Green Claims Code

It is guidance rather than a product approval scheme, and displaying its name does not establish that a particular claim is lawful.

The standards overview helps distinguish an inventory, certificate and public claim, while the product carbon footprint guide addresses a particular measurement task.

The Code separately identifies truthful and accurate claims, clear and unambiguous wording, relevant information, fair comparisons, life-cycle consideration and substantiation Six principles.

Grouping the review questions here does not reduce the six principles or establish a prescribed scoring method.

The procurement record may support a specific packaging comparison without establishing a lower overall environmental impact for the product.

The review should investigate the message customers receive rather than assume a detailed footnote turns a broad headline into a narrow material claim.

The CMA’s supply-chain guidance makes clear that responsibility for claims cannot simply be passed to the business that supplied the original assertion Supply-chain guidance.

An environmental-management certificate held by a supplier does not on its own demonstrate a particular product comparison.

The ISO 14001 guide explains the organisational management-system boundary, which should remain distinct from Mosswick’s advertised product claim.

Mosswick’s supplier describes the box as “recyclable”, but the retailer needs to understand what the evidence concerns and what relevant conditions or qualifications apply.

Changing the presentation or adding the claim beside a product image can alter the overall impression, even when the original supplier wording is reproduced exactly.

The Code’s life-cycle and omission principles help frame this review without creating a universal rule that every claim requires the same type of study Life-cycle and substantiation principles.

A percentage or attractive graphic cannot repair a comparison that changes its baseline or assessed scope between the old and new product.

The embodied-carbon guide and product footprint guide address measurement boundaries where those specific assessments are used as evidence.

The Act gives the CMA monetary-penalty powers under specified conditions, with turnover addressed in a separate provision rather than left as an undefined marketing phrase DMCC Act section 182 DMCC Act section 204.

A reference to potential maximum powers should not be rewritten as a claim that a particular green-claims investigation resulted in a fine.

This guide does not provide a legal opinion on Mosswick’s proposed communication.

The fashion case records agreements, while the FMCG case records closure without taking a compliance view, so the two outcomes are not interchangeable CMA fashion case CMA FMCG case.

CAP Code section 11 addresses environmental claims in advertising, while FCA ESG 4.3.1R concerns sustainability references about products and services within its authorised-firm scope CAP Code section 11 ESG 4.3.1R.

The FCA SDR guide explains the separate product naming, labelling and disclosure decisions.

A corporate sustainability report is not automatic permission to reuse every statement as an unqualified consumer advertisement.

Mosswick keeps a rejected broad headline beside the accepted narrower wording so the next campaign does not accidentally revive the unsupported version.

The evidence review should also identify when a supplier specification or product change would require the claim to be reassessed.

Mosswick’s planned register separates the packaging-material claim from any whole-product or corporate statement, with a source and reviewer for each.

A software RFP should test whether a new specification flags the communications that rely on the old evidence.

A consultancy brief can commission substantiation review without promising regulator approval.

The final control is a reasoned decision about the particular message, rather than a green tick attached permanently to the product.

Retain enough history to explain why a previous claim was revised and what evidence supports the current wording.

Mosswick’s final proof review catches the qualifier being removed from the product page while remaining in a separate technical document.

That change needs a new impression assessment rather than administrative sign-off that the sentence was approved in another layout.

The CMA’s clarity and omission principles make the communication context part of the task, not merely the underlying calculation Clarity and relevant-information principles.