The Green Claims Code
What ethical businesses need to know
Around 40% of green claims could be misleading - and the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority has had enough. This week it released the Green Claims Code; and made it clear that, by Jan 2022, it WILL be enforcing the law.
If you run a business that ever talks about sustainability, your footprint, or what you’re doing to help the environment? Then this impacts you.
Image by Irit Keynan via Unsplash
First things first: the guidelines are not designed to ‘catch out’ ethical businesses - if anything, they’re here to protect us. The CMA is tackling those businesses who are trying to greenwash their products or reputation in order to improve sales. The CMA is interested in protecting consumers from greenwashing; and protecting ethical businesses from unfair competition.
But.
This is still the law, and we all need to stick to it. It’s also a law that is going to be at the front of customers’ minds. If your customers suspect greenwashing? Then you’re going to know about it.
Ethical businesses NEED to understand the code and its implications for what we say. But we can also embrace it.
This is a really positive thing
The new code and guidelines are carefully considered, thoughtful and intelligent. They have teeth - and the CMA seems determined to use them.
That matters: greenwashing is everywhere, and it’s getting worse. It’s unfair on consumers and it’s unfair on ethical businesses, who are unable to compete on a fair playing field.
The ethical part of me is really impressed with the code. The wordsmith and communicator part of me LOVES the code, for a very simple reason. Follow these guidelines and your communications will improve. Your messaging will be clearer. Product descriptions will include what customers want to know, and will be easier to understand. It will encourage us all to include the information that conscious consumers want to know.
If we follow the guidelines it will lead us to check, question and refine our supply chains, our processes and our decisions - making us better at being as sustainable as we can be.
If we follow the guidelines then we’ll all be raising our game, helping our customers - and setting the standard for others to aspire to.
The disclaimer
In the full guidelines the CMA makes clear that the guidelines are not legal advice. And nor is this. It’s my take on the guidelines. If you need legal advice on the guidelines, this is best asked of your local Trading Standards or via independent legal advice.
Now, onwards with the cool stuff.
What it’s all about
Slightly confusingly, the CMA have launched a Green Claims Campaign based on the Green Claims Code - this is the top level, digestible, nicely designed website with animated videos and the like.
That’s all based on the 58 page “CMA guidance on environmental claims on goods and services - Helping businesses comply with their consumer protection law obligations”.
If you’re looking for something that sits between an overview and digesting 58 pages of government documents then you’re in the right place. If you’re genuinely ethical and want to comply with the law, whilst doing your best by your customers? Then read on.
(If you’re a greenwasher who’s looking for tricks and tips on how to get around the code? Then click on. There’s nothing here for you.)
Throughout this article, you’ll see lots of numbers in brackets - these refer to the relevant part of the full guidance, in case you want to delve deeper.
The six principles
The code centres around six core principles:
claims must be truthful and accurate
claims must be clear and unambiguous
claims must not omit or hide important relevant information
comparisons must be fair and meaningful
claims must consider the full life cycle of the product or service
claims must be substantiated.
According to the CMA, “If businesses follow these principles they are, in the CMA’s view, less likely to mislead consumers and less likely to fall foul of the law.” (2.12)
The guidelines are based on the premise that customers should be given the information they need to make informed choices.
What the principles mean in practical terms
The guidelines don’t pull any punches about what companies need to do:
“Businesses making, or considering making, environmental claims need to:
comply with any sector- or product-specific laws that apply to them or their products and services
read this guidance and ensure that they are complying with their consumer protection law obligations
consider carefully whether they need to make changes to their practices
make any changes necessary to comply with the law, such as:
-stopping making false or deceptive statements
-amending claims to ensure they are compliant
-ensuring they have the evidence to substantiate claims
-ensuring they give consumers the information they need to make informed choices.”
There are plenty of things we can do to make that happen.
Avoid woolly words, part 1 (3.9)
Eco-friendly. Green. Sustainable. Natural.
Woolly words are everywhere. And they’re meaningless. The biggest takeaway from the guidelines is: Be Specific.
The full guidance reads like the authors would be happy if they never saw these words again. As a marketer, I’m with them.
Being specific is good practice from a marketing perspective as well as an ethical one: it makes your communications clear and understandable.
If your product is 100% plant-based, then that’s what to call it - not ‘natural’.
If you use green web hosting then don’t say you’re ‘sustainable’ - say “we use a web host that runs entirely on renewable energy.”
If it’s plastic-free? Then say so. It’s not ‘green’ - it’s plastic-free.
Be as specific as possible (3.28, 3.40)
The CMA is raising the bar in terms of being specific.
