— SUBSCRIBE TO SUSTAINABILITY UNCOVERED HERE —

For our fourth episode of the series – recorded from edie’s HQ in West Sussex – Luke, Matt and Sarah serve up three interviews, all connected by a jargon-busting theme.

We begin with a two-minute Net-Zero Jargon Buster – breaking down the need-to-know decarbonisation terms that have emerged over the past couple of years – before Matt speaks to Interface’s head of sustainability (EAAA) Jon Khoo to discuss the flooring manufacturer’s carbon-neutral aims.

Next, to mark Veganuary, Luke sits down with the Plant-based Food Alliance UK’s chief executive Marisa Heath who shares some eye-opening statistics about the environmental benefits of going meat-free and provides a clear call-to-action for the Government.

And last but not least, Sarah pays a visit to a pop-up regenerative fashion hub in Stratford, London, organised by The Textiles Circularity Centre at the Royal College of Art (RCA). There, she speaks with the RCA’s director of the Materials Science Research Centre Professor Sharon Baurley, who discusses what it will take to transition to a circular fashion economy.

And of course, no episode of Sustainability Uncovered would be complete without some sustainability small talk. The episode also sees the edie trio share their New Year’s Resolutions along with some film and TV suggestions to see you through the winter.

Never miss an episode

The Sustainability Uncovered podcast makes the big climate issues bite-sized, featuring live-in-the-studio guests, leader interviews, need-to-know round-ups, listener quizzes and more – all wrapped up into bi-weekly episodes. The podcast is hosted in association with Lloyds Bank, which has partnered with edie to showcase and support business leadership on sustainability and climate action.

Sustainability Uncovered is available to listen to on iTunes, Spotify, Google Podcasts and Soundcloud – or bookmark this page to see the full list of podcast episodes as they appear.

Have a question about this podcast or a suggestion for future episodes? Get in touch at [email protected].

The Code has been in the headlines this week, more than a year after launch, with the Authority confirming plans to broadly investigate the environmental claims made by fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) brands selling their products in the UK, including food, drink, toiletries and cleaning products.

FMCG was selected as the second sector of focus for the CMA, following the launch of a broad fashion investigation and, subsequently, a more in-depth investigation into fast fashion brands Asos, Boohoo and George at Asda last year.

The Authority stated that it is important to address greenwashing by FMCG brands as most members of the public spend a significant amount of money on these products and purchase from these categories frequently. Moreover, environmental claims are becoming extremely prevalent on FMCG packaging, with the CMA’s initial work finding claims on 91% of dishwashing products and virtually all toilet products.

Off the back of this week’s announcement, the CMA’s director of consumer protection Cecilia Parker-Aranha speaks exclusively with edie to answer some frequently asked questions about the code.

What, exactly, is in the Green Claims Code?

The Green Claims Code is a list of six key principles designed to prevent businesses from making misleading environmental claims about their products and services. These state that claims must:

• Be truthful and accurate
• Be clear and unambiguous
• Not omit or hide important/relevant information
• Be fair and meaningful, if they include comparisons
• Consider the full life-cycle
• Be substantiated

The code applies in the UK only. The Government has produced additional resources including a video, claims checker and quiz, which can be accessed here.

If you are found to break the Code, what happens next?

Parker-Aranha explains that, for the CMA to investigate a particular business’s claims to assess compliance with the Code, it will first need to issue a letter of consultation. It has only done this for three businesses so far – Asos, Boohoo and George at Asda. Once the business responds, the CMA announces the investigation publicly.

As the investigation concludes, the CMA has the power to order the business to make recommended changes to its messaging on a voluntary basis. Should the business fail to do so, the CMA can begin litigation. There is the ultimate risk of ending up in court and, by extension, fines and reputational damages. The CMA will announce any litigation action publicly.

“The idea is that you do a small number of enforcement cases but you actually drive compliance across the sector,” Parker-Aranha says.

“We’ve seen this in other sectors in the past; we’ve taken action against the biggest, the sector leader, and then used that to drive change with smaller businesses. It has been quite successful of making sure there’s a level playing field.”

Businesses not being investigated by the CMA will not have litigation started against them by the Authority. However, other organisations or individuals may look to hold them accountable through other channels.

There have been several instances whereby brands have had advertisements banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) over the past year, for example. The ASA has banned a campaign from HSBC which it believes to omit important information on fossil fuel finance; a TV advert from Innocent Drinks which led some shoppers to believe the business already had a net-positive environmental impact and a Persil advert vaguely claiming that the detergent was ‘kinder to the planet’.

Where do businesses usually fall foul of the Code?

From the ongoing investigation in the fashion sector, Parker-Arhana identifies “some common themes” in the kinds of claims which raise cause for concern.

She says: “One is using very vague language that consumers aren’t necessarily going to fully understand.

“The other challenge, I think, for businesses, is that they can focus on a very narrow part of what they’re doing – a part of the supply chain or a [proportion] of the materials they are using – and make a claim that leads to the consumer thinking that the whole product is not damaging to the environment.

“We’ve also seen businesses that are maybe being a bit too enthusiastic in what they are promoting. They’re not deliberately trying to do the wrong thing, but they are perhaps pushing a particular message that gives the overall impression that everything they’re doing is great, when, actually, it makes up quite a small part of their business. They’re not telling the full story about the product.”

