(06/21/2013) green marketing around the globe · green marketing around the globe june 21, 2013 ......
TRANSCRIPT
Green Marketing Around the Globe
June 21, 2013 Kathryn Farrara, Unilever
Rebecca Griffith, National Advertising Division Felix Hoffer, Hofer Lösch Torricelli, Italy Laura Koss, Federal Trade Commission Wendy Reed, Heenan Blaikie, Canada
GreenPan #5519
GreenPan #5519
Marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims.
• Claim: “GreenPan products are healthy, eco-friendly and provide great
performance and convenience.”
• Message reasonably conveyed: GreenPan Thermolon cookware has far-reaching environmental benefits or that it has no negative environmental impact.
• No evidence in support of such a consumer takeaway.
• NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue its unqualified environmental benefit claims.
Background • Where information from? • 2013 Green Marketing Survey of Global Advertising Lawyers
Alliance (GALA) - 43 countries • ISO 14021 (“ISO”), ICC – 2010 Framework on Responsible
Environmental Marketing Communications • Not exhaustive! • Guidelines/laws - Europe, North America, some SE Asia
(Malaysia, Singapore), Australia, NZ, less so Latin America (Brazil, Costa Rica) or Africa (S. Africa)
• Most separate or appendices • Commonality - roots in ICC and ISO, but differences! • Activity ‘07 to ‘12 ≥ 19 countries – introduced or updated
General Claims
Claims Elsewhere Unqualified – “Green”, “Eco-Friendly” Discouraged everywhere Some places, OK if LCA v. other products in category Denmark – OK if LCA shows positive effect OR only limited
impact AND “significantly smaller” footprint (relativity) Norway: harms environment to significantly lower degree during
entire life cycle than all other products in category.
Qualified – “Green: 30% less CO2 emissions” STILL NOT PERMITTED sometimes Some car guidelines – Norway, Finland, Denmark Electricity, Energy for House Heating, Taxis – Norway Norway, Denmark: Top 1/3 when env’l impact compared
General Claims Denmark Company “XX Ecofruit” - no LCA of mfg process. (1995) •Grandfathering: If name longstanding and well-known, not misleading. “Eco coffin” (paper) – significantly smaller footprint over entire LCA than other products in category. Same in UK. UK “Be eco-smart. Choose Finnair’s brand new fleet.” Found tantamount to “env’ly friendly”; had to show little or no detrimental effect on environment. (2010) Ireland Unqualified “green cement” misleading even if lower CO2 emissions; insufficient evidence re environmental superiority (2012)
General Claims France SR Sustainable Development (“SD”) Recommendation (2009) – consolidated 3 recommendations: general, SD, cars – life cycle notion – support claim re each stage 1) Website - “the ecological apple” (2011) •H: assess impacts on all pillars of SD and stages of life cycle •insufficient information on website re actions of advertiser 2) Qualified Claim Not OK: Porsche: "Sportsmanship in the clean sense" •13% less oil consumption; 15% less CO2 emissions •Even if oil/CO2 claims accurate, misleading •"Clean" cannot be used when Porsche prices are subject to an eco surcharge
General Claims New Zealand 1) Ranger Rover Turbo Diesel V8 “Mean. But Green” (2007) •Justification: CO2 reduced 15% •+ carbon credits covering 3 yrs
2) July 2012 – called wood burning fire “environmentally friendly” – SR Code said absolute claims inappropriate; Note: 2013 – changed Code - allowed if full LCA
General Claims Romania Nat’l Authority for Consumer Protection clamp down on “ecological” claims November 2011 audit of cleaning services advertised as “ecological”, “ecologically safe”, “nature friendly” – misleading as no organic labelling criteria
General Claims
Spain (June 2011 – SR) • “Honda Accord” print ad – ecological and respectful engine.
Must give reason green
Sweden (May 2011 – Mkt Ct.) • Mercedes-Benz: “environmentally friendly” - newspaper ad. • Misleading – must improve environment or at least not harm
environment. • Mercedes: consumers would understand in relative sense.
GreenPan #5519 – Trade-Offs
- General environmental benefit claims may be qualified,
but if the claim conveys that a product is more environmentally beneficial overall because of the touted benefit,
marketers should analyze trade-offs.
• Message reasonably conveyed: “Eco-friendly” claims used in conjunction with “green imagery” convey that the product is more environmentally beneficial overall because of the touted benefits (PFOA-free, PTFE-free, no harmful fumes, and 60% less CO2 emissions).
