Home → 2008 → July → Before greenwashing becomes a federal offense


Before greenwashing becomes a federal offense

By Gail Nickel-Kailing on July 14th, 2008

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection and the Canadian Competition Bureau - in collaboration with the Canadian Standards Association - each have released guidelines that will help marketers ensure that “green marketing” claims are not misleading.

Environmental Claims: A Guide for Industry and Advertisers, from the Canadian Competition Bureau, addresses a number of commonly used green claims and provides examples of best practices on how such claims can be used by Canadian businesses to comply with the false or misleading provisions of the laws enforced by the Competition Bureau. Among other practices, the Guide states that:

  • The use of vague claims implying general environmental improvement are insufficient and should be avoided.
  • Environmental claims should be clear, specific, accurate and not misleading.
  • Environmental claims should be verified and substantiated, prior to being made.
Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims from the FTC, also administrative guidelines, are for US businesses to help comply with “truth in advertising” laws as they pertain to environmental marketing claims.

Guidance about the use of environmental marketing claims applies to eight different types of claims:

  • General environmental benefit claims
  • Claims of degradability, biodegradability, or photodegradability
  • Claims that products or packages are compostable
  • Claims of recyclability for a product or package
  • Claims of recycled content
  • Claims that a product or package has been reduced or is lower in weight, volume, or toxicity
  • Claims that a package is refillable
  • Claims that a product is “ozone safe” or “ozone friendly”

Because both the Canadian and the US governments can prosecute companies who make false or misleading advertising claims, now is a good time to think about your own marketing efforts. These guides are helpful to ensure that your wording is clear and accurate.

  1. 8 Responses to “Before greenwashing becomes a federal offense”

  2. By Pat Berger on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply

    Carbon offset or carbon neutral are not mentioned.
    Claims of eco-friendly pressroom chemistry will now have to be substantiated.
    At the present time there is only one pressroom chemical supplier that I know of that can make that statement.
    We have been using this supplier since the early 90’s.

  3. By Noel Ward on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply

    How about adding in some other elements, like energy usage, or that the equipment used for production is manufactured in a responsible, sustainable manner, such as in compliance with the European RoHS guidelines.

    Mr. Berger mentions carbon offset not being mentioned, but in my opinion not including it is a positive thing because carbon offset is a smoke and mirrors illusion.

  4. By Gail Nickel-Kailing on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply

    The FTC Guide was last updated in 1998, and is in the process of being “refreshed.” Federal Register notice has been distributed and comments were open until the end of May. I’m sure we’ll see more “current” language soon.

  5. By Pat Berger on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply

    Mr. Ward

    You are 100% correct about the hype of carbon offset. I made mention of the carbon offset because it wasn’t mentioned. There are many powerful players in carbon offset and it is TABO to mention publicly against it.

  6. By Noel Ward on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply

    Pat,
    I agree completely on the hype of carbon offset. All it does is enable a company that’s lazy, unimaginative, and irresponsible to pay a pollution fee and keep doing business as usual. The polluting is still being done!

    As I’ve noted elsewhere, carbon offsets are like feeling virtuous because by driving a hybrid car to work, but then hauling a 25 foot power boat to the lake every weekend with a Hummer.

    Someone is making money off of carbon offsets, and somewhere there may be benefits, but it I don’t buy that the environment comes out ahead. Maybe it’s a multi-level marketing scam where a few people get rich fleecing others.

    It’s funny, but the more people I talk to, the more I find that people in our industry think carbon trading is smoke and mirrors. No one, not even it’s advocates, are telling me I’m wrong. I wonder why.

  7. By Gail Nickel-Kailing on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply

    In his commentary of Friday, April 25, Frank Romano had this to say:

    “The whole business of trading carbon contracts like bubble gum cards is being reviewed by the UN body that administers them. Carbon contracts remind me of Medieval indulgences that promised Heavenly benefits if you pay your money now.”

    Read it here>>

  8. By Frank Verrill on Jul 18, 2008 | Reply

    How does Al Gore feel about your position on carbon offsets?

  9. By Bob Raus on Jul 25, 2008 | Reply

    Mr. Berger,

    In your first comment above, you mention that “Claims of eco-friendly pressroom chemistry will now have to be substantiated.
    At the present time there is only one pressroom chemical supplier that I know of that can make that statement.”

    Would you care to name that supplier for the rest of us please?

Post a Comment