How rampant greenwashing of food and drinks is poisoning the sector’s reputation
Analysis of climate claims being made by major food and drink producers concludes that greenwashing has become a ‘major business risk’ for the sector
Greenwashing is rife across food packaging and advertising, misleading consumers, undermining companies that are genuinely embracing sustainable practices, and putting investors at risk.
That is the stark conclusion of a major new report from the Changing Markets Foundation which assessed environmental claims made by a host of major food and drinks brands, including Nestle, Nespresso, Danone, Arla, Lidl, and Danish Crown and tested them against the Competition and Markets Authority’s anti-greenwash rules.
Published on the day the EU is set to publish its long-awaited rules governing environmental claims made by companies, the report argues that greenwashing has become a “major business risk, especially for investors” as public authorities prepare for an unprecedented clamp down on greenwashing.
During the course of its year-long investigation, 51 cases of greenwash were unearthed by researchers from the think tank. These ranged from misleading claims such as the use of terms such as “climate positive” or “carbon neutral” by companies with sizeable climate footprints and environmental claims that relate to only part of a company’s products or operations, to the use of language and images which wrongly suggest a product is nature friendly or comes from small family farms committed to high animal welfare standards.
For instance, the popular Cathedral City cheese from Saputo is marketed with images of cows grazing in green pastures, yet the cattle that produces the cheese are at least partially fed on soy that has been linked to deforestation of the Amazon, the researchers noted. Meanwhile, Jack Link’s is one of thousands of companies that badges up products as “Amazon Climate Pledge Friendly”, in reference to the retail giant’s initiative to encourage corporates to achieve net zero emissions by 2040. But the report argued that beef jerky has major climate impacts and is only included in the retail giant’s ‘climate friendly’ range because its packaging qualifies for its ‘Compact by Design’ certification scheme.
The most ubiquitous form of greenwashing criticised by the researchers, however, was the use of climate claims such as ‘carbon neutral’, ‘climate friendly’ and ‘net zero’ to describe products from firms with an outsized carbon footprint and plans to purchase offsets to meet goals. Some companies were also accused of using distant climate goals, some as late as 2050, to promote their green credentials, misleading consumers into thinking emissions cuts are occurring now. Some of these climate goals – for instance that of meat giant JBS – have not yet been validated by third-party bodies, such as the Science-Based Targets initiative, and have been found to have “very low” transparency and integrity by the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor.
“Greenwashing is rampant across the meat and dairy sector,” said Changing Markets Foundations campaigns director Nusa Urbancic. “It provides a veneer of sustainability for an industry that is responsible for a third of global methane emissions and is the main driver of biodiversity loss. Instead of peddling greenwash, governments must ensure meat and dairy companies reduce their climate footprint by setting binding targets for emissions cuts – including methane.”
The report stresses that companies could be profiting from greenwashing, noting that a “clear business opportunity” has opened up for “businesses to capitalise on people’s environmental concerns through greenwashing, without taking genuine positive action for the environment” as sustainability has become a top concern for food and drink shoppers. A survey from YouGov of more than 4,000 German and British adults found that one in 10 people put environmental concerns among the top three factors influencing purchasing decisions, while one in five rate animal welfare as priority.
BusinessGreen reached out to number of companies accused by Changing Markets Foundation of greenwash. At the time of going to press none had come back with a response.
Changing Markets Foundation warned investors are also major potential losers from the rise of greenwashing across consumer products, noting that authorities across various jurisdictions are preparing to start policing and penalising firms that overstate their environmental credentials.
The UK’s competition watchdog is currently undertaking a major probe of environmental claims made by ‘fast fashion’ brands and has earmarked the “fast-moving consumer goods” sector, which includes food, drink and toiletries, for its next investigation. In addition, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill currently making its way through Parliament will give the CMA powers to impose penalties on companies for flouting its Green Claims Guidance.
Pressure is simultaneously being applied to the UK’s advertising sector with the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice recently updating their rules on the use of climate neutral and net zero claims.
The EU is preparing a similar crackdown, with the bloc set to publish its much-delayed Green Claims Directive later today, which will outline rules on what types of environmental claims companies can make. “Companies have found extremely sophisticated ways to engage in greenwashing,” EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius told Politico this week. “We found that more than half of environmental claims we examined in the EU were vague, misleading or unfounded.”
Changing Markets Foundation has urged authorities around the world to take a robust approach to tackling greenwash. “Governments must act now to prevent consumers being duped into buying or paying more for products that don’t live up to their green hype,” said Nusa. “They must ban misleading terms such as ‘climate positive’ or ‘carbon neutral’, regulate offset schemes, and ensure green claims are backed by robust evidence and cover the full lifecycle of the products.”
Misleading green claims not only hurt consumers and the climate by providing a cover for companies to maintain low-ambition strategies, they also present a major risk to those businesses who are making the requisite investments to develop more sustainable products and processes. It is in their interest that forthcoming efforts to police misleading claims are effective, both to maintain consumer trust in integrity of companies green claims and ensure genuinely greenm solutions and services secure the attention they deserve from increasingly climate-savvy consumers.
