Governance, Ethics & Risk
Astroturfing
The deceptive practice of orchestrating campaigns that appear to be spontaneous grassroots movements while concealing the corporate or political sponsors behind them.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
A strategy in which interest groups — corporations, industry associations or political actors — create or fund organisations and campaigns that simulate grassroots public support, hiding the true sponsors of the message. The deception concerns the source and backing of the message, not only its content: coordinated inauthentic behaviour (fake commenters, front groups, paid "citizen" campaigns) manufactures an impression of bottom-up support.
References
Climate-debate examples; "greenscamming" front groups; history of industry-funded denial campaigns.
Definition (concealed sponsorship; simulated grassroots support); distinction from fake news; corporate examples.
Overview
What it means
In the sustainability field, astroturfing has a long record in environmental and climate debates: industry-funded groups with environmental-sounding names have campaigned against climate legislation and regulation — sometimes called "greenscamming" — while fossil-fuel and agrochemical interests have funded front groups presenting themselves as farmer, community or consumer voices.
How it is used
Astroturfing is studied within research on climate disinformation and corporate political influence, and is increasingly the subject of regulatory attention — for example in inquiries into information integrity on climate change. It differs from lobbying (which is openly conducted by identified interests) precisely in concealing sponsorship.
Why it matters
Astroturfing corrupts the evidence base of democratic sustainability decisions: regulators and the public cannot weigh support they believe is independent but is actually purchased. Recognising it is part of media literacy, policy integrity and anti-greenwashing practice.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.