Green claims – what you need to know

Broad, general, or absolute claims are more likely to be inaccurate and misleading, e.g., ‘green’, ‘sustainable’ or ‘eco-friendly’ are likely to be seen as suggesting that a product/ service has a positive environmental impact, or at least no adverse impact, from the beginning of its life to the end. Unless a business can prove that, you might be falling short in firm’s legal obligations.

Example 1: misleading use of a term

Claiming a pair of jeans are ‘organic’ when only 35% of their material is from organic cotton is misleading. The generally understood meaning of ‘organic’ is that virtually the entirety of the product meets that description. If only a proportion of the product is organic, the claim must be specific and make this clear. E.g., ‘these jeans are manufactured from 35% organic cotton’ and listing the other materials they contain is less likely to mislead.

Claims can mislead if what they say is factually correct, but the impression they give consumers is deceptive. You must not exaggerate environmental benefits by suggesting what is a standard procedure is environmentally better than the norm. Claims are more likely to be acceptable where they highlight the steps taken by a business to go further than legal standards or the necessary features of a product.

The visual presentation of a claim – the images, logos, packaging, and colours used – are an important part of the overall presentation. The same is true for the labels or certification that are often used to support environmental claims.

Example 2: Misleading labelling and visuals

A shampoo is packaged in a bamboo container labelled ‘natural’ in green font. The outer bamboo shell, which on its own is compostable and biodegradable, creates the impression that the whole product is better for the environment. Glued within this outer shell there is a recyclable plastic container. That is not apparent to the consumer when purchasing. Without clear messaging on the packaging that the product contains mixed materials, consumers will likely assume that the packaging is environmentally friendly. Hence, the presentation of the product risks being misleading. Not only does the consumer cannot know before purchasing that the product contains mixed materials, but the way that the components have been combined may make the product difficult to dispose of, other than in general waste.

The claim is less likely to mislead if the plastic inner easily separates from the bamboo liner and the separate components, and how they can be disposed of, are clearly marked on the packaging.

It’s fine to focus on only one aspect of the product; more focused claims might be more accurate than broad, general or absolute ones. However, focused claims can sometimes raise concerns. If a claim doesn’t make clear what aspect of a product or business it relates to, it can mislead people. Even where that is clear, if you ignore significant negative environmental impacts and focus on minor benefits or small part your activities, there is a risk of misleading consumers. To avoid this, consider:

• whether your claims are conditional and qualified
• that you have made this clear
• that the claim, as a whole, is accurate.

Example 3: Caveats

A disposable cup is marked as ‘compostable’. No further information is provided. The cup will not compost in a home compost bin. An industrial composter is required, so consumers can only compost the cup if their local authority collects such waste for industrial composting. The claim is misleading as it does not specify the circumstances under which the product is compostable and the action the consumer needs to take. The claim will be accurate if any caveats regarding how and where the cup can be composted are clarified.

What claims don’t say can influence the decisions consumers make. You shouldn’t leave out or hide important information. These omissions can occur where claims focus on saying one thing but not another, or where they say nothing at all.

There’s no obligation to carry out a full lifecycle assessment of a products or service. But when considering whether a claim could be misleading, the full life cycle of the product or service might be relevant. All aspects of the environmental impact of a product or service over its life cycle, including its supply chain, could be important, including:

• its component parts
• how and where it is manufactured, produced or carried out
• its transportation
• its use or performance
• disposal of a product, any waste or by-products
• consequences of any environmental benefit claimed and the period in which it would be realised
• whether it has an overall adverse impact.

Example 4: Product life cycle

A business makes a claim that an improved product has a ‘33% lower carbon impact’. This is based on the carbon emissions generated during production dropping by a third. However, in the small print, it is stated ‘excluding transportation’. Transportation has been excluded from its assessment as an external company has been used to transport the goods. However, the largest proportion of the product’s carbon impact comes from transportation. Over the product’s life cycle, emissions have therefore only decreased slightly, and the claim is misleading.