REGULAR
manufacturers shows how ambiguous, unsupported claims can conjure up ‘cool eco-messages’ but fall foul of genuine substantiated claims:
Example 1: “Environmentally friendly products with no compromise on performance. Following years of extensive research the (Sic. environmental cleaning range) has been formulated to minimise the impact of each product on the environment, whilst not compromising on quality or performance. Utilising raw materials from renewable resources, they contain no unnecessary perfumes or dyes and are fully biodegradable. In addition, all bottles, plastic labels and triggers are recyclable.”
The UK Advertising Code says that for comparative claims such as ‘greener’ to be justified the product should provide: “a total environmental benefit over that of competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear.”
The DEFRA guidance says: “it should be clear for an average consumer whether the claim covers the complete offering, or only one of the components, or the packaging.” For cleaning products, which are used with other resources including energy and equipment to perform a cleaning process, a good environmental claim should avoid giving the impression that the sustainability of the whole cleaning process has been improved unless that has been assessed and substantiated. So, present the claim clearly, truthfully and accurately.
The DEFRA guidance recommends being specific, and avoiding vague and undefined terms like ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘eco’ or ‘better for the environment’. This is a way of avoiding the pitfall of unfair implied comparisons which can easily arise in the cleaning products sector. A typical piece of marketing-speak, taken from two well-known chemical
www.tomorrowscleaning.com
Example 2: “What makes (Sic. our range) environmentally friendly and safe? Natural ingredients have been used wherever possible in the manufacture of the finished products for (the range), which haven’t been tested on animals either. Accredited with ISO 14001, a coveted environmental management standard, we are delighted to be the brand behind a range of chemical products which have such minimal impact on our environment… we are confident that you will find all our green products both effective and efficient, whilst still being kind to the environment. No harmful solvents included; No animal testing on the finished product; No strong acids; No caustic ingredients; Minimal impact on the environment; Sugar based and natural ingredients wherever possible.”
The advice is quite clear in that manufacturers ‘should ensure any labels, symbols or pictures are clear and relevant with images bearing relevance to the product, business, activity or environmental impact concerned in the claim’. Imagery of remote Nordic forests, planet Earth or endangered animals can imply a sweeping environmental benefit or contribute to an environmental claim. Images which might inappropriately imply an environmental benefit which cannot be justified should not be used.
The key, as the guidance states, is not to inappropriately imply a link between the claim and the image if there is none. With cleaning
chemicals it is fairly widespread to use images which involve natural scenes like pine trees or flower meadows on pine-oil based or floral scented products. However, these images are relevant to key characteristics of the product and should not automatically be construed as implying an environmental benefit as soon as an environmental claim is made.
Some chemical
providers believe that having some kind of
eco-label certification and a prominent eco- label seal printed on their cleaning products
will set them apart from competitors.
Several years ago a distributor sales manager advised us that we HAD to have a green range like another competitor, and that we ‘were missing a trick’. When we pointed out that the chemical range that they were referring to was mostly based on a ready-to-use range, and could therefore NOT in any way be classified as ‘green’, they replied that ‘it doesn’t matter, my customers want a green range of chemicals and these products say it on the label – yours do not’.
It was then that we realised that the distributor had created a false point of difference by suggesting (by implication) that our industry standard cleaning products caused more harm to environment than this ecological ‘Prom Queen’ brand. The good news is that today, on closer inspection, purchasing managers can quickly ascertain the differences, if any exist at all.
Read more of Max’s musings on the RP Adam blog at
www.arpalgroupblog.com
www.rpadam.co.uk Tomorrow’s Cleaning December 2015 | 29
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88