Updated: 08 Mar 2010

---

Introduction

It's too easy for companies to claim their products are green.

Sixty-two percent of consumers say they take the environment into account at least some of the time when they're buying goods and services. Advertisers know it and there's a flourishing market in green claims. Far too few claims, however, stand up to scrutiny.

We think it’s time to stop consumers being “greenwashed”: we’d like to see a mandatory consumer-information standard for “green” claims.

Greenwash signs

Companies frequently charge a premium for "green" products. But it's often extremely difficult to know what you're getting for your money. For every legit claim, there's likely to be a shelf-full that are either misleading or false.

US-based TerraChoice reports green advertising in popular magazines has increased almost tenfold in the last 20 years and nearly tripled since 2006. But its 2009 survey of big-box retailers in Canada and the US found just two percent of green claims on products stacked up. It fingered household cleaners, cosmetics and kids’ products as leaders in the greenwash stakes.

Terrachoice has coined the phrase “greenwash sins” to describe the frequent transgressions companies commit when they tart up their products as eco-friendly. We had no trouble finding these “greenwash sins” in stores here.

1. Vagueness

“Environmentally friendly”, “green”, “sustainable”, “natural”, “pure” and their many aliases are prime offenders. These claims are so broad and poorly defined they're meaningless.

Take Silk Biodegradable Baby Wipes. The packaging on these wipes claims they’re “friendlier to the environment” and sports a picture of a kiwi next to a cascading waterfall. But if you're after information to explain exactly what makes these wipes “greener”, you’re out of luck.

The product’s claim to biodegradability doesn’t help. Users are told to dispose of the wipes with their household waste, which means they'll probably end up in the landfill. The wipes will eventually break down but it could take some time. No help either from the “fragrance free” claim emblazoned on the front of the packet. Despite this claim, “fragrance” appears in the ingredients list on the back.

Importer Global Products tells us the wipes are made from "vegetable fibres" and are therefore "friendlier" to the environment. That explanation's not good enough. Green claims should be based on the whole life cycle of the product, from manufacture to disposal. This claim clearly isn't.

2. No proof

Unsubstantiated claims are also high on the list of "greenwash sins”. Classic examples are products that are labelled as “organic” but have no third-party certification to back up the claim. It may be true … but where’s the evidence?

Uncertified timber and paper products claiming to be sourced from “sustainably managed forests” are other frequent offenders. We've even found a hair brush, the Via Eco Brush, which says it’s made from “sustainable wood” but there's no proof provided to substantiate the sustainability claim.

The packaging also makes the unhelpfully vague assertion that an “environmentally friendly” wood sealer was used in the brush’s manufacture.

3. Irrelevance

Then there are green claims that are true but they're also irrelevant. These claims don't provide consumers with any useful information.

Take Pledge Furniture Polish which claims it’s CFC-free. We’ve also seen the same claim in a Bond & Bond newspaper ad for a Mitsubishi freezer. CFC has been banned for some time – you wouldn’t expect to find it in these products.

Claims about the “biodegradability” of paper are also guilty of irrelevance. Almost all toilet-paper brands declare their tissues are "biodegradable". It’d be a worry if they weren’t. We're not disputing the claim – it’s just meaningless.

4. Distractions

Claims that distract consumers from the real environmental problems associated with a product's use are another vogue. A favourite of car companies has been to tout their vehicles as “green” on the basis of some slight fuel-efficiency improvement.

Several car companies have fallen foul of the Advertising Standards Authority's (ASA) code of practice for environmental claims. Ads promoting Holden vehicles as “environmentally friendly” and Land Rover’s Range Rovers as “Mean. But Green” have been withdrawn as a result of complaints to the ASA. But that hasn’t deterred others from making similar claims.

Ads in circulation for Suzuki's Grand Vitara, Swift and SX4 models claim the vehicles are “easy on the planet”. But driving petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles produces carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas contributing to global warming. Advances in technology mean cars manufactured today may be more fuel-efficient than older vehicles but that doesn’t make them “environmentally friendly”, “green” or “easy on the planet”.

5. Not the full picture

Other products lay claim to greenness on the basis of a narrow set of criteria. A raft of factors, which are likely to be more significant in terms of the product's environmental impact, are ignored.

Savers Facial Tissues claim they’re made in accordance with “modern environmental thinking” and declare that “wherever possible recycled paper has been used in the packaging and no chlorine was used when making the tissue”.

Setting aside the vagueness of the “recycled” claim, the packaging doesn’t tell you anything about the source of the wood fibre used to make the tissues – which is one of the key issues for consumers seeking “greener” paper options.

