OPINION: How can consumers trust companies’ eco claims?

Originally published in The i Paper 19 July 2025. Permission to publish all opinion pieces authored by Rocio Concha, sought and granted on 3 July 2025.

Many consumers increasingly want to make more sustainable choices with the products they buy. Companies know this. It’s why they market their products to be clean and green and fit for the future. 

But how much can we believe these claims? New Which? research has raised the alarm about problematic environmental claims being made on a huge scale, which can result in consumers buying products that aren’t nearly as sustainable as they thought. 

Our researchers trawled through more than 20,000 online product listings using AI software trained to find green claims. We then delved deeper into 1,000 online product descriptions in a range of categories, including food, cleaning, electronics, clothing and personal care items, sold at popular UK retailers such as Argos, Next, Ocado and Tesco.

The results made for concerning reading. More than six in 10 products failed checks related to multiple principles of the Green Claims code established by the Competition and Markets Authority, the watchdog in charge of ensuring markets run fairly. 

Greenwashing isn’t a new issue. The CMA introduced the Green Claims code back in 2021 to combat companies making bogus claims. Yet the extent of ambiguous information about products’ sustainability suggests systemic issues with how eco-friendly credentials are being communicated to consumers. 

What kind of things do we mean? A majority of products would use claims such as ‘eco’, ‘sustainable’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ in the product’s description, without properly backing them up. We found that nearly nine in 10 (88%) product descriptions with this type of wording didn’t justify, explain or provide any context to the use of the word at all. 

Our researchers found that the product description for Grind House Blend Ground Coffee at Tesco stated that the coffee is ‘ethically sourced’ from ‘sustainable farms' but there was no other explanation in the description provided to support these claims. However, the CMA’s Green Claims code requires that environmental claims must be clear and unambiguous. Vague terms, therefore, must be sufficiently explained to consumers to avoid misleading them.

Another principle in the CMA’s code says ‘comparisons must be fair and meaningful’ but Which? found almost nine in 10 (86%) products with comparisons risked falling short. A Chad Valley Wooden Puzzles set (taken from Argos) carried the claim that because it was made of wood it was ‘more kind to the environment’. However, without being clear what specific environmental aspects are being compared - its carbon footprint or the resources it uses, for example - or what it is kinder than (e.g. plastic toys), Which? believes this could also be seen as being misleading.

I could go on - the research threw up a whole host of examples where the green claims didn’t pass muster. The consequences of this are that consumers who are trying to make cleaner, greener choices are potentially wasting their money on products that may be little more than a marketing ploy. 

It’s not easy being green. It’s even harder when consumers are battling bogus eco claims. And while regulatory bodies like the CMA and Advertising Standards Authority have taken some action against greenwashing, the scale of the issues Which? has uncovered suggests the Green Claims Code may not be working as it should.  

Which? believes these findings highlight the need for stronger enforcement from regulators against firms that are misleading consumers and support for businesses that are serious about complying with the Code. We also think businesses could do better and should take more responsibility for ensuring their environmental claims are clear and accurate.