Environmental claims - the good and the bad

A couple of weeks ago I posted an article about toilet rolls and greenwashing – not a sentence I ever thought I would write!?

Here is the link in case you missed it – https://www.dhirubhai.net/posts/steven-webb-08754913_greenwashing-consumervoice-environment-activity-7178726882815672320-yZNG?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop.

Since then I have been thinking about the increasing number of environmental claims we now see every day in advertising for all types of products and services. I think that’s a good thing.

First, it suggests that lots of businesses believe their customers care enough about those issues that they will form part of their buying decisions. It is ideal if the feedback organisations are receiving from customers aligns with the values of the business, but even where that’s not the case our power as consumers carries influence. Even a business driven purely and solely by profit has to listen to us.

While there are always examples of bad apples (and these are the ones we tend to hear about) my experience is that most businesses are run by people who care about the accuracy of what they say.? If they are talking about how they are reducing the environmental impact of their product or service, it is likely that they are making progress in the right direction. For that they should be applauded. While we all know that we have very little time left to mitigate the climate crisis and therefore immediate and big strides are needed, any progress is still better than none at all.

The trouble with the greenwashing examples that make the news is that they risk people concluding that all environmental claims are not to be trusted, that all businesses are just as bad as each other and therefore there is no need for them to change where/what they buy. For that reason it is important that advertising is truthful and not misleading.

In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the regulator and its purpose is to make sure ads stick to the rules written by its sister organisation, The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). The ASA publishes two sets of rules – the CAP Code for non-broadcast advertisements (including websites and social media) and the BCAP Code for tv and radio. Both codes have dedicated sections on environmental claims and, although the wording differs in places, the requirements placed on advertisers are equivalent.

Some key points are that:

·?????? The basis of any environmental claim must be clear, so all significant information (for example any qualifications to the claim) must be included;

·?????? The meaning of all terms used in the ad must be clear to consumers;

·?????? The Codes distinguish “absolute” environmental claims and “comparative” claims.? Absolute claims are things like “green” or “environmentally friendly” and examples of comparative claims would be “greener” or “friendlier”;

·?????? Absolute claims have to be backed up by robust evidence about the product’s entire life-cycle;

·?????? For comparative claims, ads should clearly state the basis of the comparison.? For example, a claim that a product is “greener” must make clear exactly what the product is being compared against;

·?????? Consumers must not be misled by, for example, highlighting the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if that ingredient is not usually found in competing products.

The ASA provides lots of helpful guidance and resources ASA environmental advice and training - ASA | CAP, including the opportunity for businesses to check an environmental claim is within the rules before making it, so there really isn’t any excuse for a business to get this wrong.

Having said that, the ASA website includes quite a long list of “recent, particularly significant rulings on ads that were considered environmentally misleading”. Reading these, it is quite easy to see why as they:

·?????? omitted material information (oil companies talking about initiatives on renewable energy and ignoring their ongoing fossil fuel production; water companies omitting reference to their history of releasing sewage into the environment); or

·?????? focused on one part of the product rather than its entirety (“100% recycled” as a headline, with “bottle made from recycled plastic, excludes cap and label” in small print); or

·?????? appeared to have little/no basis (“eco-friendly artificial grass” which claimed to purify air and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions).

The website also explains how to make a complaint about an advertisement – any of us can do that if we think there is something wrong with one we have seen or heard.

Please don’t underestimate your own power to make change by –

·?????? including environmental impact as part of how you choose the things you buy;

·?????? giving feedback to organisations about why you made choices to buy (or not buy) from them;

·?????? encouraging businesses that are making positive changes;

·?????? if you really feel an environmental claim is wrong, making an ASA complaint.