Specific environmental statements can still be misleading

Companies must be able to document the accuracy of their climate and environmental statements, whether specific or general. Even if a specific statement is factually correct, it can still be misleading if it creates a false impression about a product’s overall environmental or climate impact.

Consumer perception is key

Even when companies use factually correct and precise statements, they still risk misleading consumers. This is because the consumer’s overall perception of the marketing determines whether a statement is misleading. Companies should, therefore, ensure that their environmental statements are not only verifiable but also clear and unambiguous to avoid misinterpretation.

Misleading, specific, or both?

Specific environmental statements are generally more precise than general statements and can inform consumers about a product’s environmental benefits. However, statements such as “contains recycled plastic” or “contains organic cotton” can still be misleading if the exact percentage is not clearly stated. If left unclear, consumers might assume that a product is primarily made of recycled plastic or organic cotton, even if it contains only a small percentage.

IUNO’s opinion

Where possible, companies should prioritise using specific climate and environmental statements over general ones. However, this does not eliminate the need for precision and transparency. Companies must ensure that their statements are not only accurate but also presented in a way that avoids misleading consumers.

[The Consumer Ombudsman’s Recommendations for Companies’ environmental marketing]