24.11.2020

Responsible Marketing or Misleading Greenwashing?

Responsible. Sustainable. Environmentally friendly. Green. Carbon neutral. Ecologically safe. Low emission. Recyclable. Biodegradable. Made from renewable materials. Energy efficient.

Corporate marketing is full of these kinds of claims, which is a good thing. Companies are paying more attention to the sustainability of their businesses—particularly to their environmental impacts—and are communicating about them more openly.

The use of sustainability and environmental claims in marketing can impact consumers’ purchasing decisions and bring companies a competitive edge. This being the case, the kinds of claims being made is important.

For example, you may come across a sweater in a clothing store with a label stating not just the price, but also announcing, I am sustainable. What does it mean that a product is sustainable? A Finnish clothing brand launched a ‘100% sustainable clothing line’ in September. The line didn’t include a single piece of clothing and the webstore and store were empty. The company wanted to make the point that it is impossible to make completely sustainable clothing.

In August, a Finnish marketing magazine wrote that companies find it difficult to communicate sustainability and are afraid of being accused of greenwashing. One reason for this is a challenge of scale: companies measure their sustainability in many different ways.

There is no reason to be afraid of sustainability marketing as long as it is based on facts and takes into account the entire lifecycle of the product or service, from the procurement of raw materials to the disposal of waste.

Marketing Cannot be False or Misleading

Sustainability and environmental claims—just like any other factual claims in marketing—must be provable. Your own subjective opinion is not enough, but you have to have research or other credible data (verified by third parties, if necessary) to back up your claims.

The overall impression created by marketing cannot be misleading. For example, it would be misleading to say, ‘we have doubled the amount of recycled material’, if the original amount of recycled material in the product was negligible.

Marketing should not abuse consumers’ concern for the environment or seek to exploit consumers’ lack of environmental knowledge. Marketing should also indicate whether an environmental claim concerns the entire lifecycle of the product or just one part or production phase of it or, for example, the company’s overall environmental efficiency.

It should also be noted that environmental claims can be more than just verbal expressions. A symbol or other graphic presentation referring to an environmental feature of a product or package could also be considered an environmental claim. This being the case, companies should not add symbols of their own devising to, for example, product packaging if they could give the misleading impression that the product has an official environmental certificate.

Don’t Highlight Meaningless or Irrelevant Features

Marketing should not highlight a feature that has no meaning or relevance to the product or service in question. The meaningfulness and relevance of sustainability and environmental claims are assessed based on other products in the same group of products or services. For example, claiming that a product does not contain a particular substance would be considered misleading if no other corresponding products on the market contain the substance in question.

Any environmental claims must be relevant to the product. Claims can only concern matters that already exist or that will at least likely arise during the product’s lifecycle.

Avoid Greenwashing: Use Truthful, Up-to-Date and Relevant Environmental Claims

With green claims having become more common, the ICC’s new marketing rules published in 2019 contain more detailed rules applicable to marketing with environmental claims, for example, environmental marks, product packaging, product descriptions, as well as marketing materials and digital media containing environmental claims.

The ICC has also published guidance on frequently used environmental claims.

According to the ICC’s guidance, marketing should not make unconditional use of expressions such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘eco-safe’, ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, ‘climate-friendly’ or similar statements that communicate that the product or service has no negative environmental impacts or that the impacts would be positive. Using such statements always requires sound evidence. Furthermore, claims referring to sustainable development should not be used until there are ways to measure or confirm sustainable development.

To sum up, a good environmental claim is honest, truthful, relevant, up-to-date and specific and the text explaining it is clear, relevant and easy to understand.

Latest references

We acted as Finnish counsel to Pernod Ricard in the sale of a portfolio of local Nordic brands to Oy Hartwall Ab, an affiliate of the Danish group Royal Unibrew. Pernod Ricard is a worldwide leader in the spirits and wine industry. The local portfolio of brands includes spirits, liqueurs and Finnish wine brands, the best-known being the liqueur Minttu, along with their related production assets based in Turku, Finland. The closing of the transaction remains subject to customary conditions.
Case published 21.10.2024
We are acting as the lead counsel to Fortum in a cross-border transaction in which Fortum is selling its recycling and waste business. The business is sold to thematic impact investing firm Summa Equity through its portfolio company NG Group. The debt-free purchase price is approximately EUR 800 million. The transaction is subject to authority approval and customary closing conditions. Fortum’s recycling and waste business to be sold comprises municipal and industrial waste management and end-to-end plastics, metals, ash, slag and hazardous waste treatment and recycling services. These businesses are located in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway and currently employ approximately 900 employees.
Case published 18.7.2024
We successfully represented Onses Finland Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an exceptionally extensive dispute concerning alleged trademark infringement and unfair business practice. Our client, Onses Finland Oy, is a Finnish sports drink company and the owner of the sports drink brand ONSE. In the spring of 2023, the Polish beverage company OSHEE Polska Sp. z o.o. filed legal action against our client, alleging that the ONSE trademarks and product packaging infringed the OSHEE trademarks. The plaintiff’s secondary claims concerned alleged slavish imitation of the OSHEE sports drink packaging and exploitation of the reputation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff based its suit on registered trademarks as well as allegedly established and reputed figurative and three-dimensional trademarks. The Market Court rejected all of the plaintiff’s claims. The Market Court held that the marks invoked in the suit were neither established nor marks with a reputation in Finland. As regards the registered trademarks, the Market Court found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the OSHEE and ONSE trademarks. As to the secondary claims, the Market Court held that the sports drink packaging used by the plaintiff was a normal beverage bottle, the design of which was partly determined by functional factors. The Market Court also found that there were several blue sports drinks available on the market and that the plaintiff’s product was not the first blue sports drink on the market. The plaintiff failed to show that its product packaging was original or well-known to the average consumer at the time of the launch of our client’s ONSE sports drink product, and the Market Court thus rejected the claims on slavish imitation and exploitation of reputation. The Market Court ordered the plaintiff to pay all of our client’s legal costs with statutory interest. The judgment (MAO:280/2024) is not final.
Case published 11.6.2024
We acted as the legal and ESG advisor to Mérieux Equity Partners on the acquisition of a majority stake in Labquality through a leveraged buyout by its buyout fund, Mérieux Participations 4. Existing shareholders of Labquality, including Cor Group and the management, will reinvest a portion of their proceeds into the company in connection with the transaction. Headquartered in Helsinki, Finland, Labquality is a Nordic player specialized in EQA, CRO activities and regulatory affairs, with a strong local presence in Central and Eastern Europe. The company provides a comprehensive array of services for the healthcare, medical technology, and pharmaceutical industries. The company, employing over 120 professionals and supported by a network of more than 150 external experts and consultants across its offices in Finland, Germany, and Poland, serves a diverse clientele of over 8,000 customers, including major pharmaceutical companies in over 60 countries. Mérieux Equity Partners (MxEP) is an AMF-accredited management company dedicated to equity investments in the Healthcare and Nutrition sectors. MxEP actively supports entrepreneurs and companies with differentiated products and services, giving them privileged access to its sector expertise and international network. The transaction will enable Labquality to pursue its buy & build strategy in Europe to accelerate its CRO activities while continuing strong and recurring growth in the EQA segment. Labquality will benefit from MxEP’s sector expertise and financial resources to achieve its ambition of becoming a leading European CRO and EQA platform, with fully integrated regulatory consulting capabilities to serve major customers across Europe.
Case published 4.12.2023