• No evidence analyzing the trade-offs resulting from the specified
benefits to substantiate that the product is more environmentally beneficial overall than competing non-stick pans.
• NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue its
comparative qualified “eco-friendly” claims.
Trade-Offs Germany: Bio-Plastics, (raw mat’l, CO2, waste)
“New Environmentally Friendly Tub” (2011)
Life Cycle ISO, ICC: Claim - true for all relevant aspects of
product life cycle to identify potential for one impact to be increased in the process of decreasing another. (Unless specify stage).
Canada All environmental claims should “consider” the
entire life cycle of product to ensure net environmental benefit - not necessary to complete a full LCA (5.9)
Life Cycle Extraction of raw materials Production Product Use
Distribution Final Disposal
Canada “Bottled water is the most
environmentally responsible consumer product in the world…”
“Over the last 5 years, we’ve successfully reduced our plastic by 30%, paper labels by 20% and corrugate by 65%...” plus recycling
Complaint (Allegations only – not
adjudicated) “Cherry picks” recyclability and packaging reduction but omits harmful effects during life cycle – e.g.
- Use of oil to produce - Emissions in producing, transporting - Impact on landfills - Alleged taking water from drought-
stricken areas - Alleged track record of suppliers, etc.
Life Cycle Electric Cars “Zero Emission”? Renault
From next year, Renault will launch a range of zero emission vehicles to drive the car forward again.” •“For us, global warming goes beyond the emissions coming out of the exhaust. It’s an issue we address before, during and after manufacture.
BMW Concept ActiveE (2010) “100% JOY. 0% EMISSIONS” “…powered purely by electricity … and zero CO2 emissions
when driving”…
U.K. ExxonMobil – Algae Biofuels • Help “solve the GHG problem” by absorbing CO2 • BUT released when burned • Overstated total enviro impact
GreenPan #5519 – Sustainable
“Sustainable” may convey a wide range of meanings.
Marketers must substantiate any messages conveyed.
• Claim: “If we do not show our children the road to sustainability, nothing will change. Do not expect that the next generation will clean up our mess, we have to start ourselves right here, right now!”
• Language superimposed over images which imply a general environmental benefit.
• Message reasonably conveyed: GreenPan Thermolon cookware has broad environmental benefits.
• NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue this claim.
Sustainable ISO; ICC, paraphrased Flat Prohibition •“At this time there are no definitive methods for measuring sustainability or confirming its accomplishment. Therefore, no claim of achieving sustainability shall be made”
•2011 Amendment – ISO 14021: Unqualified claims of “sustainable” and “sustainability” shall not be used.
Sustainable Canada Sustainability…measurable only over a very long period. It is therefore very difficult to make a verifiable claim of sustainability at one point in time. How to support?
Life cycle analysis Don’t base on single attribute – Wood FSC certified, don’t say
“This wood is sustainable”. Not necessarily true. Say – was certified by sustainable forest management system
Sustainable Cases UK Cotton USA: "Soft, sensual and sustainable”. ASA: Misleading. → Pesticide, insecticide and water intensive; could
seriously deplete groundwater supplies. Impact of GMO strains? Shell Oil – Oil Sands (2008) : "The challenge …is to meet the
growing need for energy in ways that are… sustainable,” …harnessing our … expertise to unlock …vast Canadian oil sands deposit.
ASA: Implies oil sands projects sustainable. Evidence - Massive
environmental and social impacts Green Claims Guidance: avoid vague use of terms such as
'sustainable...”. Complex, no definitive measurement methods; only where reputable scheme with specific criteria
Sustainable Cases
Belgium Malaysian Palm Oil Council • “Sustainably produced” • Improved BUT …
GreenPan #5519 – Source Reduction
Marketers should qualify source reduction claims
to avoid deception about the amount of the source reduction and the basis for any comparison.
• Claim: “60% less CO2 emissions.”
• The 60% less CO2 emissions refers to an aggregate amount for all products sold worldwide, not to the CO2 savings in manufacturing each pan.
• NAD recommended that the advertiser more clearly qualify the claim to prevent consumer confusion regarding the actual amount of the source reduction.
• Advertiser also offered to modify the claim to specify that the reduction in CO2 emissions refers to one phase of production only, i.e., the “curing” of the Thermolon coating on the pan.
