Brand owners should be familiar with the marketing rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), which concern, among other things, environmental claims. General, unspecific, and ambiguous environmental claims should be avoided, as their use can be interpreted as being against good business practice.
"Increasing brand value is long-term work and based on trust, so brand owners should not fall for unclear or unspecific environmental claims and thus for misleading or unethical marketing", reminds our lawyer Maria Puronvarsi.
Using environmental claims in marketing has become more common as consumers are increasingly concerned about climate change. However, practice shows that environmentally oriented claims are sometimes used in marketing too carelessly and against good business practice.
Therefore, companies planning to use environmental claims in their marketing should familiarize themselves with the Advertising and Marketing Communications Code of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the recommendation (in Finnish) published by the Finnish Board of Business Practice (LTL) in January 2023, as well as examples of environmental claims that have been deemed contrary to good business practice.
Key principles for using environmental claims
The basic rule of marketing is that it must be truthful and not misleading. In matters concerning the environment, marketing must also be responsible. The consumer's concern for the environment should not be misused, nor should marketing benefit from the consumer's lack of environmental knowledge. Further, children's inexperience or gullibility must not be taken advantage of either.
According to the recommendation, general, unspecific, and ambiguous environmental claims should be avoided in marketing. Such expressions are, for example, "green", "sustainable", "climate-friendly", "fossil-free", "environmentally friendly" or "ecologically safe". Environmental claims can only be used when strong evidence can be presented for them, and they can be more precisely identified.
Examples of environmental claims against good business practices
Environmental claims are always evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the overall impression. The permissibility of claims is assessed according to how the average consumer is supposed to understand the content of the claim. Below you can find examples of cases that have been assessed as being against good business practice.
LTL 926/2022 (”100% fossil-free")
The expression "100% fossil-free" that was used in the marketing of the company's service without specification is a general environmental claim. Being non-identified, it gives the consumer the impression that the company's operations are fossil-free as a whole, for which no evidence was presented. The Board of Business Practice (LTL) considered that the company had acted contrary to good business practice by using a misleading expression.
MEN 9/2021 (Climate change as an effective means of marketing aimed at children)
The company's marketing publication was aimed at children between the ages of 6 and 12. The theme of the publication was to compare the impact of dairy products and oat-based drinks, especially on the climate and biodiversity. Confrontation, figurative language, and irony were apt to arouse extra concern in children who do not have the cognitive prerequisites to evaluate claims critically. The publication could be considered to cause children to feel guilty about milk consumption. In the marketing, children's inexperience and gullibility were exploited. Children's concern about climate change had been used as an effective means of marketing. The Council of Ethics in Advertising considered that the company's conduct was against good manners.
MAO 73/03 (“Saving nature”)
The title of the company's brochure was "Saving nature". Although the harm caused by the product to the environment is smaller than that of many competing products, it, like other industrially produced products, still causes an environmental burden. The expression was too general and unspecific. The Market Court found that the company's conduct was against good business practice.
LTL 841/2000 ("Degradable", "compostable")
The diaper packaging emphasized that degradable, compostable corn plastic is used in the diapers. The expression was apt to mislead consumers regarding the product's compostability, when the product could not, in practice, be disposed of by composting. The Board of Business Practice (LTL) considered that the company had acted contrary to good business practice.
MT 1992:026 ("For a cleaner environment")
The phrase "for a cleaner environment" used in a car ad referred to the cleanliness of the environment. It was not possible to conclude from the ad in which way the cleanliness of the environment was related to the cars being marketed. The reference to environmental cleanliness was vague and general, and the phrase "for a cleaner environment" was also unclear. Although the advertised cars were not compared to other cars on the market, it may have given consumers the impression that the advertised cars were generally more environmentally friendly than other cars. This had not been proven. The Market Court considered that the ad was inappropriate for consumers.
Do you need help with marketing-related legal issues?
Kaulo & Partners' experts are happy to help with all matters related to brand rights and legal questions related to marketing.
Contact us!
Maria Puronvarsi, maria.puronvarsi@kaulopartners.fi, +358 40 669 0527
Jani Kaulo, jani.kaulo@kaulopatners.fi, +358 40 637 5442