Double standards in environmental claims

This week the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned ads from Nike, Superdry and Lacoste for making misleading environmental claims. All three brands used broad terms like "sustainable materials" or "sustainable style" without providing sufficient evidence to back them up. The ASA ruled the claims were too absolute. When you say something is sustainable without qualification, consumers reasonably expect that to cover the product's entire lifecycle with no detrimental environmental impact. Even impressive improvements don't justify blanket statements. The devil is in the detail. Vague green claims don't cut it. Brands need specific, substantiated, evidence-backed statements about what they've actually achieved. This crackdown is actually good news for businesses doing the work properly. It levels the playing field. When greenwashing becomes harder, genuine sustainability efforts become more valuable. The path forward? 👉 Be specific about what you've improved. 👉 Show your data. 👉 Acknowledge where you're still working on solutions. Transparency and honesty build trust far better than broad marketing claims ever could.

ReportingZophrenia   The EU’s Omnibus Proposal was meant to simplify sustainability reporting and reduce bureaucratic burdens on companies. However, with 80% of companies being exempted from reporting, sector-specific standards eliminated, and voluntary reporting replacing structured mandates, what I am witnessing is a collective case of ESG Reporting Schizophrenia: A Fragmented, Conflicting, and Contradictory State of Regulatory Dissonance.   What was meant to reduce red tape is now creating more complexity, as companies, regulators, and investors scramble to redefine their expectations. 3 Sides of the Same Coin: 1️⃣ The Compliance Void   “Stop-the-clock”: If rules can be changed at any moment, how can businesses plan ESG investments with confidence?   Companies that have already invested in compliance may now regret their early adoption, while others delay indefinitely, waiting for the next regulatory idiosyncrasy. 2️⃣ The Double Standard of ESG Disclosures Companies are trapped between two conflicting systems: one regulatory, one market-driven. While regulators say “you don’t have to report”, financial markets still say “we need your ESG data”. ✔ Banks demand ESG data for lending decisions: SFDR, Green Taxonomy. ✔ Institutional investors still require sustainability metrics for fund allocation. ✔ Listed companies on Euronext, STOXX, must comply with ESG requirements.   Even companies exempt from CSRD will face indirect ESG disclosure pressure, leading to a two-tier ESG ecosystem 👉 those who report for compliance and those who report for investors.   3️⃣ The Unrealistic Split   The biggest paradox of this #ReportingZophrenia is that Leaders now face a Decision:   ❓ Maintain ESG transparency, satisfy investors, and future-proof for stricter regulations. ❓ Cut compliance costs, but risk losing access to green financing and investor confidence.   Market fragmentation where voluntary reporters are favored by investors while non-reporters face capital access risks. Some companies will embrace ESG reporting as a competitive advantage, others retreat into regulatory ambiguity.   The result: A regulatory landscape plagued by inconsistency, conflicting incentives, and market-driven ESG demands.   My general advice to Leaders Navigating this Reporting Schizophrenia: 👉  Align ESG disclosures with investor expectations, even if regulation allows them to "opt out". 👉 Stay ahead of future changes: monitor upcoming shifts in SFDR, ISSB, and Taxonomy reporting. 👉  Leverage AI-driven ESG automation to reduce compliance burdens while maintaining transparency.   Again: The EU may have relaxed the rules, but ESG transparency is no longer just about compliance. It’s about strategic positioning in a world where sustainability is increasingly linked to financial performance. Straight: Do you want to work for companies that profit from misfortune, would you buy from companies that take advantage of bad situations? Antonio Freire

