Shop shelves and social feeds are full of green language: eco shampoo, natural skincare, sustainable denim, planet-friendly packaging. For brands, these words can sell products. For shoppers, they are hard to check. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published guidance, known as the Green Claims Code, that explains how consumer protection law applies to environmental claims. This guide summarises what the CMA’s guidance says, with attention to the fashion and beauty examples it gives. It describes the guidance rather than deciding whether any particular product’s claim is acceptable.
What is the Green Claims Code?
The guidance is titled “Making environmental claims on goods and services” and was published on 20 September 2021. It sets out the CMA’s views on how consumer protection law applies to environmental claims, and it frames a series of practical principles that businesses can apply. The summary says consumer protection law “does not prevent businesses from making environmental claims” about their products and services, provided they do not mislead consumers.
The CMA describes itself as the UK’s primary competition and consumer authority and says it can go to court to enforce consumer protection law. It also stresses the limits of its own document. The guidance says it is not legal advice, that responsibility for complying with the law remains with businesses and that it is not a substitute for the law itself, with the courts providing the definitive interpretation. It adds that the principles are not exhaustive, and that where a business does not follow them it is “more likely to attract the CMA’s attention”, with the outcome depending on the circumstances and on the effect on consumers’ decisions.
What counts as an environmental claim?
The guidance defines environmental claims as claims that suggest a product, service, process, brand or business is better for the environment. That includes claims that create the impression that something has a positive impact or none, is less damaging than a previous version or is less damaging than competing goods or services.
It stresses that claims can be explicit or implicit and can appear in advertisements, marketing material, branding (including business and trading names), on packaging and in other information given to consumers. Several features of a claim may matter:
- the meaning of the terms used;
- the qualifications and explanations given;
- the evidence behind the claim;
- information that is left out or hidden;
- the colours, pictures and logos used; and
- the overall presentation.
This matters for fashion and beauty, where imagery such as green leaves, earthy colours and nature-themed names does a lot of work. The guidance says the visual presentation of a claim, including the images, logos, packaging and colours, is an important part of the overall presentation.
What are the six principles?
The CMA lists six principles that it says businesses can apply to help comply with the law:
- 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.
Each principle comes with an explanation and examples. The next sections look at those that apply most directly to fashion and beauty.
Why are words like “eco-friendly” and “sustainable” risky?
Under the principle that claims should be clear and unambiguous, the guidance says broad, general or absolute claims “are much more likely to be inaccurate and to mislead”. It names terms such as “green”, “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” and says that, especially without explanation, they are likely to be seen as suggesting that a product, service, process, brand or business as a whole has a positive environmental impact, or at least no adverse one. The guidance says “unless a business can prove that, it risks falling short of its legal obligations”.
It also says vague and general statements of environmental benefit are more likely to be misleading. It advises that key words should be defined, unless their meaning is clear and widely understood, and that terms with several meanings should be explained. It asks businesses to check whether vague or general terms have been explained and whether the meaning is clear to consumers.
What do the beauty and clothing examples show?
Beauty packaging.
The CMA uses a shampoo example to show how presentation can mislead. In its example, a shampoo is packaged in a bamboo container labelled “natural” in green font. The outer bamboo shell is compostable and biodegradable on its own, which creates the impression that the whole product is better for the environment. But a recyclable plastic container is glued inside, which is not apparent when buying and would only be discovered afterwards. The guidance says that without clear messaging that the product contains mixed materials, consumers are liable to assume the packaging is environmentally friendly, so the overall presentation risks being misleading.
A second example concerns a shampoo bar named “eco shampoo”, in a cardboard box with green rainforest imagery and inner non-recyclable plastic film. The “eco” claim rests on the product being more compact and using less plastic packaging than traditional shampoo. But some of the raw materials come from the Amazon rainforest and were shipped by freight to Europe, where the bar was made in a large factory and then shipped to the UK for final packaging. The CMA says the “eco shampoo” claim is misleading because it creates the overall impression of a positive or no negative environmental impact, despite adverse effects from major elements of the product life cycle. It adds that the company might instead make a more specific claim about using less packaging, while avoiding a misleading impression of the overall impact.
