The use of environmentally oriented claims in marketing
(1992, updated 2002, added chapter 6 year 2025)
These guidelines have been drawn up for the benefit of advertisers who are considering the use of claims on the environmental impact of products in planned advertising or marketing campaigns. The guidelines are based on section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, and on past rulings of the Market Court and the Consumer Ombudsman.
Table of Contents
- Importance of environmental impact should first be assessed
- Environmental impact should be made clear
- Overall impression should be assessed
- Generalisations are possible only when the entire life cycle of the product is known
4.1 Biodegradable or degradable
4.2 Recovery, recycling - Only compare similar products
- Consumer Ombudsman’s Case Law on Environmental Marketing
1. Importance of environmental impact should first be assessed
Information about the environmental impact of products is important to consumers. You may use environmentally oriented claims in your marketing when you are certain that the product you are marketing has some environmental effect worth advertising,
When marketing a product only the important and relevant things about the product’s environmental impact should be mentioned.
When the importance of environmental claims is being assessed, all the other products in the same product group should be considered as well. Using the term “phosphate-free” is irrelevant unless there are similar products on the market which actually do contain phosphate.
The relevance of the environmental claim should be assessed in relation to all the effects the product has on the environment. Is it relevant to emphasise that the packaging of a product contains 3% recycled material, if the product itself is known to be extremely harmful to the environment? Is there any point in using new, environmentally friendly packaging as the main argument of marketing, if the product could just as well be sold without packaging?
2. Environmental impact should be made clear
The important environmentally friendly features of the product should be explained clearly and unambiguously.
It should also be clear whether the environmental claims apply to the packaging or to the product itself.
Generalisations and unspecified or ambiguous expressions should be avoided.
Only terminology that consumers can understand should be used. The expressions used in marketing will be assessed according to how the consumer can interpret them. If the expressions used are found to be ambiguous, they should be changed.
Claims should be precise; the effect the choices of individual consumers have on the environment should not be exaggerated. Frightful, inflated visions of the consequences of the consumer’s choice of product should not be created. For instance, inadequate insulation in a detached house does not noticeably contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Only the facts should be given, if there is no certainty of the environmental impact of the product’s manufacturing process, raw materials or use. Consumers should be left to draw their own conclusions.
3. Overall impression should be assessed
Marketing using environmentally oriented claims is judged according to the overall impression it conveys to consumers. This overall impression should correspond to the facts.
It follows that the overall impression given by the marketing should be based on the actual facts.
Reference should not be made to environmental effects for which there are conflicting research results.
4. Generalisations are possible only when the entire life cycle of the product is known
“Environmentally friendly” or similar expressions (“green”, “natural”, “ecological product” can only be used, if a thorough study of the entire life cycle of the product has been made. For example, according to the Market Court (MT: 1992:26), the expression “for a cleaner environment” is too imprecise and general to be used in marketing cars.
This kind of general statement can be used if the product has considerably less environmental impact during its entire life cycle, “from cradle to grave”, than other products in the same product group.
Any general claim regarding the environmental impact of the product should be supported by a study which covers the product’s environmental impact during its entire life cycle.
If Nordic or EU environmental symbol criteria have been established for the product group to which the product being advertised belongs, an application can be made for the right to display such a symbol on the product. It is far preferable to use a symbol of this kind rather than generalised statements regarding the product’s environmental friendliness. In any case, care should be taken to ensure that environmental claims are supported by a study of the product’s entire life cycle corresponding to that required by the environmental symbol criteria.
An environmental symbol from an independent third party gives an unambiguous and reliable impression of the product’s environmental features. It is better to use such symbols rather than one’s own.
In decision number 2001:009, the Market Court prohibited an enterprise from using a symbol of its own invention. This symbol was used, without legitimate grounds, by the company to emphasise the environmental friendliness of its activities, despite the latter not being a form of recycling that could be especially considered to conserve the environment. Such a symbol may cloud the consumers’ impression of environmentally conserving recycling activities.