So, in summary, the most common issues are vague claims, overstated claims and language which is not clear to consumers.

How can you avoid these pitfalls?

Parker-Arhana admits that being specific enough without veering into jargon territory or providing information beyond the level all consumers want to see “is a tricky line for businesses to walk”.

She recommends avoiding technical terms and instead being specific about what the claim relates to. For example, instead of calling a bottle “eco” or “circular”, you may want to highlight its use of recycled materials.

If you claim that your plastic bottle is 100% recycled when this relates just to the main piece of the packaging, and not the smaller components, this would fall foul of the Code. You could instead say “100% recycled, excluding wrapper and cap”. If the bottle contains a proportion of recycled plastic, you could claim “includes recycled plastic”, but simply “recycled” may be too vague and give the impression it was 100% recycled.

Regarding the impression that claims give, Parker-Arhana recommends always getting a second opinion. She says: “Testing with your customers to see what they understand… is really crucial. Obviously, bigger businesses have an easier time in doing that. But even a quick sense check to see what people would take away from a certain claim, how they would understand it, is important.”

The most important thing to do, in any case, is to ensure that you have evidence to back up any claim. Parker-Arhana stated that, during work to date, the CMA has seen the same claim made in two cases, but only one case being greenwashing. This is because the first business had up-to-date, good-quality data to support its claim while the second did not.

Is ‘greenhushing’ the answer to compliance with the Code?

To avoid greenwashing accusations, some brands and businesses may feel compelled not to communicate as much about their environmental plans, instead sitting quietly on the information they have – or don’t have. This practice is known as ‘greenhushing’. There were reports that, after the CMA launched its work in fashion, some brands quietly scaled back their product labelling and filtering options relating to the environment. One piece of research conducted post-Code-launch found that half of UK-based marketing workers feared greenwashing.

Parker-Arhana explains that the CMA is by no means promoting greenhushing in implementing the Code: “One of the reasons we produced [this] was to give businesses the confidence to tell their sustainability story. We certainly don’t want businesses not to talk about this, because that’s not good for consumers.

“If consumers are deciding where to shop and environmental sustainability is important to them, we don’t want them choosing the company that has greenwashed to the disadvantage of the one that is telling the truth.

“I want businesses to understand that we’re not just out to get them. We are trying to make sure that consumers get the information they need, and that businesses trying to do the right thing and really working on their own sustainability… have the confidence to tell their customers about it.”

Parker-Arhana concludes that brands should not feel the need to greenhush, so long as they have evidence to back up their claims and have confidence that consumers will understand their claims.

Are there any plans to revise the Code?

“The Code was designed to be high-level, principles-based, and, to some extent, future-proofed,” Parker-Arhana explains.

Revisions may be prompted by future changes to consumer law but is impossible to say if and when this will happen at this stage.

However, Parker-Arhana does highlight that the CMA wants to provide more information – including more specific and detailed information – to businesses. “One thing we’re really conscious of is that as we progress through these different investigations and reviews, we are learning more and more about what is necessary within particular sectors,” she says. “We will reflect on what we can make available to businesses that will help them. “

This should hopefully be beneficial to all but especially to smaller businesses that may not have the ability to hire consultants or add in-house specialists in this field.

Hear more from the CMA at edie 23

Taking place in London on 1-2 March 2023, edie’s biggest annual event has undergone a major revamp to become edie 23, with a new name, new venue, multiple new content streams and myriad innovative event features and networking opportunities.

edie 23 will take place at the state-of-the-art 133 Houndsditch conference venue in central London. Held over two floors, the event will offer up two full days of keynotes, panels, best-practice case studies and audience-led discussions across three themed stages – Strategy, Net-Zero and Action.

Click here for full information and to book your ticket.

The CMA’s Cecilia Parker-Aranha will be speaking on Day 2 of edie23 ( March 2) during a fireside chat on ‘greenwash vs greenhush: Striking the right balance with your sustainability communications’. This session will be chaired by Natura & Co’s global director of advocacy Charmian Love.

The High Level Expert Group on Net Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities was set up by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in March 2022 in order to develop stronger standards and scrutiny of net-zero pledges from non-state entities such as businesses, investors, cities and regions.

At COP27, the High Level Expert Group outlined a new set of key recommendations to help these entities develop and deliver net-zero targets credibly, avoiding common greenwashing pitfalls.

The new report aims to build on the Race to Zero and Science Based Targets initiative by providing corporates and investors with time-based frameworks to deliver net-zero, based on short, medium and long-term targets.

The report offers steps to avoid greenwashing and recommends that non-state actors should no longer claim to be net-zero if they continuously build or invest in new fossil fuel supply, support deforestation and other environmentally destructive activities that should be branded as “disqualifying”.

Additionally, firms should avoid purchasing cheap carbon credits instead of reducing emissions. The report does state that “high-quality” carbon credits can be used, but only to balance out remaining emissions once short and medium-term science-based targets have been met.

Organisations should stop focusing on reducing the intensity of emissions, rather than absolute measurements across the value chain.

Finally, entities should stop lobbying or associating with groups that attempt to undermine government climate policies, namely through trade associations. Instead, the report calls that organisations align their advocacy and governance with their climate commitments. This would include linking executive compensation to climate action and proven results.