Safeguarding Against Double Claiming in CORSIA 🌍✈️ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭’𝐬 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐬𝐞𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬? Ensuring the integrity of carbon credits under CORSIA is critical, and ICAO guidelines represent significant steps to avoid double claiming. This occurs when emissions reductions are counted more than once—both by the host country and the carbon credit buyer, leading to inflated carbon offset claims. To address this, ICAO's Technical Advisory Body has stipulated that project developers must be liable for replacing credits if a host country reneges on its commitment to avoid double claiming. This is achieved by applying a so-called corresponding adjustment (CA) under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. In theory, this means that project developers are held accountable for ensuring that any carbon credits they supply are not double counted. This adds an extra layer of responsibility to ensure the credibility of carbon markets under CORSIA…. but also an obvious burden on project developers. 🔒 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬? 𝟏. 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞: flag and potentially invalidate credits issued for CORSIA eligibility, in a situation that poses a risk of double counting. 𝟐. 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐩 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐬: request project proponents to compensate for the affected credits by cancelling an equal number of CORSIA’s eligible units. 𝟑. 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: require project developers to contract insurance, to compensate buyers if mitigation is inadvertently double-claimed. 𝟒. 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫: set up an insurance buffer pool to protect against any potential double claiming. 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬: 🛬 CORSIA’s Safeguards: The CA process ensures that carbon credits are not double-counted, securing the environmental integrity of the aviation sector. 🛬 Role of Host Countries: Host countries are responsible for attesting that carbon reductions are not double-claimed, reinforcing accountability in international climate agreements. 🛬 Ensuring Trust: These mechanisms bring transparency and confidence, ensuring that each carbon credit contributes directly to emissions reductions, rather than being an accounting loophole. 👉 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬: With these protections in place, airlines can confidently purchase carbon credits, knowing that their climate actions are genuine, measurable, and recognized globally. These safeguards make CORSIA a truly reliable tool to contribute to aviation’s decarbonization journey. 🔗 The future of carbon markets lies in transparency, and ICAO’s efforts to eliminate double claiming bring us one step closer to a trusted, credible system. What are your thoughts on the approaches being adopted?

🌍 Summary: Global Greenwashing Regulations for Southeast Asia Title of Report: Green Claims Guidance: A Summary of Global Greenwashing Regulations to Support Action Against Greenwashing in Southeast Asia By: RimbaWatch | Zero Greenwashing Alliance (2024) 🔎 Purpose: To offer a comprehensive, Southeast Asia-focused guide based on global greenwashing regulations, helping environmental groups, consumers, regulators, and corporations hold green claims accountable. 🛠 Methodology: Based on UNEP Guidelines (2017) and ISO Standards Reviewed 14 national regulations and advertising guidelines Benchmarked 9 available English regulations to create a consolidated guidance framework 🔧 Key Features of the Guidance: 3 Core Principles 14 Sub-Principles 51 Specific Clauses ✅ Core Principles 1. Reliability Claims must be accurate, substantiated, and based on clear evidence. Avoid vague terms like “green”, “eco-friendly” unless strongly supported. 2. Relevance Claims must represent entire lifecycle impacts, not cherry-picked improvements. Must disclose if environmental benefits depend on consumer behavior. 3. Specific Requirements Covers topics like: Recyclability & energy sources Carbon offsets & net-zero aspirations Comparative claims & misleading visuals Why It Matters: Greenwashing weakens environmental progress. This Guidance supports transparency, integrity, and accountability in corporate environmental messaging — a vital tool for Southeast Asia’s growing green movement. #planetaryhealth #planetaryboundaries #sustainability #ClimateAction #carbonfootprint #NetZero #netzero #ClimateEmergency #climatecrisis #climatejustice #ESG #GHG #greenwashing #GreenClaims #GreenMarketing #SDG #UNSDG #sustainablebrands #CorporateSustainability #climateleadership #transparency #responsiblebusiness #climatepolicy

In my latest column for the Hindu businessline, I delve into the emerging trend where Western countries advocate for free trade but subtly engage in protectionist practices under the guise of climate action. The narrative pushes developing nations towards open markets, yet the West doesn't hesitate to shield its own industries with measures like the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). CBAM, while promoting low-carbon products, inadvertently protects EU industries but challenges downstream sectors like automobile manufacturing, creating an internal market disparity. Similarly, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, with its local content mandates, has sparked a transatlantic dispute, highlighting the complexities of balancing climate goals with trade fairness. These actions reveal a strategic use of environmental concerns to justify economic protectionism, undermining the principles of free trade. When India introduced its Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative, it faced criticism for protectionism, showcasing a clear double standard by Western countries. Echoing John Maynard Keynes’ evolution towards national self-sufficiency, it's time for the West to be honest about its intentions. Wrapping protectionist policies in climate rhetoric does not fool anyone. Genuine progress requires transparent and fair trade practices that align with global environmental goals. #TradeDoubleStandards #WesternHypocrisy #EconomicNationalism #CBAM #InflationReductionAct #GlobalTradePolitics #FreeTradeFacade #EnvironmentalRhetoric

Rethinking "Progress": A Call for Sustainable Development If you deface a building, break a statue, or spray graffiti on a wall, it’s called vandalism—an act condemned and often penalized. But when forests are razed, rivers are polluted, and ecosystems are destroyed in the name of "development," it is labeled progress. Why the double standard? True progress should not come at the cost of nature’s destruction. Sustainable development means growing without erasing what sustains us. The economy and the environment are not rivals; they must coexist. We must redefine progress—where infrastructure and innovation thrive alongside nature, not at its expense. Every tree saved, every clean river protected, and every ecosystem preserved is a step toward a future where humanity and nature flourish together. It’s time to ask: Are we building a better world, or merely breaking the one we have? #Sustainability #ClimateAction #NatureConservation #RenewableEnergy #ESG #EnergyTransition

