a renowned eco-retreat left Sweden for Guatemala, allegedly leaving behind enormous debts, a poisoned forest and 158 barrels of human waste, Laura Hall reflects on how we can all brush up our game when it comes to what’s ‘green’ and what’s greenwashing.
The idea was simple: 16 simple wooden cabins set near a lake, a floating wooden sauna tethered to the rocky shore. Tree-lined paths cut through the ancient woodlands to a communal dining room where people sat along wooden tables and ate fresh, local food, mostly cooked on the fire by Flemming Schiøtt Hansen and Mette Helbæk, the visionary owners, and their team of chefs.
Apart from a small shop and a little outdoor workout zone, there wasn’t much more to Stedsans in the Forest. And that was the point. The idea was to spend time in nature, hear birdsong, swim in the lake, and appreciate how good life really is. You don’t need thousand-thread count sheets and a personal butler to have a luxurious stay. The resort was also, as owners Hansen and Helbaek put it, 100 percent water-neutral, chemical-free, and offered a chance to, according to their website, be a ‘positive part of the cycles of life’. The entire enterprise was allegedly built on regenerative and permaculture farming principles, with compost toilets and zero food waste.
On reading all of this, I was sold. I hold a Global Sustainable Tourism Council certificate in sustainable tourism and I’ve been working with ideas like this for nearly a decade. I’m a huge advocate for sustainable, meaningful travel. I decided to book.
In the summer of 2022, my husband and I celebrated our 10th wedding anniversary at Stedsans, on our own dime; a weekend swimming in the lake and watching the stars in the pitch-black sky. The setting was lovely, but the experience didn’t quite hit the mark for me. Then, on April 6 this year, it was alleged that Stedsans in the Forest was not the paradise it had appeared. Politiken, one of Denmark’s national newspapers, ran with the headline (translated from Danish): “They wanted to make the world a better place with their sustainable restaurants and hotel. Now they’ve fled, leaving behind millions in debt and 158 barrels of shit.”
The journalist reported finding barrels of human waste left in the forest, waste water seeping into the lake, and unpaid tax bills running into millions of kroner (over USD$700,000). After trying to find a way out of their debt, and attempts to sell and refinance the retreat, Hansen and Helbæk left the country for Guatemala. The journalist noted they had avoided payments while running businesses in Denmark, and alleged that they’d fled to Sweden to avoid paying them. Hansen decried the tax authorities as being a “narcissistic entity”, maintaining that if he stayed in Scandinavia, his family would be sentenced to life in poverty paying it back.
“The best businesses are ones which also acknowledge their problems: Honesty and transparency is what we need from them.”
- Debbie Hindle, International Center for Responsible Tourism
On social media, Hansen and Helbæk state that, from an environmental perspective at least, they did nothing wrong and that the source of the story is a hacked-off ex-employee. On Instagram, they have referred to the ‘lying press’ and will now only respond to queries live and unedited; they’ve also recorded a podcast episode in response to questions from a local paper. “We have worked with sustainability—supported small-scale, sustainable, local producers for more than 15 years. Before it became a thing and deeper than most,” they wrote on Instagram. “We have inspired all around the world. Have we made mistakes? Yes! Many! But we have always been transparent and done our best to create a better world.”
In Sweden, the tourist board’s Nature’s Best stamp denotes nature-based experiences that meet their standards (then it’s up to you to decide if their standards meet your standards). It’s believed that while Swedish authorities were supposed to have visited Stedsans and completed paperwork, it appears a series of errors on the officials’ end meant the visit and evaluation had not taken place.
Now, this isn’t a story about whether one supposed ‘eco resort’ did the right thing or not; it’s about the broader matter of sustainability and greenwashing. After all, there have been many recent cases of greenwashing.
In 2023, Intrepid Travel was fined when it used the term ‘planet-friendly’ in an advert, considered misleading about the impact of trips on the environment. This year, travel agency Barrhead Travel was fined for a misleading advert claiming its Celebrity Cruises had a strong focus on sustainability and eco-friendly practices, while not giving details and ignoring the fact that cruise ships produce high levels of CO2 and significantly impact marine life and ecosystems.
And both Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines were found guilty of greenwashing in 2023 for ads focusing on climate-friendly aviation, which is not (yet) a reality. As Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) regulations continue to tighten and oftenr require mandatory reporting requirements, expect to see more examples of companies’ advertising held up to scrutiny—and a lot more fines.
