Which? is calling for regulators to properly enforce rules on green claims after its research found hundreds of examples of problematic claims including for food products.
The consumer organisation used AI software to trawl through more than 20,000 online product listings looking for green claims. Researchers then looked in more detail at 1,000 online product descriptions in a range of categories spanning food, cleaning, electronics, clothing and personal care.
More than six in 10 (62%) products failed checks in relation to multiple principles of the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) Green Claims Code, suggesting systemic issues with how eco-friendly credentials are being communicated, according to Which?.
Although food generally fared better than categories like cleaning products, electronics and accessories, and personal hygiene products, Which? identified numerous examples where products appeared to fail the principles of the code.
These included the principle that “claims must be clear and unambiguous”, with the research finding numerous examples of products being described as “sustainable” or “eco-friendly” with no context provided. The product description for Grind House Blend Ground Coffee sold by Tesco, for example, stated that the coffee is “ethically sourced” from “sustainable farms” but there was no other explanation to support these claims.
Which? also found examples of marketing it believes would fail to meet the principle of the code that “comparisons must be fair and reasonable”. The description for a Charlie Bigham’s Lasagne listed on Ocado claimed to use “30% less cardboard” but without stating if this was comparing a previous version of the same product or other lasagnes on the market.
The code also says claims “must be substantiated” but Which? suggested many products failed on this point, including a description for Mr Organic Canned Chickpeas which provided no evidence for the claim that the chickpeas have “zero air miles”.
The CMA recently gained new powers to fine businesses up to 10% of their global turnover for giving false or misleading information to consumers, including about their green credentials.
Which? said its findings highlighted the need for stronger enforcement from regulators against firms that are misleading consumers and support for businesses that are serious about complying with the code.
“We know many shoppers are trying to shop more sustainably, yet this research shows they are being let down by vague or unsubstantiated claims,” said Lisa Webb, Which? consumer law expert.
“Misleading green claims don’t just waste people’s money – they also erode trust and give an unfair advantage to businesses that cut corners. We want to see stricter enforcement so that brands can’t get away with having vague claims about sustainability on products and eco-conscious shoppers can be confident in what they’re buying.”