Source Reduction ISO, ICC, Canada •Separate provisions for reduced energy consumption, resource use, water consumption. •ALWAYS be qualified •% reduction •Strict comparative claim provisions •Product & packaging separately; never aggregate •State % of any increase in other resources •Evaluation methodology •Separate provision - “Waste Reduction”
GreenPan #5519 - Recyclable
Only when recycling facilities are available to a “substantial
majority” of consumers in communities where the item is sold, can marketers make unqualified recyclable claims.
• Claim: “Please recycle.”
• Message reasonably conveyed: Although advertiser intended the claim to refer solely to the paper packaging of the product, consumers could takeaway the message that GreenPan products themselves are recyclable.
• NAD recommended that claim be modified and that the advertiser
follow FTC guidelines in future marketing communications regarding the recyclability of its product packaging.
Recyclable Similar to US: identify product/ packaging. Difference - availability ISO, ICC – Conveniently available to “reasonable proportion” Canada - “reasonable proportion” ≥ 50% New Zealand - “most of New Zealand” Australia - Problem if “very few facilities”, “do not exist at all” or only “pilot plants” – though counsel says should be available to most Aussies
GreenPan #5519 – “Free of”
“Free-of” or “Does-not-contain” claims may be appropriate even if
trace amounts of the substance are present.
• Claim: “If you overheat your pan, even up to 450°C/850°F, no toxic fumes will be released . . . .”
• Advertiser’s testing showed that there were only traces (insignificant quantities) of certain gases and they do not pose any toxicological hazards.
• Challenger’s rebuttal evidence was not consumer relevant and did not address whether any of the chemicals detected were present in levels sufficient to cause material harm to consumers.
• Claim is substantiated.
Free Of Common trace contaminant (mfg impurity) or background level (naturally occurring) ISO, ICC and Canada less strict •US: might be restricted even if just trace – e.g. mercury ISO, ICC and Canada stricter No claim – if substance never associated with product – period – e.g. “Plasma TV is mercury-free” FTC – may claim if competitive category has it (LCD)?
GreenPan #5519 - Natural
Green Guides do not include specific guidance on “natural” claims. However, marketers must substantiate any messages conveyed.
• Claim: “Mineral materials are natural substances that are safe to use. The ceramic mineral materials that are used in Thermolon are the same materials used to make glass and pottery.”
• The sol-gel process which forms the Thermolon coating may start off with compounds that are found in nature (i.e. sand and carbon), but these materials undergo a chemical process which ultimately creates a synthetic compound.
• “Natural” claims are not supported where a product’s ingredients are derived from nature but chemically processed to make the final product.
• NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue this claim.
Organic and 100% natural
daniPro Nail Polish #5519
Organic and natural claims.
• Natural claims are reviewed in context to determine the reasonable consumer takeaway.
• NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue its organic and natural claims.
Natural Guidelines – e.g. Canada: Food; meat, poultry, fish S. Africa: Cosmetics Law – e.g. •S. Africa: Food •China: Food – certification •Mexico: Non-food (e.g. cosmetics) •Germany: Tobacco Cases – e.g. Germany: a) Bio-Tabak brand ≈ “natural”; b) “natural” for cosmetics where synthetic ingredients S. Africa – “Dettol Natural Soothing Soap” (2012), “Palmolive Naturals” (2004), “Natural Baby” (2005) – name v. claims
Organic • 33 / 43 countries surveyed – “organic” food • 2 – cosmetics; 6 – textiles • Guidelines – cosmetics, textiles - e.g. Denmark,
2011 • When challenges? No standard, non-
compliance or overstate benefits of organic
Organic Cases Ireland (2012): The Organic Supermarket - organic food was more nutritious and tasty, used no pesticides, nasty additives or drugs, and caused no environmental damage. •Only “no nasty additives” OK Romania: Nat’l Authority for Consumer Protection clamping down on “ecological” claims: •March 2012 audit showed over 60% “organic” products noncompliant or label inconsistencies – particularly re food. UK: “Little Me Organics” (2012): Boots website •No UK organic cosmetics standard •Others require 95% organic ingredients •Boots needs to disclaim organic claim!
Guidelines That Differ from U.S.
