Amid increased scrutiny over sustainability credentials, consumer awareness of greenwashing and potential new regulation for brands making sustainability claims about their products and services, the PRCA APAC has launched guidelines to help businesses navigate this complex and rapidly evolving landscape.

Given a lack of consumer trust, and the potential for more regulation around sustainability claims, the timely publication of the guidelines aims to equip communication professionals to better communicate sustainability claims. The guidelines were developed in collaboration with industry and sustainability experts, and ‘offer guidance and inspire authenticity, accountability, and trust in communication efforts promoting sustainability initiatives.’

The five principles that form the basis for the guidelines are:

1. Make accurate, science backed and substantiated statements
   Avoid statements or visual treatments likely to mislead audiences in any way about the environmental aspects or advantages of products, or about actions taken by a company.
2. Be specific about terminology used
   General environmental claims should either be qualified or avoided. Claims such as “environmentally friendly,” “ecologically safe,” “green,” “sustainable,” “carbon friendly”, “science-based” or any other claim implying that a product or an activity has no impact or only a positive impact, should come with a high standard of proof.
3. Consider the context of a claim
   Share information about environmental progress in the context of the whole company or the whole life cycle of the product. Communications referring to specific products or activities should not imply, without appropriate substantiation, that they extend to the whole performance of a company, group, or industry. It should be clear to what the claim relates to, e.g., the product, a specific ingredient of the product, its packaging or a specific ingredient of the packaging.
4. Demonstrate incremental impact
   A pre-existing but previously undisclosed aspect should not be presented as new. Environmental claims should be up to date and should, where appropriate, be reassessed regarding relevant developments. If there are no definitive, generally accepted methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment, no claim to have achieved it should be made. Any comparative claim should be specific and the basis for the comparison should be clear. Environmental claims should not be based on the absence of a component, ingredient, feature, or impact that has never been associated with the product category concerned. Conversely, generic features or ingredients common to all or most products in the category concerned should not be presented as if they were a unique or remarkable characteristic. Environmental superiority over competitors should be claimed only when a significant advantage can be demonstrated. Products being compared should meet the same needs and be intended for the same purpose.
5. Communicate with transparency
   Craft communications campaigns, materials or information that balance the potentially positive as well as negative environmental aspects of a product, service, brand, or business. This is especially important if a claim relates only to a relatively minor aspect of a product or activities by a business. Cherry-picking information or spotlighting a certain segment of a business misleads audiences to think that a product, service, brand, or business is greener than it really is.

Three examples of how brands might have fallen foul of the five principles

1.  FIFA boasted its 2022 tournament in Qatar would be ‘the first carbon-neutral FIFA World Cup.’ According to an investigation by The Eco Expert the tournament was responsible for 4.67 million tonnes of CO2. Complaints from organisations in five European countries led to an investigation by the Swiss Fairness Commission which upheld all complaints stating that ‘FIFA was not able to provide proof that the claims were accurate’.
2. Amazon thought that it’s had sustainability all wrapped up with its ‘eco-friendly’ Aware range, but an investigation by The Telegraph found these products were often wrapped in single-use plastic and shipped from thousands of miles away.
3. Etihad was reprimanded by the Advertising Standards Authority for two Facebook adverts which claimed that ‘we are taking a louder, bolder approach to sustainable aviation.’ Both ads pointed to Etihad being named Airlineratings.com’s environmental airline of the year, and one ad claimed the airline was ‘cutting back on single use plastics’ and ‘are flying the most modern and efficient planes.’ Etihad is aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, and a 20% reduction by 2025, but according to the ASA neither ad mentioned this nor positioned the claim ‘sustainable aviation as a long-term aspiration.’

Liquid’s ESG experts have supported several clients with enhancing their environmental and sustainability claims including The Copper Sustainability Partnership (CuSP). This partnership was created by two competing copper tube manufacturers, Lawton Tubes and Mueller Europe who joined forces in March 2021 to promote the environmental benefits of copper and fight back against the plastics greenwash. CuSP challenges the norm and is breaking the mould to achieve greater environmental thinking, insight sharing and collaboration. The Partnership needed Liquid’s support in crafting the narrative and communicating these important messages.

Does your brand or company need to add credibility to your sustainability claims? Do you want to avoid being rinsed by greenwashing claims? If you want help in navigating the latest guidelines, contact our ESG experts at esg@weareliquid.com