§4.1.1.3 Application of Article 6 of the UCPD to environmental claims

Article 6 of the UCPD implies that consumers must be able to trust environmental claims put forward by traders. Consequently, in order not to be misleading, environmental claims must be truthful, not contain false information and be presented in a clear specific, unambiguous and accurate manner. An environmental claim can be misleading if it ‘ contains false information and is therefore untruthful ’ in relation to one of the elements listed in Article 6(1)(a) to (g). For example: — Using the term ‘biodegradable’ for a product which is not actually biodegradable or for which no tests have been carried out (298). — Presenting electrical appliances such as irons, vacuum cleaners, coffee machines, as ‘environmentally friendly’ (‘eco’), although tests show that they frequently do not perform better than similar products or where no tests have been carried out (299). — Presenting car tyres as ‘eco tyres’ and promoting their environmental performance and impact on fuel consumption, although tests show mixed results (300). — Presenting tableware containing bamboo as a sustainable, recyclable and eco-friendly alternative to plastic materials, when such products are in reality a mix of plastic, bamboo (sometimes bamboo dust) and resin made of melamine and formaldehyde that is necessary to produce various shapes (dishes, bowls etc.) and degrees of stiffness (301). An environmental claim can also be misleading if it ‘ deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct ’ in respect of the items referred to in Article 6(1)(a) to (g). Accordingly, also the imagery and overall product presentation (i.e. layout, choice of colours, images, pictures, sounds, symbols or labels), should be a truthful and accurate representation of the scale of the environmental benefit, and should not overstate the benefit achieved. Implicit claims may, depending on the circumstances of the case, include the use of images (e.g. trees, rainforests, water, animals) and colours (e.g. blue or green backgrounds or text) that are associated with environmental sustainability. Environmental claims are likely to be misleading if they consist of vague and general statements of environmental benefits without appropriate substantiation of the benefit and without indication of the relevant aspect of the product the claim refers to. Examples of such claims are ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘eco-friendly’, ‘eco’, ‘green’, ‘nature’s friend’, ‘ecological’, ‘environmentally correct’, ‘climate friendly’, ‘gentle on the environment’, ‘pollutant free’, ‘biodegradable’, ‘zero emissions’, ‘carbon friendly’, ‘reduced CO2 emissions’‘carbon neutral’, ‘climate neutral’ and even the broader claims of ‘conscious’ and ‘responsible’. Such unsubstantiated claims are likely to, in some cases, convey the impression to the consumers that a product or an activity of a trader has no negative impact or only a positive impact on the environment. They could fall under Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(b) UCPD if they are likely to deceive the average consumers and to cause them to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise. Since terms such as ‘conscious’ and ‘responsible’ can refer to numerous aspects, including social or economic conditions, such claims could be considered misleading even if they are qualified, since they are vague and ambiguous. If vague and ambiguous claims are used, the qualifications need to be sufficiently detailed so that the claim cannot be understood in any other way than the way the trader intended. For example: — Claim that electric car hire is ‘ecological’ can be found misleading without providing information to put the claim into perspective. In particular, if the electricity needed to recharge the cars does not come from renewable energy sources, the car hire service would still have a negative impact on the environment (302). — Traders increasingly make claims about carbon neutrality by investing in projects that compensate for CO2 emissions. For example, a car rental company offers consumers the possibility to ‘drive CO2 neutral’ by choosing an option that compensates for emissions. This practice may be problematic if the underlying carbon credits are of low environmental integrity or are not accounted for appropriately, so that they do not represent real and additional emission reductions. Carbon removals claims should be authentic, robust, transparent, reported, monitorable, verifiable, credible, certified, should not undermine near-term emission reduction action in emitting sectors, should guarantee additionality and should ensure an appropriate accounting of carbon removals in national GHG inventories. A national consumer authority considered in its guidelines that consumers should be properly informed about the functioning of the measures that compensate for CO2 emissions, such as the number of kilometres that are fully compensated and the manner in which this is achieved, how and where the compensation is accounted for (303). — A court considered that the marketing of hair and skin care products, where the trader had stated that their products are organic with claims such as ‘eco’ and ‘organic’, were vague and without clear qualifications. The court also assessed that it is not clear enough with only the graphic symbol/logo/label of a third-party certification label as a qualification of what organic and/or eco means (304). — A trader advertised the sale of bags of sweets by stating that for each bag sold, it would plant one tree. However, the trader had already agreed to plant a certain number of trees, independently from the number of bags of sweets sold. A national court upheld a claim by the relevant ombudsman that this statement qualified as misleading advertising which took advantage of the credulity of consumers who were concerned about the environment (305). Claims should be reassessed and updated as necessary, in view of technological developments, and the emergence of comparable products or other circumstances that may affect the accuracy or relevance of the claim. Environmental claims should not relate to an improvement compared to a product from the same trader or a competitor that is no longer available on the market or the trader no longer sells to consumers, unless this improvement is significant and recent. If a trader uses environmental statements in its company name, brand name, product name etc., and the name is used for marketing purposes, such marketing is subject to the same substantiation requirements as those which apply to other environmental claims in marketing communications, unless the company can prove that this name has no environmental connotation or existed already before. However, in order to be contrary to the UCPD, a name used in marketing will need to mislead the average consumers and be likely to cause them to take a transactional decision that they would not have taken otherwise. For example: A court has addressed the marketing of an oil product, stating that the terms ‘environmental’ together with ‘plus’ in the product name gave the impression that the product had certain environmental