• Degradable • Compostable • Recyclable • Renewable Energy • Renewable Materials
Degradable No time period specified (FTC one year) ISO, ICC, Canada, UK: specify some
acceptable tests for degradability BTW: UK – DEFRA guidance on
biodegradable claims in Cleaning Products Sector (2003)
Renewable Energy, Materials
Renewable Energy US: Disclose type; qualify if fossil too ISO, Australia, New Zealand: Just % (not type)
Renewable Materials US: Disclose material, %, how renewable Elsewhere: Just %
Compostable, Recyclable
ISO, NZ, Australia, Canada, UK •Less strict – “reasonable proportion” •≥ 50% “conveniently” available France Advertising of recycled products - French Environment Code
Guidelines US Doesn’t Have
Guidelines US Doesn’t Have
Access to Information: Heads up Verification is central concept – allow access ISO: “Claims shall NOT be used if they can only be verified by confidential business information.“ (cl. 6.5.1)
Canada: Not so strict (cl. 8.3) OK if support is confidential / proprietary BUT… Should have TP audits to confirm data supports claim and give info to regulators on request
Require GMO Disclosure Non-EU European Union
• Belgium (duty of disclosure) • Czech Republic • Denmark • France • Germany • Greece • Ireland • Italy • Luxembourg • Norway • Poland • Portugal • Spain • Sweden
• Australia • New Zealand • Brazil • Colombia • Peru (not yet in force) • Mexico • Singapore • India • S. Africa • Zimbabwe • Russia • Switzerland • Ukraine • Turkey
GMO Products Forbidden Hungary
Guidelines US Doesn’t Have ISO 14021 / Canada
• Designed for Disassembly • Extended Life Product • Reduced Energy, Water Cons’n, Resource Use
Norway •Nix techniques that manipulate emotions/conscience •Top 1/3 - eco benefit touted •Future Plans: …will reduce CO2 by 5% every year for next 10 years – need specific plan for how (cl. 5.3) Finland Don’t suggest single purchase or planting trees compensates for impact
Product Specific Guidelines
UK: Cleaning Products, Aerosols, Decorative Coatings, Greeting Cards, Growing Media (peat) Norway •Taxis (2009) •Renewable Energy – Origin-G’teed (2007) •Home Heating (2009) •Various: Cars
Car Claims • Opel: “Environmentally friendly engines” • Peugeot: “...the .. environmentally friendly … turbodiesel
engine...” • Suzuki: “…environmental winner” • Smart: “… world’s most environmentally friendly … city car...” • Saab: “...environmentally friendly turbodiesel...” • Prius: “world’s most environmentally friendly car”
Car Cases IRELAND – Saab 9-3 BioPower – “Gives something back to nature” (runs on bioethanol) SWEDEN – Volvo S60 “cleans the air” from harmful ozone UK – Lexus: “Luxury car … better for the environment”
Car Guidelines Norway Finland UK Netherlands France Hungary
– Code for Passenger Cars – In ads, “acceleration and engine power shall not be used as arguments
to promote sales” (Art. 1) – “Terms which commend the car as an environmentally-friendly product
shall be avoided in advertising messages.” (Art. 3) – Don’t set as example environmentally unfriendly behaviour that is
avoidable - e.g. waste discarded in countryside (Art. 11)
UK: “Britain’s first carbon-neutral office paper”
Brazil: Ipiranga oil company’s Zero Carbon Credit Card
Carbon Neutral
Iceland: GreenQloud: “world’s first carbon-neutral cloud service”
Various: Carbon neutral companies
Google, TD Bank, HSBC and others
Carbon Neutral Guidelines
Carbon Neutral / Zero Guidelines • Australia 2008 • N.Z. 2009 • Norway 2009 • U.K. 2010 • Denmark 2011 • ISO 14021 2011
Carbon Neutral Guidelines 1. How to measure and verify
– Recognized methods: GHG Protocol, etc. – Neutral authorities calculate GHG
2. How allowed to neutralize? • Reduce emissions, use renewable energy, buy offsets 3. Must you reduce or OK to just purchase offsets? • UK – Must reduce; Norway – 2 yr plans; others –
reductions are encouraged 4. Rules re good quality offsets
– Similar to U.S.; some variations – e.g. re timing (U.S. – 2 yrs)
Carbon Neutral Guidelines 5. Disclosures in Ads ISO 14021, Australia, NZ, Norway:
Never “Carbon Neutral” on own ISO: say “product carbon footprint is 0” Which elements of business, LC and product or package offset? Details of offset scheme, where further info Norway: method of calculating GHG
Australia Every Saab is green.