While the UN report is focused specifically on net-zero strategies and the potential of greenwash around decarbonisation claims, the main recommendations can be broadly applied to other areas of the ESG spectrum, especially in relation to resources, time-bound targets and association groups and links to investors.

Transparency and accountability

We may only be one month into 2023, but already greenwashing – and its many-headed variants – are dominating discussions on corporate sustainability. The term “greenhushing” is rising in prominence – read edie’s explainer here – while a recent report from Planet Tracker has listed six different types of “sophisticated” greenwashing that corporates could fall foul of.

Fortunately, the High Level Group’s report offers some great insight into how corporates can navigate the various types of greenwash. Unsurprisingly, transparency, accountability and data are key.

One of the key recommendations listed in the new report is that of “increasing transparency and accountability”, a section that can be used by corporates to help shape approaches to disclosure, engagement and communications.

The UN report notes that businesses that are able to generate “clear, accessible, comparable data” on their sustainability claims and targets can deliver “enormous benefits”. Benefits include better trust and interactions with consumers and investors as well as highlighting where faster progress on the delivery of sustainability targets can be delivered for other businesses, enabling firms to share best practice, forge new partnerships and drive change across entire sectors. The UN also notes that improving transparency and accountability on sustainability targets will help create “ambition loops” with regulators to help identify what solutions are still needed.

Generating clear, accessible, comparable data can bring enormous benefits. Leading entities will be able to credibly demonstrate their progress to net-zero. Citizens, consumers and investors will be able to reward them accordingly. Barriers to faster progress will also be identified more quickly, creating a shared understanding of what solutions are needed and creating an “ambition loop” with regulators.

There are specific recommendations listed in the UN report to improve transparency and accountability, these include annually disclosing relevant data based on targets and plans to progress toward said targets. The UN also recommends including comparable data to enable effective tracking of progress towards net-zero targets.

The report also calls for corporates to report in a “standardised, open format and via public platforms” that are verified by third parties.

The report also notes that businesses should “seek independent evaluation of their annual progress reporting and disclosures” as well as evaluating the metrics and types of targets being used, as well as what internal controls have been set up to help achieve them.

One final recommendation listed in the accountability section of the report is for businesses to work with policymakers and standard-setters to align and implement schemes for standardised reporting to ensure comparability. If this can be achieved, stakeholders will have access to standardised and comparable data across businesses, making it easier to spot cases of greenwash also to identify the best-performing organisations across sectors.

Regulatory response

As cases of greenwashing increase, so does the likelihood that investors and regulators attempt to stamp it out.

In the UK, certain businesses are now mandated to report in alignment with the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) requirements. The aim of the mandate is to increase climate-related engagement between investors and the companies they invest in. Until now, non-unified climate disclosures have made it challenging for investors to truly measure their exposure to climate risk. Another benefit is that, in measuring their climate impact, risks and opportunities, businesses may well be compelled to increase their environmental ambitions and accelerate actions. For businesses, this may come with operational cost savings and cost savings in terms of avoided risks.

More recently, the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) floated the idea of “double materiality”, whereby organisations not only report the material impacts they have on environment and society, but also the material impacts of sustainability and accompanying requirements and regulations on that organisation. Then there are the draft proposals from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the UK Transition Plan Taskforce that, in the words of CDP, are “catalysing climate-related disclosures”.

Additionally, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced in 2022 that it will undertake its first official investigation into greenwashing, with an initial focus on fashion. Brands found to be flouting its Green Claims Code could face fines and other penalties.

The CMA will assess claims made online and in-store, including on-pack labelling and other marketing. Claims will be assessed against the Authority’s ‘Green Claims Code’ – a set of 13 guidelines for businesses and brands with consumer-facing products and services. Issues covered by the code include ensuring the accuracy and clarity of claims; not omitting important information and enabling ‘fair and meaningful’ comparison.

As well as exploring and understanding the various regulatory frameworks around communications for net-zero targets and sustainability claims, it would serve businesses well to remind themselves of the recommendations of the UN’s landmark report, using them as a collective North Star to ensure targets are backed by credibility.

Sustainability Communications and Disclosure Handbook

This feature forms part of edie’s new Sustainability Communications and Disclosure Handbook.

In partnership with UL Solutions, edie has published a new downloadable handbook on sustainability communications and disclosures, appropriate for organisations of all sizes and sectors.

The handbook is free to download and has been published as part of edie’s Engagement Week 2023 (23 – 27 January) – a week of exclusive articles, interviews, reports and events all dedicated to the theme of sustainability communications and combatting greenwash.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE HANDBOOK

One engagement-related recommendation is the implementation of standardized environmental labelling on as many product categories as possible by 2025. This includes ecolabels on things like lightbulbs, which the Government is keen on, and on consumer goods including food and drink. Skidmore noted that agriculture’s share of UK emissions is set to grow to 30% by 2030 without intervention, including changes to our diets.

Some British businesses are already ahead of the curve. Broadcaster Sky announced this week that it will roll out carbon labelling at all 29 of its staff restaurants and café’s across all 15 of its UK sites. Collectively, these sites host around 25,000 employees – and it is Sky’s hope that the change will encourage them to choose more sustainable options by clearly signposting what, exactly, these are.

While there are not many corporates providing carbon labels on staff meals, the practice of carbon labelling is becoming increasingly popular for catering firms with contracts with some of the UK’s most popular sports and music events and tourist attractions, like Benugo and Compass Group.