Warnings issued

Making misleading or deceptive environmental claims is an offence under the Fair Trading Act. The Commerce Commission enforces the Act and has 13 investigations of green claims underway. Over the last 18 months, it’s issued warnings to six companies:

• Resene Paints received a warning for alleging a paint was free from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) when it contained low levels of VOCs.
• Foreno Tapware was warned for alleging brass used in tapware prevents the migration of lead when there's no evidence to support the claim.
• Hyundai Motors received a warning for alleging a Hyundai hybrid outperformed other hybrid cars.
• Comvita New Zealand was warned for representing Comvita Olive Leaf Complex as "the Nature of New Zealand" when the product was made in Australia.
• Catering company Seasoned and Dressed was warned for falsely alleging it was Wellington's only sustainable caterer.
• Inghams Enterprises was warned for alleging its chicken products contained no GM ingredients when the animals' feed contained up to 13 percent GM soy.

In an attempt to stem the greenwash tide, the Commission has released guidelines that warn businesses about practices which could mislead consumers – such as making claims that are vague, unsubstantiated, irrelevant or just plain false.

But it’s obvious many companies are ignoring the Commission's guidelines and are willing to run the risk of a fine of up to $200,000. A tougher approach is needed. We'd like to see a mandatory standard for green claims, setting out companies’ obligations to ensure any claims are accurate, unambiguous and verifiable. And we’d like to see this standard stringently enforced.

What you can do

Until companies start playing by the rules, the best way to protect yourself from being greenwashed is to take a healthy dose of scepticism with you when you go shopping.

• Ignore the green hype. Think about the overall impact of the product - the packaging may be recyclable but that’s not the main point.
• Look for precise claims and evidence to back up these claims.
• Third-party certification (see Eco labels) helps distinguish real claims from fake.
• Be suspicious if there’s no real evidence to support claims of “greenness” and no easy way to find out.

If a company's making a misleading or deceptive environmental claim, complain to the Commerce Commission. Let us know too.

You can also complain to the Advertising Standards Authority about misleading green claims made in ads. The ASA is a voluntary industry body. It can ask a company to withdraw an ad but it doesn’t have the regulatory clout of the Commerce Commission.

We say

• The market is failing to provide consumers with reliable information about the environmental impacts of goods and services. All too often, it's left to consumers to sort fact from fiction.
• Consumer protection needs to be improved. We want to see a mandatory consumer information standard for green claims and tough enforcement of this standard.

Eco labels

Here are the most common eco-labels you’ll see on products.

Domestic eco-label

Environmental Choice is a government-backed scheme run by the New Zealand Ecolabelling Trust. To get the scheme's tick, products have to meet criteria relating to their manufacture, packaging and distribution.

Comparable international labels on imported goods include the Blue Angel (Germany), Good Environmental Choice Australia, Green Seal (US), EU Ecolabel and the Nordic Ecolabel.

Energy efficiency

Energy Star is an international energy efficiency label. The label is awarded to the top 25 percent of the most energy-efficient appliances and electronic products. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority promotes the label here. Qualifying products are listed on its website.

Organic foods

There are four organic certification labels in New Zealand:

• AsureQuality Organic is run by AsureQuality, a commercial company owned by the government.
• BioGro Organic is run by BioGro New Zealand, an independent certification body.
• Demeter is an international certification scheme for biodynamic farming. The Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association runs the scheme here.
  

When you're buying imported organic products, look for labels accredited by IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

No animal testing

Choose Cruelty Free (CCF) accredits both Australian and New Zealand companies which claim their products and ingredients aren't tested on animals.

Products that measure up carry the CCF bunny logo. But there are many variations of this logo on products that aren’t CCF accredited.

Pick up Ecostore products and you’ll find a bunny logo that’s almost the mirror image of CCF’s. Ecostore’s Malcolm Rands told us the company doesn’t test on animals but hasn’t sought third-party certification of this claim.

Ecostore says it’s currently doing the paperwork to apply for CCF accreditation.

July 2010 update: Ecostore has now got CCF accreditation.

Third-party certification

---

Products with third-party certification are still the exception: companies often argue certification “costs too much”. We think that’s an easy excuse and one that doesn't hold up.

Environmental Choice, for example, tags licence fees to sales. A company with net sales of $1 million would pay $2500 (ex GST) in fees – that’s less than 0.3 percent of the net sales value. The most any company would pay is $17,500 (ex GST) and that fee kicks in only after net sales rise above $10 million.

 

More information

• Ecolabels directory: www.med.govt.nz/ecolabels

 

Report by Jessica Wilson.