It uses the example of a pair of jeans made with 35% organic cotton.
Clearly, calling these ‘organic’ is unacceptable. But many businesses, large and small, currently uses phrases like “made with organic cotton”.
The CMA guidelines go far beyond that. Most of would assume that “made with 35% organic cotton” will hit the spot; but the CMA recommends listing all the other materials, in addition to the organic cotton.
Similarly, calling an electric car ‘zero emissions’ would be problematic. ‘Zero emissions when driving’ takes into account the fact that the production process isn’t emission free.
Many environmental claims are aspirational, like “We’re reducing our waste”. But without specific goals (“by 50%”); or a strategy on how you’re going to do it, then your claim isn’t specific enough. (National governments - take note!)
With any aspirational claim, include the ‘how’, the ‘by how much’, and, ideally, the ‘by when’.
Being clear and specific is good for us, it’s good for our customers, and it’s good for the planet.
Objective is preferable to subjective (3.128)
The ‘best’, ‘cleanest’, ‘safest’ or ‘most sustainable’ are subjective claims that are difficult to substantiate or measure. Stick with objective, factual statements. Instead of “We’re reducing our carbon footprint”, you could opt for “the carbon footprint of the product has been reduced by 20% by changing where we manufacture it and how we package it.”
It has to be true! (3.21)
It sounds obvious - but when we use woolly words we’re unwittingly laying ourselves open to falling foul of this.
In a world where the most sustainable product is the one you didn’t buy and where everything we do has some sort of impact; then phrases like ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘sustainable’ become problematic.
Compostable, recyclable, biodegradable (3.29, 3.32, 3.59)
No longer is it OK to call a cup compostable, when we all know it’s going to landfill; or that it can only be composted as an industrial process.
Whether it’s recyclable, compostable or biodegradable, companies need to be explicit about the conditions and circumstances in which it will compost, degrade or be recycled AND give instructions on how to recycle, degrade or compost it.
Image by Brian Yurasits via Unsplash
Environmental claims aren’t always explicit (2.7, 3.19, 3.45)
These guidelines don’t just cover exact words like “Our product is 25% greener than our competitors”.
Anything that implies meaning counts. That includes images, colours, pictures and logos - and even the things you have NOT included.
If something suggests, or creates the impression, that you’re claiming your product or brand has ‘green credentials’ - then it counts as an environmental claim.
What you don’t say is as important as what you do say (3.2, 2.8, 3.17, 3.64, 3.67, 3.70, 3.88, 3.89, 3.94)
Is there information that would make consumers think twice? If yes… then that information should be included!
Now, if I was into greenwashing, this would worry me.
2.8 reads: “Environmental claims are genuine when they properly describe the impact of the product, service, process, brand or business, and do not hide or misrepresent crucial information.”
3.17 says “A specific claim relating to part of a product that only draws attention to a particular sustainability benefit could still mislead consumers even if it is true, if:
• there are also significant negative impacts from that product, or
• that benefit comes at a significant environmental cost (for example, a garment could accurately be described as organic but a huge amount of water is used in its production).
3.67 and 3.87 make it clear that the entire life cycle matters; 3.70 warns against cherry picking information that makes a brand or product appear ‘better’ than it is; and 3.89 warns that “durability and disposability can have a significant effect on impact.”
This has potentially huge implications. There are brands that claim to be eco-friendly because they use recycled plastics in their clothing... but fail to mention the microplastics that will be released every time the product is washed, or that the product cannot itself be recycled.
Many smaller, well-meaning brands will fall foul of this issue of recycled plastics. It’s a claim that many big brand, fast fashion businesses are using to greenwash - so it’s likely that this will be an issue that’s on the CMA’s radar.
The other significant issue for smaller businesses is that we may not have even considered the full implications of our decisions. What about the company that swaps from plastic packaging to paper packaging, but doesn’t even realise that the carbon footprint of its new paper packaging is higher than its old plastic packaging?
The easiest way to avoid trouble: Review all your processes, the full life cycle and impact of your product; and be specific and transparent in your claims.
It’s not “We’re reducing our environmental impact by getting rid of plastic packaging” - instead we need to get specific: “We’re trying to reduce plastic pollution by using paper-based packaging instead of plastic packaging”.
Don’t over-state or exaggerate the impact or sustainability (3.6)
If the packaging is recyclable but the product isn’t? Don’t use “Recyclable” without explaining what is recyclable. If your product is made from natural materials; but the manufacturing process is water and energy intensive? Don’t claim it’s “better for the environment”.