4.1 Biodegradable or degradable
If a claim in regard to the degradability of the product is not specified, proof should be obtained that the entire product is entirely or almost entirely biodegradable. Make your claim specific, if you do not mean that the entire product is biodegradable. The use of “biodegradable” with regard to detergents, for instance, often indicates that the tensides in them are degradable according to OECD norms. This should be specified in marketing.
If the product is said to be degradable in certain conditions, these should have relevance to the target group. If degradability requires certain conditions, these should be mentioned. The products of decomposition should not be harmful to the environment. Waste contained at landfills does not decompose to any great degree. Mention should also be made of the agent of decomposition, i.e. sunlight or microbes.
If a product can well be sold without packaging, one should consider whether the degradability of the packaging in fact has any real significance.
The expression “can be composted”, or other expression relating to waste disposal, should be approached in the same way as “biodegradable”,
i.e. an explanation should be given regarding what exactly is required to compost or incinerate the product. Special requirements, such as whether the product needs to be washed before burning, or whether some other fuel must be added, should always be mentioned. The method of waste disposal is pointless, if many of those in the target group do not have access to it.
4.2 Recovery, recycling
It should be sufficiently clear
- whether reference is being made to the product itself, the packaging, or the raw material
- whether it is the product or the packaging which is made from recycled material and to what extent, and
- whether the consumer can recycle or re-use the product or its packaging.
Claims made about recovery or recyclability must always be supportable. The use of the established European recycling symbol on plastic containers is not illegal as such. However, the claim is of no particular importance, if there are no plastic recycling points available to the consumer, or if it is impossible to buy a refill.
5. Only compare similar products
Comparisons can only be made between products of the same product group. Comparing matches with lighters, or fabric nappies with disposable ones, is very difficult to do in a reliable way. How, for example, can one objectively compare the negative effects of the production and use of fabric nappies, on the one hand, and the environmental effects of the discarding of disposable nappies, on the other?
Before comparing one particular feature of a product, check that the life cycles of the products being compared do not fundamentally differ from one another.
Before expressions of comparison (e.g. “the best insulation”) are used in conjunction with environmental claims, proof should be obtained that the product in question really does have less environmental impact than any other product in the same group. The obligation to produce proof concerns the product’s entire life cycle, unless the comparison specifically applies to only part of it.
6. Consumer Ombudsman’s Case Law on Environmental Marketing
Decision 1
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/650/14.08.01.08/2022 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman addressed the environmental marketing of the trader. The trader presented an environmental claim in their marketing: ”hankimme uusiutuvaa lentopolttoainetta, joka vähentää kasvihuonekaasupäästöjä jopa 80 %–tavoitteenamme on olla täysin hiilineutraali vuonna 2045” (“We procure renewable aviation fuel that reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% – our goal is to be completely carbon neutral by 2045” in English).
The message of the advertisement was widely presented across various marketing channels, including Twitter, Facebook, Helsingin Sanomat, and the trader’s Instagram account.
Assessment of the marketing
The overall impression created by the marketing must not be misleading, and essential information must not be omitted in the marketing. In particular, environmental marketing should be evaluated based on how consumers are expected to understand the content of the expressions used.
The Consumer Ombudsman concluded that the trader’s marketing created a misleading overall impression of the positive environmental impact of the trader’s air travel, contrary to consumer protection law.
Decision 2
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/428/14.08.01.05/2023 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to the trader’s marketing in its online store. In the online store, some of the marketed products were marked with a green leaf symbol. The leaf symbol was used alongside product names on product listing pages. Additionally, the symbol was used on product-specific pages, where it was stated “VASTUULLINEN VALINTA” (“RESPONSIBLE CHOICE” in English) and that the product represents the trader’s responsible selection.
In the online store, it was also possible to filter the products visible in the product catalog using a Vastuullinen valikoima (Responsible Selection in English) product category.
