Recent enforcement activity highlights the increasing scrutiny on environmental claims. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has taken action against a range of well‑known brands for misleading sustainability messaging (see our recent article here discussing the ASA’s bans on adverts by Nike, Superdry and Lacoste), signalling a robust regulatory stance against greenwashing.
What regulators expect
Guidance from both the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the ASA makes clear that environmental claims must be:
truthful and accurate;
clearly defined and appropriately qualified; and
supported by credible, up‑to‑date evidence.
Broad, unqualified statements such as “environmentally friendly” or “good for the planet” are likely to be interpreted as covering a product’s full lifecycle, requiring robust evidence across every stage. Selective disclosure, for example, highlighting sustainably sourced ingredients while omitting non‑recyclable packaging, risks misleading consumers.
Using certification marks with care
Third‑party certification marks, such as B Corp and sector‑specific sustainability labels, can enhance consumer trust, but they also carry legal and reputational risk. Before adopting a certification, businesses should assess:
Eligibility requirements and audit standards
Ongoing compliance and reporting obligations
The credibility, regulatory history and public perception of the scheme itself
A certification mark is only as valuable as its reputation. If the scheme is criticised for weak standards or greenwashing, its use may undermine rather than enhance a brand.
For example, the ASA recently upheld a complaint against a Red Tractor advertisement that claimed its food was “farmed with care… from field to store.” Evidence presented by River Action, using Environment Agency data, suggested this overstated the scheme’s environmental performance. The ASA found Red Tractor had not provided enough proof that its standards delivered strong environmental outcomes and ruled the ad breached BCAP rules on misleading claims, substantiation, and exaggeration.
This decision is a reminder that businesses relying on third‑party certification marks should assess not only their own eligibility and compliance, but also the credibility, compliance, and regulatory history of the certification scheme itself.
Practical safeguards for businesses
To reduce risk when developing or using sustainability‑themed branding, businesses should consider:
Robust substantiation
Gather and document credible evidence for all environmental claims and review it regularly.Cross‑team coordination
Align legal, marketing and sustainability teams early to ensure claims are measurable, supportable and consistent.Strategic use of certification
Use certification marks where they genuinely add value and can be maintained over time.Regular review
Periodically reassess green‑themed trade marks and marketing as operations, supply chains and standards evolve.
Conclusion
Sustainability‑focused branding offers significant commercial opportunity, but it requires careful execution. In an era of heightened regulatory scrutiny, businesses must ensure that green claims, whether in marketing, packaging or trade marks, are accurate, evidence‑based and legally defensible. A proactive, joined‑up approach is essential to building trust while avoiding the risks of greenwashing.
If you would like advice on developing or protecting green‑themed branding, or support navigating the legal issues around environmental claims, please get in touch.