Standard features don’t count as environmental benefits (3.12)
Microbeads are banned - so claiming that ‘free from microbeads’ is an environmental benefit isn’t acceptable. Similarly, as single use plastic straws are banned, you can’t claim environmental benefits because your straws are no longer plastic.
Accreditations are useful (3.13, 3.44)
Using a well known, easily understandable accreditation serves as a shorthand to say any claims you make are authentic. If you have an existing accreditation - for instance organic or fair trade - the chances are that there will be a slightly lower bar in terms of backing up your claims. This only applies to ‘genuine’ accreditations - in fact the CMA look likely to come down hard on the sort of ‘implied’ badges of honour that some brands create out of nowhere!
Keep it simple (3.52)
3.52 says “Scientific or technical language should be avoided unless it is easily understood by the average consumer.”
Enough said.
Evidence, evidence, evidence (3.130, 3.132)
If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up: and the source needs to be robust, credible and up-to-date. And if there’s conflicting scientific evidence – then the consensus matters.
This is one that may catch out a number of smaller businesses; especially those who retail products from other manufacturers.
Claims about reusable and single use nappies are often based on a 2008 life cycle analysis by the Environment Agency. But it’s out-of-date. The way single use nappies are made has changed significantly; and developments in washing machine legislation and technology means that the figures from 2008 aren’t applicable in the 2020s. The source is credible; but the report isn’t up-to-date.
Where this is really likely to impact smaller businesses is in products that claim to be more natural, less toxic or safer than traditional products. (Which goes back to the woolly language problem!)
Claiming that a cleaning product or plastic-free product is safer than a mass marketed product is problematic if the scientific consensus is that the levels of a chemical used in a mainstream product are safe.
Claims about fluoride-free toothpaste, or ingredients in cosmetics and deodorants, are also often couched in language that isn’t backed up by scientific consensus.
You may believe that certain products are ‘better’, ‘healthier’ or ‘greener’ - but you need to be able to evidence any claims you make.
Make it easy to find explanations (3.54, 3.74, 3.75, 3.76, 3 .78)
Sometimes we can’t fit everything we need to say into a small space. But we really should try. Indeed, 3.75 makes it clear that lack of space isn’t a justification for excluding relevant information.
If we really can’t fit all the necessary information into one place, the first question is: “Is this an appropriate place to make this claim?”
If yes, then the first aim is to keep any qualifying information about a claim as close to the claim as possible.
We need to be clear about where to find more information - eg on a webpage. (That means a webpage that’s easy to find from a homepage or product link - NOT buried in the deepest depths of your website, and hidden from search engines!)
Be careful about comparisons (3.98, 3.107)
Comparisons are often used in marketing and product descriptions. “Our new version is better than previous versions”, or “Our product is more eco-friendly than other products on the market” are commonplace.
When making comparisons, we need to be clear and specific about what we are comparing to; how the comparison has been made, and what exactly we are basing the judgement on.
Anything woolly - more energy efficient, more eco-friendly etc - is problematic. “Uses 10% less energy across the lifecycle of the product” works far better.
For many small firms, packaging is likely to be a big issue here: “We’ve gone green and are now using paper instead of plastic!” would be problematic if increased weight adds to transport emissions, or the energy used in production significantly increases as a result of the change.
Retailers are responsible for suppliers’ claims
Whether you’re a Work at Home Mum or a multi-national, your supply chain is your responsibility. If you’re a retailer selling products from a third party, then don’t replicate their claims if you’re not sure that they comply with the guidance. And if your supplier produces product descriptions with vague, unsubstantiated claims or incomplete information? Query them; and don’t repeat them.
Not only is it in the best interests of your customers, it’s the best way for us to encourage everyone to get a little bit better.
Spreading the word about the Green Claims Code
One of the most exciting things about the six principles of the Green Code is that it gives clear framework for spotting and defining greenwashing.
As ethical businesses, we can play an important role in helping our customers and audiences call out greenwashing.
Whilst the CMA has put us all on notice, it doesn’t deal with direct complaints from the public.
So if you or your customers spot greenwashing, it’s important to know how to tackle it. Members of the public can:
Contact the company directly, referencing the code and/or guidance.
If the questionable claim is in a physical store, or it appears on packaging, then it’s an issue for your local Trading Standards.
If it’s an advert (online or in print, including website claims) then it’s one for the Advertising Standards Authority.
Resources and links
A useful one to share with customers via social media is the CMA video on Facebook
The site for the Green Claims Code is greenclaims.campaign.gov.uk
The full Guidelines are available on the UK Government website