But given the widespread use of terms like ‘sustainable’ and ‘eco resort’, how can we, as travelers, discern if we’re staying in an eco-retreat—or just somewhere that says it is? “Ignore vague and unsubstantiated claims like ‘the greenest hotel in X’,” advises Debbie Hindle, Chair for the International Center for Responsible Tourism. “Look for evidence of specific impact to find businesses that are doing something demonstrably good to make tourism better.” She also notes that sustainability is a journey and no organization is perfect: “The best businesses are ones which also acknowledge their problems: Honesty and transparency is what we need from them.”
As for the words ‘sustainable’ and ‘regenerative’, responsible tourism marketer Jamie Burr shares his thoughts. “Think of visiting a destination like being a guest in someone’s home. Sustainable tourism is what’s expected: being the respectful guest who doesn’t make a mess, leaving the place as you found it,” he tells me. “Regenerative tourism goes a step further. It’s being the wonderful guest who not only tidies up, but also helps with the cooking and the dishes, leaving the home—and the hosts—even better for you having been there.”
So when it comes to assessing what companies say about how they behave, their sustainable aims should be bare minimum; regenerative is the cherry on the top. But how do we know if they’re being truthful, or just optimistic about the impact they have on the world?
“I think coming back to certification is always a good idea,” says University of Queensland sustainability expert Dr Antje Martins, a tutor on the Global Sustainable Tourism Council sustainable tourism course. “Does the business have any sustainability credentials, preferably third-party or externally audited? Can the business provide evidence that it manages the resort sustainably or regeneratively? For the resort in question, it would have been about measuring their positive impact on the environment, the community and the economy, and communicating that responsibly. Anything else is greenwashing.”
There are many local standards and certifications around the world, so it can be worth checking if the accommodation you’ve booked is affiliated with any credible certifications. But it’s also important to note that not every company that lacks certification is ‘bad’; the time and cost of applying can make it prohibitive for a small company. And in some places, where standards are not so rigid, accreditation can be bought, making them unreliable. The key thing travelers should be wary of are organizations using vague or broad terms to describe their climate, environmental or sustainability efforts.
“Regenerative and sustainable endeavors can fail, they do all the time. It’s about what you learn from these failures and how you make it better.”
- Dr Antje Martins, tutor, Global Sustainable Tourism Council
Not greenwashing is actually incredibly simple: It simply requires an organization to truthfully talk about what they’re doing, and have the evidence to support it. So if a company utilizes solar power as part of their energy mix, and they know that solar contributes 60 percent of their total energy combined, they can say: “Our business runs on 60 percent solar power.” It can’t—and shouldn’t—say it is a ‘solar-powered business’ (as that suggests 100 percent solar power) and it certainly isn’t an ‘sustainable’ business.
It’s spotting greenwashing that’s difficult. Any organization claiming to be ‘sustainable’ outright is, nine times out of 10, probably not. It might be investing in sustainability initiatives or have a focus on sustainability—which is great by the way, but they should back up those claims—but that does not make a wholly ‘sustainable’ business. Certifications can be useful, as Martins mentions, but even those come with caveats.
For example, B Corp is regarded as one of the world’s most credible ethical business certifications—and it is—but it doesn’t necessarily mean that a business is doing overwhelmingly positive things from a sustainability or climate perspective. It’s a strong indicator that they focus on balancing ‘people, profit and planet’, but that doesn’t automatically equate to a ‘sustainable’ organization. In some circles, B Corp status is seen as a useful marketing tool, rather than something integral to the foundations of the company, as it was initially imagined, and questions have been raised about its integrity in recent years, especially in relation to its certification of scandal-hit firm Brewdog, and global firm Nespresso.
Martins notes that this year, the Green Claims Directive in Europe will be cracking down on greenwashing across all sectors, travel included. The idea is that it will stop companies from making misleading claims about their environmental initiatives.
Judging by what the EU has said so far, claims that are absolute or not specific will be challenged. Last year, the EU started action against 20 airlines for greenwashing claims, on the basis that travelers can’t make the right decisions if the information provided isn’t accurate. And in Australia recently, Qantas was taken to task for claiming passengers could ‘fly carbon-neutral’ by purchasing their offsetting products—the action following a similar decision made against KLM Royal Dutch Airlines relating to misleading information around its use of sustainable aviation fuels, offsetting and net zero goals. Expect to see more cases like these.
