By Rebecca Styles
Research Lead | Hautū Rangahau
We’re trying to raise at least $70,000 by 4 October. Why? We’re not government funded. Not backed by big business. We’re 100% independent – and we only exist because no-bullsh*t people like you support us. We’re fighting to bring down high power prices, protect people from unsafe products and ban sneaky business tactics. Please keep our fight alive by donating today.
A revised code places businesses on notice to advertise environmental claims responsibly, so customers aren’t misled or greenwashed.
Environmental terms like “environmentally friendly” and “sustainable” can’t be used unless they’re backed up with robust evidence.
While it’s great the guidelines have been revised, it doesn’t give regulators new enforcement powers and still leaves consumers policing green claims.
What’s changed in the advertising rules?
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) announced a revised code last week. It strengthens the rules requiring advertisers to support environmental claims with scientific evidence.
For example, a claim that a plastic bag is “100% biodegradable” must be supported by robust evidence. It must also be realistic for most New Zealanders – if the bag only breaks down at a specialist composting facility, the advertisement needs to make that clear.
Vague terms like “environmentally friendly”, “sustainable” or “green” should also be avoided unless they have evidence to support them.
Images that create an impression of environmental benefit will also need evidence.
The revised code also introduces a new principle on environmental responsibility, giving it the same importance as truthfulness and social responsibility in advertising.
The new code comes into force in February 2027.
Help stop greenwashing in Aotearoa
We need your help to call out dodgy ‘green’ claims.
Companies that pulled ‘green’ ads after ASA complaints
The ASA sets the standards for advertising as well as providing education and resources. It also receives and processes complaints about advertising.
Anyone can complain to the ASA if they see an advertisement they believe is misleading or doesn’t uphold a sense of social responsibility.
If the ASA decides there is a case to answer, most businesses pull the ad before a formal ruling is made. While the ASA can’t impose fines or order corrections, it says the cost of removing advertising can be significant. There’s also reputational damage if the media writes about the advertisement.
Kathmandu faced a complaint in 2022 over an ad claiming its BioDOWN jacket would biodegrade in landfill. Kathmandu denied the claim was false but removed the ad.
Unilever Australia, the maker of Persil laundry detergent, withdrew a television ad in 2023 after the ASA accepted a complaint about potentially misleading green claims.
The ad showed scenes of deforestation, water pollution and forest fires, contrasted with images of children picking up plastic from beaches and planting trees. A voiceover said the Persil product’s plastic packaging was recyclable and “kinder to the planet”.
Another complaint in 2023 involved Christchurch Airport, owned by Christchurch City Holdings, describing itself as “climate positive”. The complainant argued that its emissions calculations did not include emissions from flights.
Christchurch City Holdings pointed to the airport’s certification and efforts to decarbonise parts of its operations. However, the airport has not used the phrase “climate positive” since 2023.
Will the changes make it easier for consumers to trust green claims?
The revised code gives the ASA a stronger framework to assess complaints about dubious green claims and places greater emphasis on backing up environmental claims. But it does not give the ASA new legal enforcement powers or change the Fair Trading Act. The ASA still cannot fine businesses for making dubious claims.
If a complaint is upheld, the ASA can only ask companies to change or withdraw advertising. In rare cases, where an advertiser doesn’t comply with an ASA decision, media platforms, who are ASA members, may refuse to run the ad.
In practice, the system still relies on consumers or competing businesses to spot misleading green claims and make a complaint. Yet it’s hard to tell whether green claims are bogus.
In our latest survey on green claims, 44% of respondents said they found it somewhat or very difficult to tell the truthfulness of an environmental claim.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72%) had never checked a product’s green claim, while only 5% knew where they would report a misleading claim if they encountered one.
From Consumer NZ’s work investigating green claims, we know it can take hours to uncover the truth behind them. No consumer has the time, or should have to find the time, to make sure businesses are playing by the rules.
We think green claims should be checked before they hit the market. Consumers shouldn’t be the first line of defence against greenwashing.
Want more independent advice to help you shop smarter? Subscribe to the Consumer NZ newsletter and get our best stories in your inbox every week.