💸 Non-Certified Carbon Credits: The Cheap Option That Can Cost You Dearly In the #carbonmarket, many are tempted to go for the cheaper, “easier” non-certified credits. The promise? Offset your #emissions and look like a sustainable leader. But this apparent smart investment can quickly turn into a serious financial and reputational nightmare. 🔍⚠️What Are Non-Certified Carbon Credits? Non-certified credits are those that haven’t gone through the rigorous auditing processes of recognized standards like #GoldStandard, #Verra, or the #InternationalCarbonRegistry (ICR). Without certification, there’s no guarantee that the emission reductions are real, additional, or permanent. It’s like taking a risky shortcut: the chances of falling into a trap are high. 🛑 The Risks of “Cheap Turns Costly”: 1️⃣ #Credibility at Stake: Using non-certified credits casts a shadow over your company’s environmental claims. Today’s consumers are savvy and quick to call out fake green practices. One slip-up, and your entire corporate reputation could go down the drain. 📉🚫 2️⃣ #Greenwashing Risk: Buying low-quality credits might make it seem like you’re going green, but it can quickly land you in the greenwashing spotlight. Instead of being praised, your efforts could be dismissed as superficial. 🌱🧐 3️⃣ #Legal Uncertainty: Without proper certification, you risk purchasing credits that aren’t legally valid. If regulators discover the discrepancy, you may be forced to purchase new credits or face penalties. ⚖️💥 4️⃣ #DoubleCounting Hazard: Non-certified credits are more likely to be counted multiple times—meaning that the same credit is used by more than one company. This undermines the integrity of the market and creates the illusion of greater environmental progress than actually achieved. 🌍📉 How to Avoid This Trap? 🔍 Always Choose Certified Credits: Opt for credits certified by trusted bodies like Gold Standard, Verra, or ICR. These certifications ensure traceability and independent auditing throughout the credit’s lifecycle. 🔍 Conduct Independent Audits: If an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. A third-party audit can save you from a world of trouble down the road. 🔍 Check Credit Provenance: Use reliable registries like the Registry Offset Database from the University of Berkeley to confirm that the credit hasn’t been registered multiple times. Better safe than sorry! 🔒✅ In the carbon market, saving a few bucks now can end up costing a fortune later. Paying a bit more for a certified credit is an investment in your company’s reputation and ensures that your sustainability efforts are genuine and effective. 🌱💪 👉 Want to know more about choosing the right credits and avoiding market pitfalls? Comment below and let’s chat! 💬👇 #Sustainability #CarbonCredits #ESG #Greenwashing #EnvironmentalImpact #CarbonMarket #ClimateAction #CorporateResponsibility

Everything you need to know about the new EU law called Empowering Consumers Directive, which enters into force this year. The law has strong implications for fashion, electronics, and furniture brands, and the green claims, product information, and sustainability commitments they share. Timeline ⏰ - This new EU law must be transposed into national law by 27 March 2026. - It will become applicable for companies by 27 September 2026. Background 📋 The Directive revises the existing Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and Consumer Rights Directive by requiring companies to be more specific about product specific green claims, durability statements, and repair information. Further, the law informs how companies should communicate about their sustainability commitments. Green Claims (products) 👕 - Generic claims are banned, unless a company can demonstrate excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. Applies to claims such as "sustainable", “eco-friendly”, “green”, “climate friendly”, “responsible”, and similar vague terms. - Partially true or misleading claims are banned. You cannot claim environmental benefits for the whole product, if they only apply to one part. For example "made with recycled materials" claim when only the packaging is recycled. - Sustainability labels (e.g., quality marks) are prohibited unless issued by public authorities or are based on a “certification scheme” that is transparent, open to all, and subject to independent third-party verification. Green Claims (companies) 🏭 - Claims regarding company future performance (e.g., a 2030 pledge) are only permissible when there are clear, objective, public and verifiable commitments set out in a realistic implementation plan that indicates measurable and time-bound targets, which is regularly verified by an independent third-party. - Claims of “carbon neutrality” or similar variants are banned entirely if based on greenhouse gas emissions offsetting. - Similar to product-specific green claims, generic company-level statements (e.g., sustainable fashion brand) and partially true statements are forbidden. Durability claims 💪 - Prohibited to promote products with features that deliberately limit durability - Forbidden to hide known durability limiting qualities - Explicitly not allowed to claim a product lasts longer than it does - Mandatory to disclose duration and coverage of a commercial guarantee of durability (if offered), and a reminder of the legal guarantee of conformity (minimum 2 years) Repair claims 🧵 - If an EU-level reparability score exists, it must be disclosed - If no score exists, companies must provide: availability, estimated cost, and how to order spare parts; and availability of repair services, and repair restrictions. - It is prohibited to claim repairability if a product cannot be repaired -- In short: when making a claim you must scope the claim, prove it with facts, and explain it in a clear manner.