Carbon Labelling is also starting to catch on at some restaurants, like Wahaca, and, perhaps to a greater extent, with some of the packaged food and drink you can purchase at supermarkets.

You may have seen a carbon label on Flora or Proactiv spreads; vegan or vegetarian products from Quorn Foods or cartons of Oatly’s plant-based milk alternatives.

Indeed, there seems to be something of a second wind for labelling on groceries after a largely failed movement a decade ago. You may remember seeing some ecolabels in Tesco between 2008 and 2012 before the supermarket dropped plans for labelling all own-brand lines, citing the sheer amount of legwork. Now, the mantle has been taken up by third-party brands.

A new generation of first movers

Oatly, the company’s head of sustainability for the UK and Benelux region Shaunagh Duncan tells edie, first started adding carbon labels to packaging in 2018 and chose Europe rather than the US as its first market.

Explaining the brand’s willingness to add labels in the absence of regulation and legislation – and, therefore, a standardized way to display carbon – she says: “Consumers have the right to this information, just like they do to price information, calories, nutrition and so on.”

The Carbon Trust has found that two-thirds of shoppers in Europe either actively want carbon information on products, or think it would be a generally good idea.

Duncan adds: “We don’t have time to wait around for the market to agree on a way to do this – it’s clear this will take a very long time. We wanted to get going. We knew we weren’t going to get it right first time.”

It can be hard to know how to ‘get it right’ when carbon calculation itself is something of, as Duncan calls it, an “imperfect science”. Imperfection can lie in a lack of supply chain visibility, leading to a reliance on industry average figures, for example.

Add data challenges to the lack of standardisation and it can be hard for brands to know where to start. But, as Duncan says, some just want to get started.

Oatly has opted to label packaging with the total absolute carbon footprint of the whole carton. The company works with Carbon Cloud to calculate this footprint at least once every two years, or more frequently if there has been a “substantial” change in the value chain, such as a factory move, a change in transport plans or the installation of new technologies which reduce emissions.

This is a resource-intensive process and has been coupled with extensive external engagement work with other brands and with policymakers. “These numbers mean nothing unless consumers have something to compare them with,” Duncan says, explaining Oatly’s drive to get more brands to follow in its footsteps – whether on a voluntary or mandatory basis.

The brand has been running a ‘show us your numbers’ campaign in Germany, getting customers to sign a petition asking for mandatory and standardised carbon labelling. More than 50,000 signed and Oatly representatives are set for meetings in Berlin this year.

Duncan emphasises that now could be a key moment in which to get this message through across the EU. The European Commission is pushing ahead with mandatory labels detailing ‘Product Environmental Footprint’ on a range of goods, including food. The labels would detail the lifecycle impact of a product or business across the value chain. As expected, a range of industries have vested interests in how this labelling scheme would work. Duncan has witnessed the dairy and meat sectors lobbing for a carbon intensity label linked to calories or protein, rather than an absolute carbon label. Oatly is, as expected, pushing back against this.

Beyond engaging policymakers at this key moment, ‘show us your numbers’ also served as a “call to arms” for other brands, Duncan adds. Policymakers are doubtless looking to brands to measure appetite for labelling at all, and to assess best-practice in what kind of information labels should convey and how.

Sharing the message, sharing the knowledge

Another drinks producer carbon labelling its products – and advocating for industry peers to do the same – is energy drink challenger Tenzing.

Tenzing was founded in 2016 by Huib Van Bockel, who tells edie that “sustainability has always been at the core of its products and brands” but that it did not have the resources to carbon label from the get-go.

Van Bockel says: “As soon as we got bigger and had more money to spend, we went further and further. We started carbon labelling in 2021.”

Unlike Oatly, Tenzing does not label the absolute carbon footprint per unit of packaged drink. It has opted, instead, to convey the absolute carbon footprint per kilogram “from crop to can”, as Van Bockel puts it. Tenzing uses a third party, Carbon Cloud, to calculate its emissions. There is more information on which ingredients and value chain stages contribute to Tenzing products on a special website powered by Carbon Cloud, for extra-curious consumers.

But, like Oatly, Tenzing’s staff are passionate about getting other brands to carbon label. Just months after it launched its own carbon labels, it hosted a pop-up shop in London along with other first movers in this space.

Given that the pop-up ran through November and the aim was to raise awareness of this topic, Van Bockel’s team called the event ‘Knowvember’. For 2022, Knowvember was evolved from a shop to a summit, also in London, plus a month-long online campaign.

Van Bockel explains: “At the end of the day, I think most people do want to make sustainable choices. At the moment, bar going vegan or not flying – these are two big things people often talk about – there is confusion on what to do. There are loads of differences between the carbon footprints of different products [in the same categories]. People have no way of knowing what these differences are.

“Changing this is why we launched Knowvember. We want to make carbon labelling a thing that everyone should do.

“Companies should take full responsibility and then give customers the chance to choose based on this. I think many are shying away, they are too scared to be transparent about their footprint.”

We know, though, that moral imperative or even following an industry trend will not compel all brands to act. Van Bockel is, therefore, in favour of government intervention for mandatory labelling to “give people the choice, meaningfully”.