The guidance also describes a claim about “recyclable” on a product label without explanation, where only the packaging is recyclable. It says the claim does not make clear whether it relates to the whole product or only its packaging, so it is likely to mislead if the rest of the product is not recyclable.
Clothing and comparisons. For comparisons, the guidance says a claim that a clothing range is now “greener” is “unlikely to be fair and meaningful on its own” and risks misleading consumers. It explains why: the claim does not make clear whether the comparison is with a previous or competing range, what is being compared or by what measure the range is greener. By contrast, a claim that all shirts of one brand “contain 50% more recycled fibres” than shirts of another, with the remaining materials listed, is described as more likely to involve a fair and meaningful comparison.
On the full life cycle, the guidance notes that someone buying clothing may be interested not only in what fibres a garment contains but also in how those fibres are sourced and processed. It observes that the medium used for product information, such as a label sewn into clothing, may limit how much can be said, and suggests that other potentially material information could be shared by other means, for example a link to a website through a QR code.
What about hiding information?
The third principle says claims must not omit or hide important information. The guidance gives a general warning against “cherry-picking” beneficial aspects and highlighting those on packaging or in advertising, which risks misleading consumers, particularly if other aspects cause a greater negative impact. It illustrates the point with a courier company that says it is investing 10% more in electric vehicles without disclosing that it is investing 40% more in diesel vehicles. The example is outside fashion and beauty, but it shows the logic: what a claim leaves out can matter as much as what it says.
How must claims be backed up?
The sixth principle says that, because most environmental claims are objective or factual, businesses “should have evidence to support them”. The guidance says the evidence should be “robust, credible, relevant and up to date”, and that it may come from published research or from studies commissioned or conducted by the business. It says broader and more ambitious claims may be harder to substantiate. A claim that a product is “environmentally friendly” may refer to several aspects, such as air, soil, water, packaging, components, production and disposal, and it says “a high level of strong evidence” is likely to be required.
The guidance also explains what happens in an investigation: the CMA or other enforcers can seek evidence from businesses, and if action goes to court, the court can require a business to provide evidence of accuracy. If the evidence is not provided or is inadequate, the guidance says the court may consider the claim inaccurate.
Who can be responsible for a claim?
The guidance says it is for all businesses that make environmental claims, whether manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors or retailers. It says retailers who sell products with misleading environmental claims on packaging can be liable as well as the manufacturer, and that online marketplaces can be liable in some circumstances. The page does not discuss influencers by name. It does say that claims can appear in advertisements and marketing material, and our explainer on influencer disclosure rules covers how responsibility for advertising content is described in guidance from regulators. The guide to beauty and fashion dupes looks at a different set of rules that affect the same industries.
What should shoppers and creators ask of a green claim?
The CMA’s guidance is written for businesses, but its questions can be turned around:
- Does the claim say what is better, and compared with what?
- Is a general word such as “natural” or “eco” explained?
- Does the claim cover the whole product, or only a part such as packaging?
- Is something important left out?
- Is there a way to check the evidence, such as a link or a specific figure?
Creators who recommend products may find these questions useful when reading a brand’s brief, and our guide to gifting, affiliate and paid deals describes how briefs and claims fit into brand partnerships. The questions do not settle whether a claim is lawful; they help show whether it is clear.
What are the limits of this guide?
The guidance was published in September 2021, and the page read for this article does not show a later update date. Consumer protection law and CMA guidance can change, so current material should be checked. The CMA’s examples are illustrations, and whether a particular claim breaks the law depends on its facts, as the guidance itself says.
This article is general information based on published CMA guidance. It is not legal advice. Anyone making or assessing environmental claims for a business should take qualified advice.
