The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has long enforced rules against misleading environmental claims in advertising.

The Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) publication of its Green Claims Code in September 2021, essentially outlining how it interprets the law against misleading consumers when it comes to green claims, heralded an ongoing period of robust regulatory scrutiny.

We’ve focussed on claims in advertising in this article but it’s worth remembering that the CMA has direct powers of enforcement under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 which includes action on potentially misleading environmental claims, not just in advertising but at point of sale and on labels and packaging.

What counts as a green claim?

Green claims are any type of claim which suggests that a product, service, process, brand or business is better for the environment. This includes claims suggesting a product or service: 

• Has a positive environmental impact or no impact on the environment; 
• Is less damaging to the environment than a previous version of the same good or service; and/or
• Is less damaging to the environment than competing goods or services.

Four key steps to compliant environmental claims in ads

1. Getting the facts right

Green claims must be truthful and accurate and must not mislead consumers by action or omission. Even if claims are factually correct in isolation, they can be misleading if key information is missing which can happen where claims focus on just one aspect of a product and don’t provide necessary additional information or context.

Broader, more general or absolute claims are much more likely to be considered misleading. The CMA’s published position is that terms like 'green', 'sustainable' or 'eco-friendly,' especially if used without explanation, are likely to suggest that a product or service has a positive environmental impact, or at least no adverse impact. The ASA followed this interpretation when it ruled against three fashion brands which made broad claims referencing sustainability (“sustainable style” from Supergroup Internet Ltd, “sustainable materials” from Nike and “sustainable clothing” from Lacoste). In each case the advertiser wasn’t without evidence, but the evidence wasn’t sufficient to show the products had no detrimental effect on the environment, taking into account their entire lifecycle.

Claims must not suggest that products provide environmental benefits which are necessary standard features, as claims based on complying with ordinary legal requirements or on not using components or processes not typically used anyway may be true but are likely to mislead consumers into thinking the product is better than others when it is not.

2. Choose your words carefully

The terms used in a claim and the meaning they convey to consumers should be clear. Vague and/or general statements are more likely to be misleading as they could have multiple possible meanings.

The overall impact of all the components of the product or service should be considered as without explanation, environmental claims are likely to be understood as covering the product as a whole across its full lifecycle.

An ad for nappies which made broad claims regarding the impact of using bamboo was found to breach the CAP Code because they described a product as a “bamboo nappy” when bamboo fibres only made up part of the product. Another nappy advertiser was found misleading because it made absolute claims about being made from “sustainable plant-based materials” but contained non-plant-based components.

In contrast an ad for an energy company that was targeted at businesses through its content and which the ASA considered would be understood as a case study in how the advertiser was helping business clients decarbonise their operations and the progress being made was not ruled misleading because it was not viewed as a broad claim for all of the advertiser’s operations or activity.

If claims have any caveats or conditions, these should be explained prominently and close to the main claim. Small print can further explain, but not contradict claims made in the headline or body of the ad.

3. Cradle to grave: Clarity on product lifecycles

General claims about the environmental credentials of products or services are likely to be interpreted as claims about the product's entire lifecycle, from manufacture to disposal. Such claims risk misleading consumers unless a thorough assessment of a product's lifecycle is carried out and it can be established that the claim applies to the entire lifecycle of the product. 

For example, where a business advertises that it has reduced the plastic packaging for part of its product, the claim must not imply that there has been an overall reduction in plastic waste for the product as a whole.

4. Consider the average consumer

The regulators need to assess the claim from the perspective of the “average consumer” who is reasonably well informed, observant, and reasonably circumspect. The regulators have made it clear they expect that key information needs to be included in the advertisement itself. It’s always worth considering all possible interpretations of a claim and working out whether additional information is required. Consumers will not be expected to understand every company’s environmental credentials. 

Using terms which are well understood within a specific industry can cause issues in ads which are directed at wider sections of the public. An example of this is the term “sustainable aviation fuel” which was ruled misleading by the ASA on the basis that in the absence of explanatory information, the average consumer wouldn’t necessarily understand it to be a specific type of fuel and would think that it referred to a fuel which was 100% sustainable and likely to expect that it had no negative environmental impacts at all.

The cost of getting it wrong

Under the DMCC the CMA has the ability to take more robust enforcement action against unsubstantiated green claims, claims that overstate sustainability credentials, and businesses that provide only a one-sided picture of their environmental commitments. You can read more about the CMA’s enforcement powers under the DMCC.

The ASA also investigates complaints made by consumers and businesses and it only takes one complaint about an advert within the ASA's remit for the ASA to investigate it. If the ASA upholds a ruling against a business, this can result in reputational damage as well as the resource burden of dealing with the complaint. To learn more on navigating green claims for your products, contact our specialist advertising law team.