“It should not be that difficult for the Government to say ‘everyone has to carbon label within two years’, for instance,” he says, comparing the carbon labelling movement at present to the early days of calorie labelling which is “arguably more complex”. There, people want to know calories from fat, carbohydrate, and so on.

Oatly’s Duncan is perhaps a little more cynical on timeframes. “Sometimes you have to submit artwork as much as three years ahead before you end up with products in that packaging,” she notes. “Add onto that actually calculating the numbers, and it’s a long process.”

Beyond the complexities of work behind-the-scenes at brands, she also points to weak policy appetite in the UK.

“Defra seemed to be interested but previously looked into this and said they weren’t going to do it,” Duncan says.

Only time will tell whether minds in Whitehall will be swayed by Skidmore’s Net-Zero Review recommendation. The UK Government technically has until the end of March to update its Net-Zero Strategy, as ordered by the High Court. It is likely to respond to the Review before this update is published.

To help make that change happen, from the top, we have been hosting a series of quarterly roundtable discussions in London, supported by a range of partners.

The last of these discussions took place late last year, with a focus on engagement, inspiration and collaboration. You can see more information about that event here.

With all four roundtables complete, this article rounds up the key takeaways and where you can access more in-depth information via free-to-download summaries.

Roundtable one: Purpose, Culture & Impact

Our inaugural discussion of the series focused on purpose, culture and impact. How can business be a force for good in the world and for ourselves? How can business leaders build a company culture which balances purpose and profit? And how can we have a more positive impact on our workers, customers, suppliers, community, and the environment?

These questions and more were put to leaders in September 2021, at a roundtable chaired by Ben Kellard, Director of Business Strategy at the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL). This roundtable was sponsored by Centrica Business Solutions.

Read the resulting takeaways in the summary. Download your copy here.

Roundtable two: Business Models, Systems Change & Sustainable Growth

Our second Better Business Roundtable took the theme of systems change, with 15 UK-based business leaders convening for a discussion on systems change. This roundtable was sponsored by Centrica Business Solutions and it was hosted in March 2022.

With the very concept of sustainable growth being questioned and debates relating to both degrowth and to ‘green growth’ for levelling up becoming more mainstream, participants spoke of the need for a new leadership style to ‘change the very essence of capitalism’.

Read about what that leadership style could look like in the resulting summary. Download your copy here.

Roundtable three: Ambition, Action & Advocacy

In association with Inspired PLC, edie hosted the third Better Business Roundtable in May 2022. Our expert chair for this session was Mike Barry, famed sustainability speaker best-known for his tenure at Marks & Spencer.

Barry asked attendees: With the global transition to net-zero underway and the need for sustainable development widely recognised, what would a truly ambitious corporate approach be? How can ambitions be turned into meaningful action at the necessary pace and scale? And how should businesses engage with policymakers and the general public throughout?

All of these questions and more are explored and answered in the resulting summary. Download your copy here.

Roundtable four: Engagement, Inspiration & Collaboration

Hosted in October 2022, this session was hosted in association with sponsor Centrica Business Solutions. edie’s senior reporter Sarah George acted as session chair.

During this session, leaders asked: How can business leaders use their influential positions to drive positive engagement with key stakeholders around climate action? What decisions can be made to foster a culture of sustainability leadership within business? And how can new partnerships be formed within and between sectors to maximise impact?

All of these questions and more are explored and answered in the summary. Download your copy here.

The CMA’s first sector-specific investigation into greenwashing – a term used to refer to the use of potentially misleading claims about a product or company’s environmental impact – concerned the fashion sector. The Authority conducted a broad analysis of claims across the sector before launching more targeted analysis of the claims made by Asos, Boohoo and George at Asda last summer.

It is extending its work to FMCG after receiving and collecting evidence that a “significant” majority of household products in selected categories are marketed as ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly’ in some way, with up to 91% of dishwashing products and virtually all toilet products sold in the UK having at least one environmental claim on the packaging. The CMA believes that there could well be greenwashing at work within some of these claims.

Additionally, the CMA has stated that it is important to address greenwashing by FMCG brands as most members of the public spend a significant amount of money on these products and purchase from these categories frequently.

“These products are the essentials on everyone’s shopping lists: food and drink, shampoo, laundry detergent, toothpaste, cleaning products,” said CMA chief executive Sarah Cardell.

“As more people than ever try to do their bit to help protect the environment, we’re concerned many shoppers are being misled and potentially even paying a premium for products that aren’t what they seem, especially at a time when the cost of living continues to rise.”

Regarding the next steps, the Authority has stated that “how the review develops will depend on the CMA’s assessment of the evidence before it.”

The statement elaborates: “If the CMA uncovers evidence suggesting green claims could be unfounded, it will consider taking enforcement action using its formal powers – for example, opening an investigation into specific companies.”

The CMA will assess claims made online and in-store, including on-pack labelling and other marketing. Claims will be assessed against the Authority’s ‘Green Claims Code’ – a set of 13 guidelines for businesses and brands with consumer-facing products and services. Issues covered by the code include ensuring the accuracy and clarity of claims; not omitting important information and enabling ‘fair and meaningful’ comparison.

Companies found to be falling foul of the Code may be subject to investigation by the CMA. The Authority has the power to implore companies to draw up plans to change the way they operate and report on progress in this field. It can also take brands to court.

