§4.1.1.7 Comparative environmental claims

Environmental claims may suggest that a product has a more positive impact on the environment or is less damaging to the environment than competing goods or services, or previous versions of their own goods or services. Products bearing such comparative claims should be assessed against similar products (or, where appropriate, against a previous version of the same product) and the same assessment method has to be applied in a consistent manner to allow for such a comparison. National enforcement authorities and self-regulatory bodies usually interpret this principle to mean that comparisons should refer to products within the same product category. However, it would seem equally important that the method used to produce the environmental claim is the same, that it is applied in a consistent manner (i.e. the same methodological choices and rules are applied, results are reproducible), and that the method applied allows comparisons, otherwise any comparison becomes misleading (318). For example, depending on the products in question, comparative environmental claims are likely to be misleading if they exclude factors, such as transportation in particular where such factors contribute the most towards a product’s environmental footprint. For example: — A company makes a comparative claim that a razor A contains less plastic than other razors on the market. This claim is likely to be misleading if the other razors selected for the comparison are not representative of the market on the whole, and the amount of plastic in razors generally is on average lower than that of razor A. — An airline claims that it is the ‘greenest airline’ and that it has ‘the lowest CO2 emissions of all major airlines’ (319). In its advertising the airline compares its CO2 emissions per passenger-km with those of four other ‘major’ European airlines, and shows that it has the lowest CO2 emissions per passenger-km. This claim could be misleading if the emissions compared were not calculated in the same way, if the airline’s total CO2 emissions are higher than other airlines and if emissions have increased significantly over the past years. It would be clearer to claim more specifically that it has the lowest CO2 emissions per passenger-km in comparison with the four other major European airlines, provided that the method allows for such comparison and that the airline does not hide the fact that its emissions have increased in absolute terms. If climate-related claims are based on carbon/greenhouse gas emission offsets, these need to be transparent and detailed, given the associated greenwashing risks. Furthermore, comparison across all relevant transport modes, not just air travel, would be even more objective and informative. Consumers’ mobility needs may be met not only through a flight but with other means of transport, depending on the route. Therefore, a comparison of average passenger-km emissions between rail, road and air modes would prevent misleading consumers that their choice is ‘green’, when viable alternatives with lower emissions exist. — A company makes a comparative claim that their ‘remanufactured good’ is more environmentally friendly than a ‘new good’. This claim could be misleading if the applicable recycling or take-back solutions are comparatively worse and the overall environmental footprint is thereby more significant. Directive 2006/114/EC on misleading and comparative advertising, which covers business-to-business relations, lays down the conditions under which comparative advertising is permitted. These conditions are also relevant for assessing whether comparative advertising is lawful in business-to-consumer relations in the UCPD context. Comparisons of the environmental benefits of products should, among other things: 1. not be misleading within the meaning of Articles 6 and 7 of the UCPD; 2. compare goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose; 3. objectively compare one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services. For example: A court considered misleading an advertising claiming that filtered water was more environmental friendly than mineral bottled water, giving consumers the impression that consuming filtered water instead of mineral water would contribute to the protection of the environment. In particular, the reference to greater protection of the environment was deemed misleading since the comparison was not based on any objective basis such as an impact study (320).

← 4.1.1.6 · All articles · 4.1.2 →

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