The EU changes may make a difference in other unintended ways too. Travel marketers may veer away from detail—which could put them under even further scrutiny—and tend towards images of nature instead. It’s a move being termed ‘greenhushing’—when firms deliberately don’t talk about any environmental or climate initiatives out of fear of getting the messaging wrong, or that what they’re doing isn’t enough.
Beautiful nature images set up an idea in our heads that a place is eco-friendly—whether it is or not. As travelers, we need to get beyond the aesthetics and start asking more questions—if we truly care about protecting the places we’re visiting, and minimizing our impact when we visit. Even if you’ve asked the questions beforehand, asking for a tour behind the scenes is another action, to see the claims in practice—although I’ll note that I had one at Stedsans, and I didn’t even think to ask about the run-off from the washing machines.
We also shouldn’t lose faith that these things can be done well—because they can. Knowing what a good one looks like puts this all in perspective. In the last year, I’ve reported on some astonishing travel businesses that have changed their approach to create travel for good. Some of the best examples come from the Responsible Tourism Awards, which highlights six areas in particular: making travel inclusive, championing cultural diversity, nature positive, climate change, creating shared value and increasing local sourcing and upskilling local communities.
One of their big winners last year was luxury South African camp Grootbos, which offers authentic nature experiences in the Fynbos area while also running a foundation that offers free skills and business training for hundreds of local people in the areas of hospitality, horticulture, entrepreneurship and biodiversity. In Peru, volunteering and travel organization CREES allows tourists to participate in conservation efforts first-hand, working with local communities and exploring the Amazon rainforest and Manu Biosphere Reserve with naturalist guides—an example of bringing tourism and environmental protection together in a win-win for both sides.
That shared benefit is also on display at hotel Sivatel Bangkok, another award-winner, where the hotel has partnered with 50 local farmers to ensure local sourcing, and runs a pop up market within the hotel to support local artisans and food producers. Money stays in the community and allows business owners to succeed, making the area vibrant; tourists get the pay-off of a local experience they can’t find anywhere else. As they and many others show us, it can be done.
It’s also about being OK with asking awkward questions, ideally before booking … How they reply to these questions tells you everything about how seriously they take sustainability.
And we must keep that faith. Just because there have been mistakes, it doesn’t mean a travel company can’t do better and keep learning and keep doing better. If anything, it’s a sign to anyone running a small travel business to take the financial side seriously and to be crystal-clear that they understand what actions and initiatives back up their claims—and, where relevant, have the documentation to prove it.
“Regenerative and sustainable endeavors can fail, they do all the time,” says Martins. “It’s about what you learn from these failures and how you make it better.”
As for what I’ve learned, it’s to not take environmental or other claims at face-value, to ask even more questions, and to trust my gut when things don’t feel right. And while greenwashing does take place, there are many places making a huge effort to do better, using innovative, long-term solutions. Being ‘sustainable’ isn’t about being perfect. But it is about taking responsibility ensuring anything that exists for tourists also benefits a wider community and environment.
It’s also about being OK with asking awkward questions, ideally before booking. “Can you tell me more about your sustainability policies?” is a good starter question, as is “can you send me a link to your sustainability plan and most recent reports?” How they reply to these questions tells you everything about how seriously they take sustainability. Vague ideas and unfocused aspirations accompanied by pretty pictures of landscapes and greenery are just as revealing as replies that quote clear statistics, external auditors or processes. Even small-scale organizations will have objectives and actions in place, while larger organisation may even have someone responsible for sustainability within the company.
In the travel world, it’s time for sustainability to move on from being a wafty aspirational branding feature to becoming an embedded part of the experience at all levels. But as guests, we’ve got to start taking it seriously too.
****
Adventure.com strives to be a low-emissions travel publication. We are powered by, but editorially independent of, Intrepid Travel, the world’s largest travel B Corp, who help ensure Adventure.com maintains high standards of sustainability in our work and activities. You can visit our sustainability page or read our Contributor Impact Guidelines for more information.
Laura Hall is an award-winning writer, journalist and author of titles including Time Out Copenhagen, Footprint Reykjavik and One Day, So Many Ways, a children’s book about how life is lived around the world. A former travel guide editor, she’s run communications for a travel start-up and led global content at a tourist board. She now writes about Scandinavia and the Nordics for BBC Travel, Kinfolk, Time Out, The Times, Lonely Planet and others.
