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 are acting as legal advisor to Piippo Plc in the sale of their bale netwrap and baler twine machines, related assets, and trademarks used in Piippo’s business to Portuguese Cotesi S.A. The sale of assets will be carried out in two phases and the final completion of the transaction is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2026. Piippo Oyj’s core business is baling nets and twine and it is one of the leading suppliers in the industry globally. The company’s global distribution network covers more than 40 countries. The company’s shares are listed on the First North Growth Market Finland operated by Nasdaq Helsinki Oy. Founded in 1967, Cotesi is one of the world’s leading producers of synthetic and natural twines, nets and ropes, with operations in Europe, North America and South America and its main production plant in Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Case published 17.4.2025
We advised Valio Oy in its acquisition of Raisio Oyj’s plant protein business, related fixed assets and the Härkis® and Beanit® fava bean brands. The fixed assets include, among other things, the production equipment of the factory that makes plant protein products in Kauhava. The transaction supports Valio’s strategy to grow from a dairy company to a food company. This business acquisition will make us an even more significant developer and producer of plant-based protein products. The demand for these products will grow in the long term, and a great deal of growth potential still remains. In 2022, we acquired the Gold&Green® business and, since then, we have been carrying out strong product development and renewed the brand. Following successful product launches, sales in the last quarter of 2024 increased by about 50% from the previous quarter. With this acquisition, we are building our own production capacity. The production equipment of the Kauhava factory is just right for our needs and situation. says Kimmo Luoma, Valio’s Senior Vice President. Valio is a Finnish dairy and food company founded in 1905 and owned by Finnish dairy cooperatives. Valio has subsidiaries in Sweden, Estonia, the United States and China. In 2023, the Group had a turnover of EUR 2 278 million and more than 4 000 employees.
Case published 14.2.2025
We successfully represented Arctic Biomaterials Oy before the Finnish Market Court in an extensive dispute concerning alleged patent infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. Our client has invented next-generation bioabsorbable composites that are engineered with Arctic Biomaterials’ X3 bioactive natural mineral fibers, offering robust, bioactive reinforcement for orthopedic implants. These advanced composites empower customers to create high-strength bioabsorbable solutions for the most demanding applications. Back in 2019, Purac Biochem B.V. alleged, among other things, that our client’s Evolvecomp product had infringed Purac Biochem B.V.’s European patent validated in Finland protecting a biocompatible composite and its use. Purac Biochem B.V. filed a preliminary injunction against our client under the Act on Securing the Provision of Evidence in Civil Cases Concerning Industrial Property Rights and Copyright (344/2000). The Finnish Market Court issued an ex-parte injunction against our client on 2 April 2019 (MAO:150/19) and a final injunction on 19 February 2020 (MAO:59/20). Our client had disputed Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent infringement claim from the beginning and claimed that the patent-in-suit was invalid. After five years of litigation, the Finnish Market Court handed down a ruling in the joined invalidity and infringement cases on 10 October 2024 (MAO:560/2024 and MAO:561/2024) declaring Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid and dismissing Purac’s infringement action against Arctic Biomaterials. Also, the preliminary injunction based on an alleged patent infringement imposed against Arctic Biomaterials was cancelled. The Market Court declared Purac Biochem B.V.’s patent invalid due to a lack of inventive step. The Market Court applied the could-would method for determining whether the patent-in-suit is inventive or not. The could-would method is based on determining whether a person skilled in the art would (not simply could, but would) have made a specific improvement to prior solutions, based on the available prior art. The Market Court ruled that it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to solve the objective technical problem of the patent-in-suit in the manner presented in claim 1, using as a starting point the closest prior art (prior patent publication) and combining it with the teaching of another prior art publication. The decision is final.
Case published 29.1.2025
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.
Case published 21.10.2024