With carbon emissions neutral across the entire Saab range…
Would plant trees to offset carbon from vehicle’s life.
Italy
• Ferrarelle Spa water • "Let's respect nature" • "The zero-impact product" • "We offset the CO2 released • in producing this packaging • by creating new forests."
Unusual Provisions
Norway (cl. 2.4) •“Techniques which manipulate consumers’ emotions or conscience may not be used in marketing….”
– e.g. “Drink coffee with a better conscience.” – “Think of the polar bears: buy energy-efficient insulation”
•Ethical Claims – e.g. re working conditions, child labour, etc. – “Fair tea …Make an ethical choice – buy Product X” – Must be documentable that product has significant ethical
superiority to equivalent products throughout entire life cycle. – If significant portion have equivalent or higher ethical standard, is
misleading – even if further explanation given.
Unusual Provisions Poland (April 2001): promotion shall not include any content promoting a pattern of consumption contrary to the principles of environmental protection and SD •in particular, the image of wild nature shall not be used to promote products and services having adverse impact on environment China: Responsible Advertising Code (April 2011) 12: Marketing communications should reflect the spirit of “green” marketing, and should not portray or encourage environmental pollution, ecological damage, and global climate deterioration. They should not directly or indirectly undermine efforts to promote energy conservation, emission reduction and innovation.
Different Results Shell (2007): FOE Challenges
Netherlands, UK – Not OK; Belgium OK
- No specific EU Directive on ‘environmental marketing’
- BUT strong regulatory focus on negative environmental impact related to a product’s:
Manufacturing process (energy consumption, packaging),
Use and life-cycle (emissions),
Waste management (recycling & end destination).
The EU Approach to Environmental Claims
Lack of a specific legal framework implies:
General principles on commercial comm'tion do apply: ►advertising readily & immediately recognizable as such,
►no misleading, false or untruthful messages on qualities and characteristics,
►claim substantiation always necessary,
►no encouragement of behaviour grossly prejudicial to environment,
►consumer information requirements to be fulfilled.
Sector specific provisions are relevant:
◘ Organic products ￭ Information requirements on components, labeling, packaging, ◘ Automotive products ￭Subject to specific indic'ons on fuel cons'tion & CO2 emissions, ◘ Household appliances ￭ Not complying with certain standards face sales ban, ◘ Non-biodegradable shoppers and incandescent light bulbs ￭ No longer on sale.
ICC Code
Code of Advertising & Marketing Communication Practice: All environmental marketing must:
cover product's entire life-cycle, be honest and truthful, be backed by reliable scientific evidence (if referring to technical demonstrations or scientific findings), offer (for superiority claims) accurate substantiation on existence of ‘significant advantages’, ascertain (for waste handling) that recommended methods are
generally accepted or conveniently available.
EU 2008 Action Plan + Other Accomplishments:
- ‘Ecolabel’ Regulation no. 66/2010 - ‘Eco-management & audit scheme (EMAS)’ Reg. no. 1221/2009 - Retail Code for Environmentally Sustainable Business (24-06-2010) by Euro Commerce & European Retail Round Table, - Reg. EC no. 1924/2006 (nutritional & health claims on food - 14/12/12) - Guiding Principles of the European Food SCP Round Table (2010) - Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) - Consultation (01/2012) on implem. Ecodesign & Energy Labelling Dir.s - Reg. EC no. 1223/2009 (cosmetic products) in force on July 11th, 2013 - EU Green Week initiative: Resource Efficiency-Using Less, Living Better
EU Commission reporting on UCP Directive's implementation feels *:
Green Claims such as 'eco-friendly', 'biodegradable', 'sustainable', 'natural':
Not used responsibly,
Frequently too general, vague and not well-defined,
Difficult to verify as to truthfulness of claims (in sectors such as: energy, cosmetics, cars, detergents)
* (Source: Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament ….. - COM (2013) – 138 final – Brussels 14/03/2013)
Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims
Report at European Consumer Summit (18/19-03-2013)
voices scepticism about claims with terms such as:
- environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, eco, - carbon neutral, low carbon, zero emissions, - green, sustainable, natural, energy efficient, - non-toxic, pollutant-free, clean,
and flags general agreement as to inappropriateness and misleading potential of such general terms.
Questions?