How do you know that the product you buy in the store is really “environmentally friendly”, “climate neutral” or that it is made from recycled material?
Numerous companies have now attached various “green claims” to their marketing, in which they praise that the products are organic, or otherwise cause only a small burden on nature or the climate.
Done by the commission last year in research (you switch to another service) found that up to 53 percent of these claims were vague, misleading or unsubstantiated. In addition, in almost half of the labels, no evidence could be found to support the ecological nature.
In addition to individual product labels, there are around 230 different eco-labels in use in EU countries. Mixed brands have been found to cause confusion and mistrust among consumers.
The EU Commission has now drawn up rules against greenwashing and misleading consumers using eco-labels and claims. This is how we want to discipline companies that market their products with false claims and support companies whose products genuinely keep their environmental promises.
According to the Commission’s proposal, “green claims” must be able to be verified independently and they must be able to be proven with scientific evidence.
The Commission insists that the claims must be presented clearly. Environmental claims must focus on the effects that matter. In addition, the consumer must be informed if the company has resorted to compromises.
The presentation does not apply to the EU’s own environmental label, nor to the EU labeling of organic products.
Heidi Hautala: The presentation concerns concrete environmental claims
MEP Heidi Hautala (green) is satisfied with the Commission’s presentation. He believes that this will help curb unsubstantiated claims about products. Citizens clearly want to know about the environmental impact of the products they buy.
– This is a good thing, because this can certainly eliminate a large part of the misleading environmental claims.
Hautala points out that the subject of the presentation is concrete environmental claims, not advertising based on imaginary images.
The supervision of the legislation will presumably be the responsibility of the national authorities, says Hautala. In Finland, it would probably be a consumer representative.
Hautala praises the Finnish consumer ombudsman, who has already intervened in image advertising. Last year, the Consumer Ombudsman took a stand on Fortum’s advertisement, which created an overly positive image of the company’s environmental impact.
According to Hautala, the commission’s proposal is important, but it alone does not make the companies’ operations fully responsible. The companies’ own responsibility remains rather thin in the presentation, Hautala states. At the same time, he reminds that the EU is already preparing legislation on the expansion of corporate responsibility.
– It will require that companies must eliminate not only environmental harm from their operations and value chain, but also those harms, for example, to employees, human rights or indigenous peoples, says Hautala.
The Commission’s proposal regarding environmental claims still requires the approval of the EU Parliament and member states.
Hautala thinks that there will still be a discussion in parliament about how quickly companies have to provide evidence to support their environmental claims. The Commission proposes a period of 30 days. Hautala thinks ten days would be enough.
– If you consider ten days short, then you can think that if it has been possible to make claims about the environmental friendliness of products and services, then those justifications can probably be found quickly.
On Areena’s podcast 17.3. by Julia Thúren the topic was the Green World.
Source: Reuters