Often you can see products sold on store shelves, which are declared as “carbon neutral” or “environmental friends”. But these statements are not always clear or confirmed by evidence – and the courts force the companies to remove them.
Over the past three years, the non -fixed German organization Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Duh) has been in a wave of disputes against green washing, which does not allow more than 100 companies to advertise their products or business activities as a good environment. These include manufacturers of baths and shoes, as well as operators of the cruise and airline.
Agnes Saauter, which is responsible for supervision of the ecological market in DUH, says that companies are increasingly advertising their products and services with alleged environmental advantages, since consumers become more aware of the influence of things that they buy.
But accusations do not always resist a thorough examination. The study conducted in 2020 of the European Commission came to the conclusion that more than half of the EU ecological accusations were blurry, misleading or unreasonable and 40% were founded.
” Green washing This has become a growing problem that causes consumers in an error and prevents real progress in protecting the climate and sustainable use of resources, ”says the Sauer.
What companies were accused of green washing?
Despite the fact that since May 2022 he filed complaints about green washing, Duh strengthened his actions last year after the decision of the federal court (BGH) against Candy Company.
The court ruled that ambiguous terms, such as a “neutral climate”, which may mean that the company has effectively reduced its emissions or purchased Carbon compensation Manual – will be allowed only if they are correctly explained in advertising.
Only in recent months, Duh has encountered 20 companies about his accusations in advertising in accordance with German legislation against unfair competition, claiming that companies are absent or challenged to companies to show that the climate protection projects that they use to achieve neutrality can fulfill their promises.
Sauter says that the non -core organization considers himself a defender of consumers, “because the correct information about the quality of the product allows you to make reasonable purchase decisions.”
The judges understood. Last month, the Adidas sports articles were caused to not announce that it would become “neutral for the weather until 2050, because it did not clearly explain how it would reach this goal.
“Climate protection is becoming an increasingly important topic for consumers, dominating not only news, but also everyday life,” says the regional court of the colony. “Both the company’s advertising or its products with the alleged climate neutral may have a significant impact on the purchase decision.”
In his statement, Adidas claims that the decision refers exclusively to the “specific essay” on its web site, which was changed at the same time.
Promises of climatic neutrality can confuse or deceive consumers
Sauter states that advertising of companies that will be neutral from the point of view of CO2 or climate in the coming decades create the impression that they act in a stable and responsible way – but in most cases this is only a glaring mistake of consumers. ”
These measures are often formulated vaguely and difficult to check or even impossible. “These advertisements about advertising should be confirmed by a reliably and presented in an understandable way for consumers. In our opinion, everything else is a huge green soap and should be immediately interrupted. ”
Aviation group LufthansaThe headquarters in Germany was also banned by the regional court of the colony in March in the announcement that passengers could “compensate for” carbon emissions from their flights. Ads created a false impression that the payment will make a flight completely neutral in terms of carbon.
DUH previously received a similar legal victory, specially against the airline Eurowhich is controlled by Lufthansa. Lufthansa says he carefully analyzes the last solution.
Last year, the regional court of Hamburg satisfied the court lawsuit, washing, sealing against Shell Germany.
Duh argued that the ability to compensate for the supply of their cars with gasoline or diesel current gave customers an impressive impression that they could ride without any environmental impact, as this was done thanks to carbon loans from forest protection projects in Peru and Indonesia.
Shell Germany said that the decision forced her to stop CO2 compensation and stop selling Shell Helix bottles using the Neutral CO2 logo.
Similarly, the Karlsruhe regional court believed that the consumers were erroneous thanks to the advertising promise of the Tui Cruises cruise company that their cruise operations would be decirized by 2050.
Some of the accusations of DUH are aimed at specific products. After a successful trial, the chain of articles by Obi House was informed that it cannot advertise wall paint, such as “neutral in the weather”.
The lawsuit sends a “strong sign” to the green washing companies
Some of these cases are still appealing, and DUH will be on the guard to guarantee that any final decisions will be met. Duh applied a lawsuit that he earned in 2023 against the DM pharmacy chain for misleading consumers with the terms “neutral to the climate” and “neutral for the environment” in certain products.
When the company began to create new advertising with the new slogan “Acts Everally”, DuH began a new trial, until DM also agreed to stop its use.
Some of the judicial actions of DUH are still ongoing, and some may be appealed. But the Saauter says that most companies under the law threatened to remove specific advertising and made a statement that they would stop.
Among them are gas suppliers who traded in fossil gas, such as neutral green gas for climate, Bauhaus Group, which advertised a one -time mesh made of “100% natural materials” and Poco furniture stores, which sold a chair like “Friend Environment Friend”.
Sauter states that DUH had a “strong signal effect”, and that advertising with climatic neutrality, based on accusations of compensation, “quickly decreased”.
Regulatory authorities also suppress green washing in Europe
And the spirit has not ended yet. Recently, he sent letters about the termination and withdrawal of five companies, which, according to the spirit, announce environmental advantages, without providing information about them: Koti, from the beauty sector, from his “friendly” sunshine cream; Deichmann and Tchibo, from -s of shoes and clothes sold as “stable”; Brand Bricolage toom, from a laminate sold as “good for the environment”; and l’Oreal, from his “adherence to stability.”
The victory of the spirit is applied only directly to the activities of companies in Germany. But the Saauter indicates that the right to competition is regulated at the EU level, therefore, if the German court believes that the announcement is misleading, it is likely that the court of another EU country agrees.
The regulatory organs also fought with green washing. For example, advertising advertising in the field of UK standards has previously banned announcement Lufthansa To make unjustified allegations of climate. And both WING When his nearby colleague ordered Shell and his branches to remove advertising from green washing.
Currently, Duh is turning to the new Federal Government of Germany with a request to establish more clear rules and fines for fraud with consumers. The Federal Government of Germany is already obliged to adopt new community rules designed to allow consumers to the environmental transition. And in the future, probably, you will have to apply an account to Green washing, What should cover as accusations related to products and companies.
For Sauter, stability may not just be marketing maneuver and should lead to an effective improvement in product design. “In the end, honest climate protection and the environment is urgently necessary in the face of a climatic crisis and can be supported only by clear rules.”