In more detail
The CCS Guide was developed following CCS’ growing concerns about potential greenwashing and provides that Quality-related Claims should be as follows:
- True and accurate (i.e., verified and updated, not misleading or exaggerating).
- Clear and easily understood by the reasonable and average consumer (i.e., with minimal jargon and vague or broad statements).
- Meaningful (i.e., focusing on product attributes rather than insignificant, standard or mandatory features).
- Accompanied by material information presented prominently (i.e., supported by necessary limitations and conditions).
- Supportable by evidence that is credible, updated and valid.
The CCS Guide also gives examples of disapproved claims, including false or misleading claims that may amount to an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003 (CPFTA). Some of these examples are based on actual enforcement actions taken in recent years. For instance, a supplier claiming that its induction cooker reaches a cooking temperature of up to 200 degrees Celsius when the actual temperature reached by the cooker is 150 degrees Celsius would be considered a false claim caught under the CPFTA.
Aside from obvious falsehoods, businesses should also carefully consider the overall impression of their product conveyed to the consumer. The CCS Guide refers to an investigated case where a supplier stated that its laptops under a particular product line had a screen refresh rate of “up to 144 Hz.” However, this was only true of the premium model in that product line and all other models were only able to achieve a screen refresh rate of up to 60 Hz.
Businesses should also strive to be more precise in their choice of words in a Quality-related Claim. For example, stipulating that a product is approved by an authority when it is only registered with an authority may also amount to a false claim under the CPFTA. Similarly, businesses should not claim that products are “certified” if the products were tested by third parties but not under a formal certification process.
The CCS Guide also highlights common greenwashing claims and practices that should be avoided. These are as follows:
- Repeating claims from upstream suppliers like “Choose Green” to indicate that certain goods are better for the environment without verifying these claims independently.
- Claims that products are “made out of recycled material” but only specific parts of the product are actually made out of recycled material.
- Claims that products are manufactured through proprietary environmentally friendly technologies like “environmentally sustainable Eco-soft Technology” without providing details on the production process and how it is better for the environment.
- Claims that products are greener choices due to “X% less packaging” without providing a clear basis of comparison.
- Claims that products are “biodegradable,” but the product is not biodegradable under circumstances of normal usage or only biodegradable under very specific conditions.
- Claims that the business is “committed to more sustainable sources” and printing these claims on products that do not actually use materials from such sustainable sources.
The release of the CCS Guide in the wake of a series of enforcement cases where businesses were found to have made false or misleading claims demonstrates the CCS’ increasing scrutiny of Quality-related Claims and unsubstantiated, inaccurate greenwashing claims.
Key takeaways
The publication of this CCS Guide follows through on the CCS’ previous announcement on creating guidelines to provide greater clarity on environmental claims. There has also been enforcement taken in relation to greenwashing-related marketing and advertising breaches in recent years, indicating the continued regulatory scrutiny and enforcement against errant greenwashing claims.
It is also important to note that the CCS is empowered under the CPFTA to investigate the use of misleading or false Quality-related Claims that may amount to unfair practices, and may also initiate court proceedings to restrict businesses from continuing such unfair practices or to make a declaration that the company is engaging in an unfair practice, and enter into a voluntary compliance agreement with the company, where the company would undertake not to engage in the unfair practice among other terms.
* * * * *
© 2025 Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow. All rights reserved. Baker & McKenzie. Wong & Leow is incorporated with limited liability and is a member firm of Baker & McKenzie International, a global law firm with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "principal" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
