The authors wish to thank Joshua Saunders for his contributions to this post.
The term “greenwashing” was first coined by Jay Westerveld in 1986 when criticising the hotel industry’s practice of encouraging guests to re-use towels to “save the environment”. At the time, the term failed to gain much traction, however, fast-forward 40 years and it is at the forefront of regulators’ minds with barely a week passing without reports of enforcement action being taken against businesses accused of making vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims, as many businesses casually claiming to be “green” or “sustainable” have found to their detriment.
For example, Nike was recently reprimanded by the main UK advertising regulator, the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA),for claiming that a range of its tennis polo shirts were made of “sustainable materials”, despite the fact that Nike did prove that they were made from at least 75% recycled materials (see: Nike Retail BV – ASA | CAP). The regulator basically wanted to see proof that the clothing range would have zero detrimental impact on the environment before signing off on a “sustainable” claim. Similarly, Superdry (amongst others) were held in breach of the ASA’s CAP Code for using “sustainable” claims on the basis that a high-level of substantiation and clarity is required if retailers and advertisers wish to make such bold statements. Again, much could be said in defence of such advertising, but the lack of sufficient qualifying wording in that case proved fatal (see Supergroup Internet Ltd – ASA | CAP).
Environmental claims made in advertising must comply with both the general rules applicable to any advertising claim under the CAP Code (in the case of non-broadcast adverts) or BCAP Code (in the case of television and radio adverts) alongside specific rules under each Code relating the making of environmental claims [Environmental claims: General “Green” claims – ASA | CAP].