advantages, even though fossil oil always causes damage to the environment. In this respect, the court judged that the term ‘Environment’ could not be used in the product name (306). When assessing an environmental claim, the product’s main environmental impacts over its lifecycle, including its supply chain, are relevant. An environmental claim should relate to aspects that are significant in terms of the product’s environmental impact. Highly polluting industries should ensure that their environmental claims are accurate in a sense of being relative, e.g. ‘less harmful for the environment’ instead of ‘environmentally friendly’ (see also section 4.1.1.7 on comparative environmental claims). This enables the average consumer to better understand the relative impact of the product. An environmental claim should in any case relate to aspects that are significant in terms of the product’s total environmental impacts over its life cycle. Highly polluting industries may be required by courts or authorities to make it clear to the consumer in their environmental claims that the product has an overall negative impact on the environment. For example: A self-regulatory body found that a claim on a website presenting fossil gas as an ‘environmentally friendly energy source’ was in breach of the applicable advertising regulations, as the wording was too absolute and without explanations or contextualisation (307). Moreover, claims should be clear and unambiguous regarding which aspect of the product or its life cycle they refer to (308). If a trader makes an environmental claim by highlighting just one of several impacts the product has on the environment, the claim could be misleading within the meaning of Article 6 or 7 of the UCPD. Furthermore, traders should not distort claims about the composition of the product (including raw materials), or its use, manufacturing process, transport or end-of-life impacts, for example by unduly emphasising the importance of positive aspects, which are in reality only marginal or whereas the overall environmental impact resulting from the product’s life cycle is negative. For example: — A claim ‘using 100 % renewable energy’ may be misleading if it does not specify that renewable energy was used only during a certain stage in the life cycle of the product. In contrast, a claim ‘100 % renewable material (except fittings)’ makes it clear which components of the product were not made of renewable materials (309). — Advertising a product as containing ‘sustainable cotton’ could be misleading if the origin of the cotton is neither traceable nor separated in the production chain from conventional cotton. — Advertising a product such as artificial turf as environmentally friendly because it does not need water, fertiliser or maintenance during its use phase, might not justify the claim if the manufacturing and end-of-life stages have a severe negative impact on the environment. — Misleading information on sources of energy indicated in billing information, such as abstract information on national energy mix or misleading information on environmental impact/the actual contribution of renewable energy sources to the electricity purchased by the final customer (e.g. unduly emphasis on RE share). The benefit claimed should not result in an undue transfer of impacts, i.e. the creation or increase of other negative environmental impacts at other stages of the product’s life cycle should be avoided, unless the total net environmental benefit has been significantly improved, for example according to a life-cycle assessment and recognised or generally accepted methods applicable to the relevant product type and should be third-party verified. For example: A manufacturer claims that its product consumes little water. However, at the same time the product consumes more energy than a comparable product of the same category, which increases the product’s overall environmental impact significantly. Under such circumstances, the claim could be misleading either in relation to the nature of the product (Article 6(1)(a)) or its main characteristics (Article 6(1)(b) UCPD). Codes of conduct may include voluntary commitments in relation to environmental protection or ‘green behaviour’. An average consumer would expect such code signatories to sell products which comply with that code. A trader who has announced to be bound but does not comply with such a code may be considered to be misleading if the claimed adherence to the code affects or is likely to affect the consumers’ transactional decision. This situation is covered by Article 6(2)(b) UCPD. For example: A trader has subscribed to a code of practice that promotes sustainable use of wood and displays the code’s logo on its website. The code of practice contains a commitment that its members will not use hardwood from unsustainably managed forests. However, it is found that the products advertised on the website contain wood from exactly such a forest. Under such circumstances, the claim could breach the Annex I point 4 or be misleading under Article 6(2)(b) UCPD. Certain misleading commercial practices in relation to codes of conduct are considered unfair per se under Annex I to the UCPD (see section 4.1.1.6). An average consumer is not expected to know the meaning or significance of various public and private codes of conduct, labelling schemes, certificates or logos. Traders should inform consumers about these elements and the relevant characteristics in relation to the claim in question, with a reference to where all information about the certification can be found, including whether the certification is done by a third party or not. Traders should also ensure that consumers have the possibility to receive additional information in an accessible and clear manner, e.g. through a link or an information section in the vicinity of the claim. For example, traders should inform consumers about the private certification schemes whose logos they are displaying. In general, it is not enough to only briefly refer to a third-party certification. If a trader or industry chooses to use private labelling schemes, symbols or certificates for marketing purposes, they must only be applied to the products/services or traders which meet the criteria set to qualify for their use. The criteria should demonstrate clear environmental benefits compared with competing products or traders and should be easily publicly accessible. Otherwise, such labelling is likely to be misleading. The labelling may have to be further qualified, so that the meaning and the most relevant criteria of the labelling is highlighted (e.g. highlight if the use of water is the most relevant criterion for a given product). Moreover, traders should consider third party verification to ensure the credibility and relevance of the label. The private nature of the label (if that is the case) and its meaning or significance must also be made clear to the consumer. Finally, such labels must not be capable of being confused with other labels, including, for example, labels of publicly run labelling schemes or schemes of competitors.

← 4.1.1.2 · All articles · 4.1.1.4 →

Source: EUR-Lex (Cellar) · retrieved 2026-09-07