How Can We Advertise Using Environmentally Friendly Claims? 

An overview of greenwashing and compliance criteria in light of the 2024 Advertisement Board Report, the European Commission, and the proposed Green Claims Directive. 

Is it possible to advertise with environmental sensitivity without violating regulations? 
Yes, it is possible. However, there are rules to follow. 

Within the scope of the 2024 Advertisement Board Report, advertisements involving greenwashing concepts have been highlighted as key topics. Due to the increasing emphasis on environmental impact, it has been underlined that scrutiny has become a priority in order to prevent unfair advantages derived from environmental sensitivity.  

In the files reviewed by the Advertisement Board, the following assessments were made: 

• Advertisements with phrases such as “Chocolate that cares for nature as much as you do…” were evaluated under the category of ‘general and vague expressions such as green, sustainable, eco’ and were found to be in violation of the legislation. 
• Advertisements containing phrases like “Environmentally Friendly,” “In this product, we used 30% less chemicals and saved 40% water through eco-friendly production techniques,” and “Sustainability Note: Environmentally Friendly” were assessed under the categories of ‘general and vague expressions, environmental claims, and comparative environmental claims’ and were deemed non-compliant. 
• Advertisements that included phrases such as “Zero Carbon Mission,” “Carbon Neutral Goal,” and used the CO₂ footprint symbol were categorized under ‘carbon emission claims’ and found to be in violation. 
• Claims such as “Better Cotton licensed cotton,” and “Recycled Content Labels” were evaluated under category of ‘recycled content and environmental impact’ and found to breach the rules.  

With respect to EU-level measures: Trilateral negotiations between the Council, Parliament, and Commission have begun regarding the Green Claims Directive (“Directive”), which is expected to come into force in 2027. Further details can be accessed through this link. 

Key statements and general insights shared by the European Commission include the following: 

• 53% of green claims provide vague, misleading, or unfounded information. 
• 40% of claims are not supported by evidence. 
• Half of green labels offer weak or no verification. 
• Although the EU hosts 230 sustainability labels and 100 green energy labels, transparency levels vary significantly. 
• Therefore, it is crucial for companies to substantiate their environmental claims and labels. 

Also, the European Commission has listed the following examples as valid green claims: 

1. Packaging made from 30% recycled plastic. 
2. The company’s environmental footprint has been reduced by 20% since 2015. 
3. CO₂ emissions related to this product have been halved compared to 2020.  

The evaluations presented in the Advertisement Board Report are aligned with this approach. In fact, advertisements containing broadly worded environmental expressions, vague implications, nearly unverifiable promises, or claims that cannot be adequately substantiated in specific cases have been considered as violations. For example; 

in a file related to the Technology Sector; 

• It was claimed that purchasing a refurbished product from a mobile phone brand contributed to environmental sustainability, preventing the formation of 54 kg CO₂-eq carbon footprint—an impact equated to the amount of CO₂ absorbed by a tree in one year. However, consumers were not informed about the scientific basis of these claims, nor was there any explanation of how the environmental impacts were measured or assessed. 
• The statement “This purchase equals the environmental impact of a tree absorbing CO₂ for one year” did not specify whether the environmental claim referred to the product's entire lifecycle or only a specific phase. 
• The so-called “Sustainability Certificate” was not supported by documentation or information from authorized institutions, relevant university departments, or accredited research, testing, or evaluation organizations. 

in a file related to the ready-to-wear sector; 

• Claims such as “We have a promise to the Earth” and “We promise to make all our packaging 100% sustainable by 2024” were used, but there was no indication of which product group this applied to. 
• No accredited reports were provided to support the statement: “We pledge to nature and humanity with a zero waste, zero emission target.” 

in files involving 4 different companies from the food, apparel, and durable goods sectors; 

• General environmental statements such as “environmentally friendly,” “cares for nature as much as you do,” and “climate-friendly” were used without providing necessary information, creating ambiguity for consumers. 
• Moreover, it was concluded that the basis of these claims could not be objectively verified. 

All this data demonstrates that using environmentally friendly claims is indeed possible -as long as the claims themselves are clear and objective, do not unfairly influence consumer emotions, and provide consumers with at least a basic level of information, while being provable according to the criteria set out in the relevant legislation. 

Still, considering the increasing importance of such cases and the potentially high administrative fines that may be imposed, in my opinion, it would be much more beneficial in terms of both advertising freedom and legal protection to conduct a preliminary review in each project with experts in this field. 

In our upcoming publication, Part 2, we will address how claims involving greenwashing can be challenged by industry stakeholders or third parties on other grounds. 

Stay tuned for more insights on advertising law practices...