Hear more from the CMA at edie 23

Taking place in London on 1-2 March 2023, edie’s biggest annual event has undergone a major revamp to become edie 23, with a new name, new venue, multiple new content streams and myriad innovative event features and networking opportunities.

edie 23 will take place at the state-of-the-art 133 Houndsditch conference venue in central London. Held over two floors, the event will offer up two full days of keynotes, panels, best-practice case studies and audience-led discussions across three themed stages – Strategy, Net-Zero and Action.

Click here for full information and to book your ticket.

The CMA’s director of consumer protection, Cecilia Parker-Aranha, will be speaking on Day 2 of edie23 (2 March) as part of a briefing on greenwashing and greenhushing. This session will be chaired by Charmian Love, global director of advocacy at Natura & Co.

It is not overly surprising that some companies want to ‘green’ their image without doing the work – this has been known for some time as greenwashing – but now, many are doing quite the opposite and greenhushing by choosing not to publicise the positive work they are doing, such as making science-based targets, for fear of being accused of greenwashing.

Though these may seem to be opposing, disclosure can act as the antidote for both greenwashing and greenhushing. It offers a company a structured way to avoid the accusation of greenwash and simultaneously give them the confidence to communicate their work on climate and nature by providing a universal framework through which to measure commitments. It also allows us to track progress more easily and confirm that businesses are doing more than just making commitments.

The perception of disclosure has shifted in recent years from being a ‘nice to have’ to being a business fundamental. Last year, a record 18,700+ companies disclosed through CDP – 42% more than the previous year.

Disclosure matters as it helps set a strategy that then leads to action. Take climate disclosure – CDP’s data shows that 69% of companies disclosing for a third year have emissions reductions targets, compared to 38% in year one. It can also improve a company’s reputation, boost competitive advantage, uncover risks and opportunities, and track and benchmark progress.

In the past we have said that companies have time to start their climate disclosure journey, but that landscape has shifted and the pace of change needs to be much more rapid.

Getting ready for disclosure – including setting science-based targets, outlining quantifiable reductions, and getting the right governance in place – can be a lengthy process. But with mandatory disclosure fast approaching, companies need to get up to speed or risk falling victim to more aggressive legislation or market trends.

Indeed, the momentum is already here for mandatory climate disclosure, with most major economies planning to adopt some form of it, including the EU’s European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) in June this year setting pulses racing on how green companies’ commitments really are.

Mandatory disclosure on nature will not be far behind as the agreement at COP15 in Montreal provided the foundations to set a pathway to making biodiversity disclosure a business norm globally.

However, it is still possible for companies to get ahead of the curve for climate and nature disclosure and, we have seen already, the sooner companies disclose, the better it is for business and of course the planet.

Greenwash will end with transparent data and comprehensive transition plans. So, let us build on the momentum and ensure 2023 is the year of disclosure on climate and nature.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE HANDBOOK

Businesses are under increasing pressure to provide more information on their environmental credentials – whether to digital native consumers who want to spend their money with purpose-led brands, or increasingly ESG-minded investors, or simply to comply with new legislation.

And, as more standards, frameworks and certification options emerge for businesses, it can be difficult to keep track of the latest developments and then translate the science, data and trends into easy-to-understand and actionable soundbites and messages.

With this in mind, edie created this handbook, which is sponsored by UL.

It explores how businesses of all sizes and sectors can be clearer in their sustainability-related marketing, engagement and communications, outlining how they can better use sustainability-related language in a manner that engages key stakeholders. This will help them build trust, gain credibility, increase transparency and leverage behaviour change.

It concludes with an exclusive five-step plan for enhancing your ESG data management and reporting from UL Solutions’ enterprise sustainability software solutions manager Claire Forsyth.

CLICK HERE TO ACCESS THE HANDBOOK

* You will need to provide either an email address and/or phone number to access this report for free. Otherwise, a copy can be purchased for £50. 

edie’s Engagement Week 2023 

Brought to you by the award-winning edie content team, Engagement Week 2023 (23 – 27 January) is our themed week of editorial content and events dedicated to supporting sustainability, energy and CSR professionals in getting to grips with the everchanging sustainability reporting landscape and drive stakeholder engagement through captivating communications.

This year’s ENGAGEMENT WEEK has a specific focus on combatting greenwash. The discussions held and articles published are timely given that research has shown that one in every five cases of corporate risk incidents linked to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues stems from greenwashing and misleading communications.

We have been publishing an array of insightful interviews, best-practice blogs from sustainability professionals and bespoke reports. Click here to recap on everything that has formed part of engagement week so far. 

edie’s ENGAGE 2023 online event effectively combined three webinars into a single afternoon on Wednesday 25 January, with each session taking a particular format.

Following this live, online event, the recordings are now available to watch on-demand at your convenience.

—-CLICK HERE TO WATCH ENGAGE 2023 ON-DEMAND—-

1) Climate reporting Q&A: Shaping your disclosure strategy in 2023 (13:00 – 13:45)

Kicking off our online event, a selection of reporting and disclosure experts discuss the key trends, regulations and standardisation developments shaping sustainability reporting this year, with specific guidance and advice for businesses seeking to generate quality, comparable, and transparent sustainability data.