Assessment of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman found that the trader’s marketing, where some products were marked with a general and vague leaf symbol without clarifying what the symbol meant, and the marketing where the product category was named Responsible Selection without immediately clarifying what this meant in connection with the responsibility claim, was contrary to consumer protection law.
Decision 3
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/427/14.08.01.05/2023 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to the trader’s marketing in the company’s online store. In the online store, some of the marketed products were marked as more responsible. Both on product listing pages and product-specific pages, a vertical VASTUULLISEMPI (MORE RESPONSIBLE in English) label was added over the product image.
Assessment of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman concluded that the consumer did not receive precise and unambiguous information on the product listing pages or product-specific pages about what the MORE RESPONSIBLE label means or why the product was marked with it. The impression of responsibility created for the consumer was misleadingly broad. Therefore, the Consumer Ombudsman concluded that the trader’s marketing was contrary to consumer protection law.
Decision 4
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/731/14.08.01.05/2022 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to the trader’s marketing containing environmental claims. In the marketing of ice cream, claims were made regarding the responsibility of the packaging, its bio-based nature, its carbon footprint, and the use of fossil raw materials. Additionally, a green leaf mark was used in the marketing.
This marketing appeared at least on the ice cream packaging itself, on the trader’s website, on various television channels, on the front page of Helsingin Sanomat, on the ice cream brand’s own social media channels, and on the accounts of social media influencers.
Assessment of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman concluded that the trader had used environmental claims in their marketing in a manner contrary to consumer protection law.
Decision 5
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/79/14.08.01.05/2021 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to a television advertisement presented by the trader. The advertisement created an impression of the company’s environmental friendliness, using for example the claim ”fossiilivapaa elämä yhden sukupolven aikana” (“fossil-free life within one generation” in English).
Assessment of the marketing
The overall impression of the advertisement misled consumers, as it was not clearly stated what specific aspects the overall impression of environmental friendliness was based on. Additionally, “fossil-free life within one generation” is, in the view of the Consumer Ombudsman, a factual claim that must be substantiated at the time of the marketing execution.
Decision 6
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/78/14.08.01.05/2021 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to a television advertisement by the trader that created an impression of the company’s environmental friendliness and used expressions such as “kohti puhtaampaa maailmaa” (“towards a cleaner world” in English) and “puhdas energia ja kierrätys” (“clean energy and recycling” in English).
Assessment of the marketing
The overall impression created by the advertisement was misleading, as it presented too positive and one-sided a picture of the company’s environmental impacts.
Decision 7
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/76/14.08.01.05/2021 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to a claim regarding the climate impact of the trader’s new cottage cheese packaging. The cottage cheese packaging contained the claim ”Tällä kartonkikipolla on 60 % pienempi ilmastovaikutus kuin vanhalla muovisella purkilla” (“This cardboard cup has a 60% smaller climate impact than the old plastic container” in English). Additionally, the trader used the expression ”Uudella purkilla 60 % pienempi ilmastovaikutus” (“With the new container, 60% smaller climate impact” in English) in the marketing of the cottage cheese.
Assessment of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman concluded that the trader’s claim was misleading due to its lack of specificity, and the marketing was inappropriate under consumer protection law.
Decision 8
Consumer Ombudsman’s Decision KKV/77/14.08.01.05/2021 (in Finnish)
Content of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman drew attention to claims regarding the environmental impacts of the trader’s ground meat packaging. The Consumer Ombudsman evaluated the claim ”30 % pienempi hiilijalanjälki” (“30% smaller carbon footprint” in English) used in print advertising and the claim “50 % vähemmän muovia” (“50% less plastic” in English) printed on the ground meat packaging.
Assessment of the marketing
The Consumer Ombudsman concluded that the trader’s marketing did not provide false or misleading information about the environmental impacts of the ground meat packaging and that the trader had not acted contrary to consumer protection law.