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].
In addition, any environmental claims made to consumers, whether or not in advertising, must comply with general consumer protection law requirements to treat consumers fairly and not mislead. Indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published a “Green Claims Code” designed to assist businesses making environmental claims to stay on the right side of the law [Check your Green Claims – Green claims code].
What is more, on 22 January 2026 the CMA published a supplement to the Green Claims Code specifically making it clear that those further down the supply chain (e.g. retailers and distributors) cannot simply rely on green claims made by raw material producers and manufacturers when advertising those products. Rather, a certain minimum amount of due diligence and verification is required. In particular in respect of the larger retailers, regular audits and pro-active supply chain management are crucial.
The ASA continues to have a particular focus on policing green claims with a notable increase in proactive monitoring and enforcement activity in recent years following the rollout of a new AI based “Active Ad Monitoring” system, which the regulator is using to proactively monitor adverts at scale for non-compliance. Gone are the days when the ASA was merely reactive to complaints before taking enforcement action [Clearing the air: Using AI to monitor sustainability claims – ASA | CAP]. In fact, in December 2025 the ASA reported that it had proactively identified 329 ads by travel agents featuring green claims, of which 213 appeared likely to breach the ASA’s rules; often due to the use of broad or unsubstantiated claims such as “eco-friendly” or “green” [Environmental claims by travel agents: what our latest sweep found – ASA | CAP].
Whilst the ASA’s aim that consumers should not be misled by vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims is commendable, one perhaps unintended consequence is the developing trend of greenhushing. “Greenhushing” is where instead of trumpeting their green credentials, businesses take the reverse approach and deliberately downplay, or simply avoid making, any statements concerning environmental benefits or commitments, in turn making it more difficult for consumers concerned about the environment to make informed purchasing decisions. This emerging trend is reflected in the ASA’s 2025 report on travel agents, which noted that of the 362,000 adverts reviewed, 99% of those made no environmental claims. This dearth of positive data making it challenging for eco-minded travellers to identify those travel agents who best address their concerns.
The reasons for greenhushing are myriad. Some businesses may wish to avoid being held publicly accountable for environmental commitments or targets or be concerned about accusations of hypocrisy. Others may be concerned about competitors having visibility of those commitments or targets. However, the risk of regulatory enforcement action is doubtless a material consideration in many cases. Although safer does not necessarily translate to optimal, especially when considering the negative impact greenhushing can have on a business’ environmental credibility.
How long greenhushing will remain a viable option is debatable given the ever-increasing prospects of the introduction of mandatory environmental reporting obligations. See, for example, the UK government consultation on potential mandatory disclosure of environmental credentials for UK-regulated financial institutions. If those proposals were to become law, they would drastically restrict greenhushing as an option for in-scope institutions [Climate-related transition plan requirements consultation]. Further, the CMA’s latest supplemental guidance (noted above), highlights that omitting or hiding important information that a consumer needs to take an informed decision (for example in relation to the disposal of a product for the environmental benefit to be realised) can in itself breach consumer protection law and advertising regulation.
Despite the extensive and potentially complex rules on the making of environmental claims, in simple terms those rules are easy to understand: an environmental claim which is correctly, clearly and carefully framed, honest and, where appropriate, substantiated with evidence is allowed and arguably should be encouraged. When the rules are correctly complied with businesses are able to make environmental claims without fear of greenwashing. More so now than ever, with potential mandatory reporting obligations on the horizon, businesses need to be prepared to make such claims in a compliant manner.
For help on green claims and other advertising issues, contact partner, Carlton Daniel, Global Chair of our Advertising, Media and Brands group whose team specialises in advising on advertising law and regulation.