Discussion points:

• Mandatory climate disclosure: Are you prepared?
• TCFD, TNFD and climate disclosures: Bridging the investment gap
• Reporting frameworks and standards: How the landscape is changing
• Data collection and dissemination: Top tips to drive meaningful change

Speakers:

• Matt Mace, Content Editor, edie (chair)
• Sue Armstrong Brown, Global Director of Environmental Impact and Thought Leadership, CDP
• Jennifer Motles, Chief Sustainability Officer, Philip Morris International (PMI)
• Jeremy Mathieu, Head of Sustainability, ITV

2) The Communications Power Hour: Best-practice case studies to drive engagement and change behaviours (14:00-15:00)

Our second session offers up a series of never-before-seen, quick-fire case studies, hearing from some of the organisations that are unleashing the power of purpose to engage key stakeholders, spark behaviour change and drive meaningful change – all while avoiding greenwash.

Discussion points:

• From greenwash to greenhush: Striking the right balance with your sustainability communications
• Building stronger relationships through transparency
• Taking a purpose-led approach to your reporting and communications, and measuring the impacts

Speakers:

• Sarah George, Senior Reporter, edie (chair)
• Simon Dawes, Head of Sustainable Business Strategy, Environment Agency
• Anna Bartle, Regional lead for citizenship and sustainability, Estée Lauder Companies UK & Ireland
• Anne Hayes, Director of Sectors and Standards, BSI Knowledge Solutions

3) 45-minute masterclass: Making your sustainability data meaningful, comparable and transparent (15:15-16:00)

Our third and final session will equip you with specific tools and practical techniques to collect sustainability data and present it in ways that maximise engagement and impacts. From data collection systems to reporting standards and assurance – this masterclass-style session has it covered.

Discussion points:

• Data collection: Cutting through the complexity
• Using sustainability data to shape short-, medium- and long-term business strategies
• Trust and transparency: Driving meaningful engagement in the age of disinformation

Speakers:

• Sarah George, Senior Reporter, edie (chair)
• Sarah Webster, Director of Sustainable Business, Britvic
• Natalie Wilkinson, Head of Responsibility, NG Bailey

A recording of all the sessions is available to watch on-demand for those who register. Click here to register.

This latest #SustyTalk episode, hosted as part of our ongoing Engagement Week 2023 (23 – 27 January), sees edie’s senior reporter Sarah George in discussion with Hubbub’s chief executive Alex Robinson. Hubbub is a UK-based environmental charity specialising in initiatives that help drive more sustainable behaviours and lifestyles among the general public, including hosting ‘ballot bins’ for cigarette butts and cans, operating a nationwide network of community fridges and working with Starbucks to promote reusable cup use, to name just three.

Robinson took over as Hubbub’s chief executive last year. He is on hand in this #SustyTalk to discuss his “scenic route” into behaviour change for sustainability and outline Hubbub’s focus topics for 2023 and beyond, which have been chosen not only with impact in mind, but with the need to save people money amid the rising cost-of-living.

Robinson also shares instances where communications campaigns have gone well and where they could have been better, providing learnings for listeners looking to launch or refresh their own initiatives.

Robinson says: “We often haven’t led with the environmental message, because if you lead with [this] message, you speak to people who already care. That’s valuable, for sure. But if you want to bring new people in and change their behaviours, you have to talk to people about things they care about.

“Now, more than ever, they care about saving money. But this is one of a number of drivers out there that aren’t about the environment, that can inspire more environmentall friendly behaviours. These can be spending time with family, or being healthier, for example.”

Click here to see our catalogue of #SustyTalk interviews.

Click here to see all of our Engagement Week 2023 content and events. 

Want to be featured on a future episode of #SustyTalk? Email [email protected]. Please bear in mind that our interview calendar is typically booked several weeks in advance. 

Hear more from Hubbub at edie 23

Taking place in London on 1-2 March 2023, edie’s biggest annual event has undergone a major revamp to become edie 23, with a new name, new venue, multiple new content streams and myriad innovative event features and networking opportunities.

edie 23 will take place at the state-of-the-art 133 Houndsditch conference venue in central London. Held over two floors, the event will offer up two full days of keynotes, panels, best-practice case studies and audience-led discussions across three themed stages – Strategy, Net-Zero and Action.

Click here for full information and to book your ticket.

Hubbub’s Alex Robinson will be speaking on Day 2 of edie23 ( March 2) during a fireside chat on ‘engaging the general public on the road to net-zero’. This session also includes the British Retail Consortium’s project manager for climate action, Niki Hunt.

She said the changes will “ensure that competition law is not an unnecessary barrier to companies seeking to pursue environmental sustainability initiatives”, as the UK works towards its legally binding 2050 net-zero target and as many business work to tighter timescales.

“We hear increasingly that firms want to tackle these issues but are worried that competition law may prevent or impede them from working together to address them,” said Cardell.

“Given the scale of the challenge to address environmental sustainability and particularly climate change concerns, and the degree of public concern about it, we think it is important that firms are not unnecessarily or erroneously put off collaborating in this space by fears about competition law compliance. This is particularly important because industry collaboration is likely to play an essential part in delivering net-zero ambitions. “

Cardell said she was not in a position to disclose full details of the CMA’s proposals, but did state that climate change mitigation and adaptation could fall under the “fair share” exemption to antitrust rules which prevent business-to-business collaborations which may undermine competition in the market.

