Unmasking Greenwashing
Most often, greenwashing manifests itself by exaggerating claims about products eco-friendliness, misleading imagery, labels (text and imagery), or advertising. Companies present a facade of environmental responsibility without implementing meaningful changes to reduce their environmental impact.
This malpractice is widely spread across different areas, including biocides market.
Biocides are substances/mixtures designed to control, prevent the action of, or eliminate harmful microorganisms, such as bacteria, fungi, algae, rodents, insects and so on.
Given their potential environmental and health implications, greenwashing in this sector can be particularly concerning.
Here are some common tactics used in the greenwashing of biocidal products:
- Misleading Labels:
Companies may use terms like "natural," "organic," or "eco-friendly", “green” on their product labels, despite it being formally forbidden by Article 69 of the BPR. Some companies tried to circumvent these restrictions by naming the products with misleading names.
- Ambiguous Terminology:
Vague and unverifiable claims, such as "environmentally responsible" or "green," without providing concrete evidence or certifications, can be signs of greenwashing. True sustainability efforts should be transparent and backed by verifiable data.
- Selective Highlighting:
Greenwashing often involves emphasizing minor aspects of a product's formulation that may be environmentally friendly while downplaying or ignoring the broader ecological impact of the biocidal components. Incomplete Life Cycle Assessment:
Greenwashing may occur when companies focus solely on one part of the product's life cycle, such as raw material sourcing, while neglecting the environmental impact during manufacturing, use, or disposal.
The European Competent Authorities (CA) discussed these issues in March 2023 and the possible measures they could take to prevent greenwashing.
The European Competent Authorities (CA) discussed these issues in March 2023 and the possible measures they could take to prevent greenwashing.
This led to the publication of a CA document: CA-June23-Doc.4.9-Final.rev1 - Misleading terms in trade names.
The purpose of the document is to ban potentially misleading terms as prefix or suffix in the trade names of any biocidal product. In order to implement this decision, it was decided that:- the agreed approach is to be applied by Member States and the Commission to the ongoing applications for national authorisation and Union authorisation, respectively. Applicants will be requested to replace trade names containing potentially misleading terms. Where they fail to do so, the affected trade names will be removed from the SPC and authorisation to be granted (or the product will not be authorised if the trade name in question is the sole name included in the SPC).
- Where the company name or a specific technology developed by a company contains a potentially misleading term, this name may appear in the trade name, but as a whole not only as a part. In the case of the company “Ecolab” the name can appear if used in its entirety, not just as a part of it, like “Eco”.
- The agreed approach is to be applied to authorisations already granted under the BPR at the moment of their renewal or earlier, at the request of the applicant.
- The agreed approach may be applied to products made available on the market under the transitional rules. The market surveillance authorities should be informed of the approach agreed by competent authorities.
- The agreed approach will not apply to products made available on the market in accordance with the provisions of Article 55(1) of the BPR.
Term*
Exceptions**
1
‘bio’
‘biocide’/’biocidal’, ‘biofilm’
2
‘natur‘/ ‘nature’/ ‘natura’
‘denatured’ (and translations in EU languages)
3
‘organic’
4
‘eco’, ’ecological’
5
‘green’
- description of the colour (e.g. green liquid)
- PT 2 products: if ‘green’ is a reference to the target organism (green algae)
6
‘safe’
Some companies are changing their names using terms like "green," "organic," "natural," or "eco" in order to incorporate them in the names of their biocidal products. The purpose of this practice is to appeal to consumers who prioritize eco-friendly options.
However, such a strategy raises ethical concerns especially when the actual composition, or impact, of the biocidal products does not align with the implied environmental claims.
Misleading consumers through product names erode trust and undermine the integrity of labeling systems.
In summary, if companies are changing their names to incorporate eco-friendly terms into their biocidal products, regulatory authorities will likely monitor and regulate such practices to maintain transparency and protect consumers from potentially deceptive marketing tactics.
The document issued by the CA regarding misleading terms is not a legislative act and lacks legal binding. However, there exists a consensus among the competent authorities for biocides that these documents are typically adhered to.
In any case two European Directives will work together to support the fight to the greenwashing from a legal point of view:
- Empowering consumers for the green transition (text adopted by European Parliament on January the 17th, 2024. The directive aims to protect consumers from misleading marketing practices and help them make better purchasing choices. To achieve this, a number of problematic marketing habits related to greenwashing and the early obsolescence of goods will be added to the EU list of banned commercial practices.
o More accurate and reliable advertising: The new rules aim to make product labelling clearer and more trustworthy by banning the use of general environmental claims like “environmentally friendly”, “natural”, “biodegradable”, “climate neutral” or “eco” without proof.
o Durability: Another important objective of the new law is to put a focus on the durability of goods. In the future, guarantee information has to be more visible and a new, harmonised label will be created to give more prominence to goods with an extended guarantee period.
- Green claims Directive - It defines what kind of information companies must provide to justify their environmental marketing claims. It also creates a framework and deadlines for checking evidence and approving claims, and specifies what happens to non compliant companies.. The key objectives of the proposal on environmental claims are thus to:
o Increase the level of environmental protection and contribute to accelerating the green transition towards a circular, clean and climate neutral economy in the EU;
o Protect consumers and companies from greenwashing and enable consumers to contribute to accelerating the green transition by making informed purchasing decisions based on credible environmental claims and labels;
o Improve the legal certainty as regards environmental claims and the level playing fields on the internal market, boost the competitiveness of economic operators that make efforts to increase the environmental sustainability of their products and activities, and create cost saving opportunities for such operators that are trading across borders
In the past few days, the Internal Market and Environment committees adopted their position on the rules on how firms can validate their environmental marketing claims.
- Companies should submit any future environmental marketing claims for approval before using them.
- The claims would be assessed by accredited verifiers within 30 days, according to adopted text.
- Companies who break the rules may be excluded from procurements, lose their revenues and face a fine of at least at 4% of their annual turnover.- description of the colour (e.g. green liquid)
