In recent years, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, or “ACM”) has become increasingly active in addressing misleading sustainability claims made by companies. For many organizations, correctly formulating sustainability claims proves challenging, despite the importance of these claims in promoting sustainable consumer behavior and driving positive changes in the market. Even with good intentions, companies are often reprimanded for vague claims, lack of substantiation, or even deception. This blog discusses some of the most notable sustainability claims that the ACM has recently deemed inadequate.
Laws and Regulations Surrounding Sustainability Claims
To assist companies in making correct sustainability claims, the ACM has published the Guidelines on Sustainability Claims (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines provide companies with instructions to ensure that their claims are clear, specific, and complete. For a more detailed discussion of the Guidelines, I refer you to a previous blog. In summary, the Guidelines consist of the following key principles:
- Use accurate, clear, specific, and complete claims.
- Substantiate claims with facts and keep them up to date.
- Make fair comparisons.
- Describe future sustainability ambitions concretely and measurably.
- Ensure that visual claims and labels are not misleading.
The Guidelines distinguish between different types of sustainability claims, including absolute, vague or general claims, comparative claims, claims about a company’s sustainability goals, and visual claims. Below, examples are provided for each category of sustainability claims that the ACM has deemed insufficient.
1. Absolute, Vague, and/or General Claims
The ACM has addressed several airlines regarding unclear sustainability claims. For instance, in January 2023, Ryanair was criticized for its CO2 compensation claims. The company did not clearly indicate that CO2 compensation does not make flying more sustainable. Consequently, Ryanair had to adjust its wording from “fly greener to [destination name]” to more factual texts like “compensate your estimated CO2 emissions.” Ryanair also had to clarify the calculation and amount of CO2 compensated on its website.
In April 2024, European regulators, led by the ACM, confronted twenty European airlines over misleading sustainability claims. These airlines used vague and general terms such as “sustainable,” “green,” and “responsible,” without adequately substantiating these claims. They, for example, suggested that the CO2 emissions of a flight could be fully offset by investing in climate projects or paying extra for “sustainable” fuel, without mentioning that this fuel is only available in limited quantities and is used sparingly.
Supermarkets have also been called out for using unsubstantiated absolute, vague, and/or general sustainability claims. In December 2023, Plus was warned about claims such as “climate-neutral supermarket,” “conscious,” and “sustainable,” without sufficient backing. After an ACM warning, Plus agreed to remove these claims.
In April 2024, Albert Heijn received a similar warning. The chain used the term “most sustainable supermarket” in stores, based on consumer perception research rather than concrete sustainability efforts. Albert Heijn referred consumers to its website for more information on sustainability benefits, but according to the ACM, this was insufficient. The benefits must be immediately clear to the consumer.
In the clothing industry, the ACM has addressed several companies regarding the use of absolute, vague, and/or general sustainability claims. In September 2022, Decathlon and H&M made commitments to adjust their sustainability claims. Terms like “Ecodesign” and “Conscious” were strongly rejected by the ACM because they did not directly substantiate the sustainability benefits.
Recently, in February 2024, Zalando was confronted by European regulators over misleading sustainability claims. Zalando used the term “sustainability” to present products as sustainable without making clear the specific benefits these products offered. Ultimately, Zalando had to commit to no longer using these terms and providing clearer information on specific benefits, such as the exact percentage of recycled material in a product.
2. Comparative Claims
In the energy sector, Vattenfall and Greenchoice were addressed in October 2022 for misleading comparative sustainability claims. These companies positioned themselves as sustainable by making comparisons without clearly indicating the basis for these comparisons.
Vattenfall made claims such as “World record cheapest wind power” without providing evidence that they indeed offered the cheapest wind power in the world. Vattenfall also claimed to “go further than the goals of the Paris climate summit,” without explaining how these goals were exceeded. Vattenfall eventually agreed to remove these comparative claims from their website.
Greenchoice branded itself as “the greenest energy movement in the Netherlands” without clarifying which sustainability aspects were being referred to and which parties they were comparing themselves to. The claim “the most sustainable brand in the Netherlands” was based on consumer perception, not on actual sustainability efforts. After discussions with the ACM, Greenchoice committed to removing these claims and making better-substantiated comparisons in the future.
Returning to Plus, the supermarket chain used similar claims, such as “the most responsible supermarket in the Netherlands,” based on external research. However, this research was based on customer perception rather than factual sustainability efforts. After discussions with the ACM, Plus also agreed to remove this claim.
3. Claims About a Company’s Sustainability Goals
In May of this year, energy supplier Eneco decided after discussions with the ACM to stop using the claim “Climate neutral faster.” The ACM considered this claim potentially misleading, as it was not clear that it was an ambition for 2035. Eneco agreed to no longer use this claim in communications with consumers.
The various airlines mentioned earlier were also addressed by European regulators regarding claims about future sustainability goals. These airlines claimed that they would achieve certain goals in the future without clearly explaining what steps they would take and how these would be monitored. They were given thirty days to adjust or remove the misleading claims.
4. Visual Claims
Companies often use visual claims, such as green leaves, to present their products as sustainable. However, the ACM strongly disapproves of using these symbols without substantiation. Among the twenty airlines, unacceptable visual claims were found in the form of green leaves. Zalando also used unacceptable sustainability flags and images of leaves or trees next to products on its website. Booking.com used the “Travel Sustainable” claim with a logo in the shape of a green leaf to promote “sustainable” accommodations. After warnings from the ACM, these companies adjusted or removed these visual claims.
Conclusion
As illustrated by the examples above, the ACM strictly enforces accurate sustainability claims to prevent greenwashing. Although no formal sanctions have been imposed in the cases mentioned, the companies involved had to make significant commitments to avoid penalties. This included adjusting or removing the disputed claims, providing extensive reporting, and in some cases, making large donations to sustainability initiatives.
Companies that want to use sustainability claims must ensure that these claims are reliable and comply with laws and regulations. With the upcoming Green Claims Directive, companies are expected to face even stricter requirements to make accurate sustainability claims. Therefore, be careful when placing the green leaf, as you must be able to prove that it is genuinely green.