Green claims in packaging: under rising regulatory and enforcement scrutiny Sustainability has become a decisive factor for consumers. Packaging - the most visible part of a product - often carries claims such as “100% recyclable”, “carbon neutral” or “eco-friendly”. These can strengthen brand reputation - but when unsubstantiated, they expose companies to regulatory, legal and reputational risks. 🔎 A tightening EU framework The EU is reinforcing the rules on environmental marketing: • The amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) (applying from September 2026) will blacklist vague or misleading environmental claims, such as generic “green” statements or claims covering only part of a product. • The Green Claims Directive, initially designed to harmonise substantiation and certification, was withdrawn in June 2025, leaving businesses to navigate fragmented national enforcement. ⚖️ Packaging: opportunity and risk Each packaging material has its own sustainability paradox: • Glass - “infinitely recyclable” yet energy-intensive. • Metals - recyclable but resource-intensive. • Flexible plastics - lightweight yet hard to recycle. • Bio-based and compostable - often only in industrial conditions. • Reusable systems - promising but dependent on logistics and participation. Absolute claims like “sustainable” or “100% recyclable” risk being misleading if they ignore lifecycle impacts or local recycling realities. 🚨 Growing enforcement across Europe Authorities are stepping up action against greenwashing: • France (DGCCRF) - over 3,000 inspections (2023-24) found 15% of companies non-compliant, leading to hundreds of injunctions and fines. Issues included vague claims (“eco-responsible”), misuse of “upcycled”, and false certification. Third-party verification of environmental labels will be mandatory from 2026 under EU law. • Italy - the Competition Authority (AGCM) and self-regulatory body (IAP) continue to sanction generic or unsubstantiated claims, with fines reaching several million euros. • Multinational brands - H&M, Decathlon, Lavazza, and Keurig faced bans, fines or rewording of claims. Beverage packaging (“100% recycled”) and coffee pods (“home compostable”) were among the most scrutinised. Regulators increasingly expect life-cycle assessments, not selective positive messaging. 📌 Outlook • Consumer expectations and regulatory activism will intensify. • The UCPD amendment sets a new EU baseline, while enforcement remains decentralised and strict. • Without a harmonised Green Claims Directive, companies must anticipate divergent national practices. 💡 Key takeaway: Green claims in packaging are now a compliance priority. Businesses must move from slogans to transparent, evidence-based communication, or risk financial penalties, litigation, and reputational harm.

Is Your Business Truly Green? New Guidelines Aim to Separate Fact from Fiction With eco-friendly claims flooding the market, how can consumers (and businesses) tell who’s genuinely making a difference? New guidelines aim to tackle this issue, holding companies accountable to ensure their sustainability claims are real—and impactful. Here’s what your business needs to know to stay credible and compliant: Truth in Advertising Environmental claims now need to be fully accurate—even technically true claims can mislead if they paint an overly positive picture. Companies must assess their environmental impacts and ensure their messaging reflects the true benefits. Be Clear, Be Specific Vague claims like “green” or “eco-friendly” don’t cut it anymore. Your sustainability message should be clear and specific, with verifiable evidence. Consumers are demanding transparency, so keep it real. Full Life Cycle Disclosure Sustainability is more than one stage; it’s a full life cycle commitment. Claims should represent every part of a product’s journey, from production to disposal, ensuring nothing is hidden from view. Proof of Impact Consumers expect evidence they can access. Independent certifications or credible data are invaluable in proving that sustainability claims hold weight. Make your evidence accessible to strengthen consumer trust. Avoid Sweeping Statements Skip the broad claims, and focus on specific benefits or improvements. Consumers are savvy; they want to know the real, specific impact of your products. By adhering to these standards, businesses can create a powerful and genuine story around sustainability, moving beyond words to drive real change. Are you ready to align your business with these standards and foster true environmental responsibility? #Sustainability #GreenBusiness #Transparency