Currently, companies are banned from entering into anti-competitive agreements unless the benefits outweigh the harms and customers receive what is considered a fair share of benefits.

“Traditionally, the assessment of whether consumers receive a fair share of the benefits from the restrictive agreement has focused on the benefits flowing to consumers in the relevant product market – that is, to customers of the products or services covered by the agreement,” Cardell explained.

“However, the CMA is proposing to take a different approach for climate change agreements. This reflects the fact that climate change represents a special category of threat: the sheer magnitude of the risk that climate change represents, the degree of public concern about it, and the binding national and international commitments that successive UK governments have entered into, set it apart.”

The change is intended to help businesses collaborate with increased ease on issues like scaling nascent low-emissions technologies or running public awareness-raising campaigns.

Cardell also spoke of the other ways in which the CMA could intervene to ensure that fast-growing markets for clean technologies and sustainable products and services – such as electric vehicles, heat pumps and retrofit packages – are “founded on strong competitive dynamics”.

She said that it will take a hybrid approach, including government, regulatory and industry advocacy as well as implementing binding changes to its own rules.

The speech comes as the EU and US continue to engage over the latter’s $369bn subsidy package for climate action, which the former has argued may undercut its own market for technologies like electric cars without stronger competition considerations. The EU is now on the verge of launching its own subsidy package to compete, which will be called the ‘Net-Zero Industry Act’.

Greenwashing clampdown

As low-carbon markets grow, Cardell acknowledged, consumers are asking more questions about clean technologies and, specifically, seeking reassurance that they will be protected as they would be when using other products and services.

September 2022 saw the CMA launching an exploration of consumer protection issues in the heat pump sector. Cardell confirmed that the Authority is now “carefully considering the next steps” and will set out plans to improve information on offer and to address common tactics businesses may be use to mislead consumers.

Speaking of consumers being misled, Cardell spoke of how, through the development of the Green Claims Code, the CMA has provided businesses with “clear guidance” on ensuring that their environmental claims do not fall foul of consumer law.

The Code launched in late 2021 and covers issues such as omitting important information, using vague jargon terms that are not widely understood, and exaggerating positive impact. The CMA conducted its first major investigation into whether company claims comply with the Code last summer, targeting three large fashion businesses in the first instance. Cardell confirmed that further investigations in other sectors will be launched this year.

The results, published today (25 January), shine a light on key gaps between net-zero ambitions and actions by businesses.

Of the businesses represented by the survey, a significant minority of 40% have set a net-zero strategy and made this available publicly. A further 45% have set a net-zero strategy but not yet made this public, or are in the process of finalizing their strategies.

Promisingly, almost half (43%) of the businesses have significantly increased their sustainability budget to achieve these strategies, by at least 20%. Just one-fifth of the businesses have either made no budget increase or decreased this budget.

Yet the majority of the operations managers polled (59%) report that there has been no significant changes to the daily operational practices of their business in the name of decarbonisation.

The survey findings indicate that this lack of change may be due to challenges embedding net-zero-related changes into financial planning, training and operational protocols. Operations managers put this down to their employers adopting a ‘top-down’ approach.

The vast majority of those surveyed (95%) say their business has a set-up in which accountability for delivering net-zero lies solely or primarily with C-suite executives and/or the board of directors. This can leave those in less senior roles unaware of how they need to contribute. Six in ten of the operations managers said they would not rank employee engagement with their organisation’s sustainability strategy or initiatives very highly.

Four in 10 of those surveyed said they personally receive “little or no encouragement” to contribute suggestions on improving the environmental sustainability of business operations.

Many of those surveyed said they would like to have not only more opportunities to shape strategy, but a chance to push senior management to set more ambitious targets and more credible plans to deliver them. One-third said they are “highly supportive” of “radical” change to reach net-zero.

Sphera’s chief executive and president Paul Marushka said: “With high levels of personal and professional commitment to sustainability, operations managers have emerged as the secret weapon for businesses in the fight for more sustainable operations.

“Yet many companies are experiencing a gap between carbon pledges and operational practices because of limited involvement by operations managers. Our report finds that operations managers have the influence and desire to help drive decarbonization across business operations, supplier and partner networks. Now, what they need are the data, software and best practices to do so.”

Going beyond net-zero ‘quick wins’

Earlier this month, a new report from Engie Impact revealed that 75% of large businesses believe they have already achieved the “quick wins” on the road to net-zero.

That report found that while 98% of firms had made “some sort of progress”, many were still barely beyond the strategy-setting and public communications stage. Those that had driven down emissions had largely done so in Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (power-related) sources, which are easier to address than Scope 3 (indirect) emissions but typically account for a far lower proportion of emissions overall.

To get beyond these initial steps, the report set out six key challenge areas to overcome. These were:

• Maintaining long-term focus and belief
• Establishing good governance and accountability systems
• Aligning the expectations of senior executives and other staff
• Increasing executive accountability
• Using innovative ‘enablers’ like green finance models, data software and internal carbon pricing
• Collaborating to tackle Scope 3 emissions

You can read edie’s full coverage of the Engie Impact report here.

Promisingly, the new Sphera survey results reveal that almost three-quarters (73%) of the businesses covered are already exploring or implementing measures to address Scope 3 emissions. More than four in ten of the operations managers participating in that survey said they are already in sustainability-related discussions with suppliers directly.