Environmental claims appear constantly in product marketing. Terms like ‘green,’ ‘eco-friendly,’ and ‘sustainable’ aim to attract consumers who want to make responsible choices. Yet these claims are frequently vague, exaggerated, or unsupported, leading to misinformed purchasing decisions.
This practice, known as greenwashing, occurs when a product or service is presented as more environmentally friendly than it actually is. While South Africa’s Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) does not explicitly mention greenwashing, several of its provisions, including sections 22, 24, 29, and 41, can be applied to address false or misleading environmental claims.
Plain Language and Greenwashing: A Closer Look
Section 22 of the CPA promotes the use of plain language in consumer communications. It requires that notices, documents, or visual representations provided to consumers be in a form that an ordinary consumer with average literacy skills and minimal experience can understand.
In the context of greenwashing, this means environmental claims should be communicated clearly. Suppliers should avoid language that confuses consumers or obscures the true nature of their claims. For instance, terms like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘biodegradable’ should be accompanied by explanations that specify the environmental benefit being claimed.
Historically, South Africa’s focus on plain language in legislation is relatively recent. The National Credit Act 34 of 2005 and the CPA have played significant roles in emphasizing the need for consumer-friendly information. However, challenges remain, particularly in a country with diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.
The Limits of Plain Language
While plain language is essential, it is not enough on its own to combat greenwashing. A claim may be easy to understand but still false, exaggerated, or unsupported. This is where other CPA provisions come into play.
Section 24 regulates product labeling and trade descriptions, prohibiting the use of descriptions likely to mislead consumers. Section 29 sets standards for marketing, banning representations that are false or misleading. Section 41 complements these by prohibiting deceptive practices, including the use of exaggeration or omission of material facts.
These sections provide a more full framework for addressing greenwashing than plain language alone. They ensure that environmental claims are not only understandable but also accurate and substantiated.
Read Also: Disabled people exploited in arranged marriages
The CPA’s current framework, while helpful, has limitations. It does not explicitly define or prohibit greenwashing and lacks detailed guidance on terms like ‘green’ or ‘sustainable.’ This can make it difficult for both consumers and suppliers to determine when a claim crosses the line into misleading territory.
Practical guidance, similar to that provided by the Danish Consumer Ombudsman, could strengthen the CPA. Such guidance could clarify how environmental claims should be presented, what evidence suppliers should retain, and what information should be disclosed to consumers.
The Role of Evidence in Environmental Claims
The use of vague terminology in environmental claims is a significant concern, especially when suppliers fail to provide evidence to support their assertions. Nick Feinstein highlights in his 2013 article that greenwashing often involves labels using terms like ‘eco-friendly’ or ‘100% organic’ without proper substantiation.
An environmental claim should therefore not only be understandable, but should also be supported by appropriate evidence and documentation. This ensures that consumers can trust the information provided and make informed decisions.
Environmental Claims and Supply Chain Responsibility
Section 29 establishes general standards for the marketing of goods and services. It prohibits producers, importers, distributors, retailers and service providers from marketing goods or services in a manner that is reasonably likely to imply a false or misleading representation concerning those goods or services. This provision applies to producers, importers, distributors, retailers, and service providers, holding each accountable for their role in the supply chain. In greenwashing cases, an environmental claim may originate at any stage-production, distribution, or retail-making individual responsibility key. Tjakie Naudé and Sieg Eiselen emphasize that each participant must comply with the CPA, ensuring no misleading claims are made.
Section 41(1) of the CPA complements Section 29 by explicitly prohibiting false, misleading, or deceptive representations about material facts. It also bans exaggeration, innuendo, ambiguity, and the omission of key information if these tactics deceive consumers. This is particularly relevant for environmental claims that, while technically accurate, create a misleading overall impression by omitting important details. For instance, a claim may be truthful in isolation but fail to provide a complete picture, leading to consumer confusion.
Comparative Guidance: The Danish Approach
The guidance issued by the Danish Consumer Ombudsman provides a useful comparative example. It requires claims to be clear, accurate, and easy to understand, supported by evidence, and discourages the omission of important information.
Section 22 of the CPA has an important but limited role in addressing greenwashing. However, it must be read in conjunction with sections 24, 29, and 41, which address misleading trade descriptions, marketing, and representations.
