As our remodel saga continues, when faced with a decision on materials I am researching the option with the least envirnomental impact and cost effective. I've found that nothing is simple, everything has multiple issues, it is so hard to find any good info.
So my latest is exterior house paint. By now everyone has heard of no and low VOC paints. Time to set some things straight:
1. The VOCs that are being taken out are to reduce smog and low level ozone depletion. This has nothing to do with toxicity.
2. Most people are concerned with the VOCs because of the outgassing and awful smells - indoor pollution - but really there could be lots of things outgassing making that smell that have nothing to do with VOCs.
3. There is very little data, reviews, etc. on EXTERIOR house paint because you won't smell it, like inside your home. But actually, that is where VOCs matter the most.
4. The paint base may be VOC low or no, but the pigments themselves give off VOCs. If you really want a no VOC product, you have to find one where they also claim that the pigments were designed also to be no VOC.
5. Due to Federal Laws, upcoming Federal laws, and CA state laws all paint manufacturers have generally gotten rid of their VOCs. They are at or below the legal limits. So further claims will become greenwashing because they will simply be complying with the law.
6. Other chemicals you want to avoid : acetone, ammonia, formaldehyde, formaldehyde formation during the curing process. I called the big 3 paint companies, all of them have none of these except trace amounts of ammonia.
7. I could find no testing where someone took the exterior house paints, green and non green, and actually measured some performance or compared them. Consumer Reports has a long term study - 3, 6, 9. 12 years - of paints. Most of the green paints came out in the past 3-5 years, so they are not in the consumer reports study.
Note: I have personally bought items highly rated by CR and been very disappointed. I think a second opinion is needed.
Bottom Line:
For exterior house paints, for greenness, all of the various brands of paints are the same. Also, I think that green and non green exterior paints are basically the same. You buy based on Quality, not on greenness. If you buy high quality, you will paint less often, which will use up less resources. High quality paints are 2x more expensive and there is little or no info on whether they really are higher quality. For this you have to rely on word of mouth from painting contractors.
Note: Paint company warranties are WORTHLESS. The cost of painting is in the prep and labor, not the materials. So if you pay $10K for a paint job and you pay $800 for the paint, and the paint fails - you still get to pay $9.2K. Even then, you have to provide all kinds of proof that the paint was used according to manufacturers specs, etc. etc.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Environmental Marketing Guidelines - FTC
http://www.use-less-stuff.com/Environmental-Marketing-Guidelines.pdf
http://www.use-less-stuff.com/Environmental-Marketing-Guidelines.pdf
Environmental Marketing Guidelines
Prepared By Robert M. Lilienfeld, Editor
The Use Less Stuff Report
I. INTRODUCTION
The marketplace increasingly demands products that deliver high levels of functionality with reduced levels of environmental impact. Businesses are looking for ways to meet these demands, and in so doing must effectively communicate both the functional and environmental benefits of their offerings.
On the functional side, strong companies usually have a history of providing customers with data that support their product claims. Over time, this has become increasingly easier to do, as customers today are quite knowledgeable about the information needed to make decisions.
The environmental side is quite different, as benefits such as “more sustainable,” “greener,” and “eco-friendly” cannot be assigned numerical values, since they are qualitative in nature. Also, as of yet there are no agreed-upon mechanisms or third party organizations that can evaluate these types of claims or enforce protocols, methodologies, and use of terms. Significantly, environmental claims are different in a third way. Unlike functional benefits, which become a tangible part of your customers’ products, environmental benefits have the potential to be communicated by your customers as part of the marketing message to their customers. This means that companies must work hard to meet regulations and legislation designed to protect “consumers” at all levels.
II. THE BASICS
The key body of U.S. law and regulations governing marketing communications is The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which established its namesake, the FTC. Section 5 of the Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and was amended in 1938 to also prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if: (1) it is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (2) it is likely to affect
consumers’ conduct or decisions with respect to the product at issue.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 2
1/07/09
Further, the FTC works jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that an organization’s environmental claims meet legal requirements. The EPA is as concerned about business-to-business activities as it is about business-to-consumer communications, as its literature regarding “deception” specifically calls out advertising, labeling, catalogs and sales presentationsi.
III. THE BIG PICTURE
Listed below are the four areas that are of most concern to the FTC regarding advertising claims of all types, but specifically those relating to the environment. Please keep in mind that the FTC makes it clear that you must comply with all of these concerns, not just those you feel are most advantageous or especially relevant to your product or message:
1. The single most important point to remember when making claims is to be as specific as possible. Doing so will require that claims be substantiated by communicating all of the following:
• What is being claimed -- Reduced energy consumption during production
• By how much -- By 12%
• Compared to what -- Versus the previous product formulation
Claims that are general or vague are not only considered to be meaningless, the FTC considers them to be deceptive. Technically, this means that claims which appear to be simple and harmless, such as “eco-friendly” and “green,” are actually open to scrutiny and legal action at the federal level. Such action can occur when the FTC is made aware of claims, either by their reviewing your materials or, more likely, via complaints from competitors, special interest
groups, state attorneys general, etc.
2. To further prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures relating to your claims should be clear, prominent and easily understood. According to the FTC, “Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are
appropriately clear and prominent.” ii
3. Environmental claims, attributes and benefits should not be explicitly or implicitly overstated. This requires that both the absolute and relative merits of a claim be considered.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 3
1/07/09
• Example: Claiming that a package has been reduced in weight by 50% would be considered deceptive by the FTC if the package in question now weighed 1 gram, versus 2 grams in the past. However, a 50% move from 16 oz. to 8 oz. would probably be considered acceptable, based upon the absolute change in question.
• Example: A resin is described simply as being “recyclable.” However, the current recycling infrastructure cannot handle this resin. Even if the resin is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.
4. Comparative claims must be stated in a way that makes the basis for comparison as clear as possible. The comparison should also be substantiated.
• Example: You want to promote the fact that your production process produces 25% fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than competitive processes. You must be able to state the specific GHG levels for your process and all of your competitors, and ensure that the competitive data is both accurate and current. Based upon FTC general regulations and its guidelines relating to advertising claims and substantiation, and the environmental guidelines developed by the FTC either singly or jointly with the EPA, all marketing and sales materials should
meet the following criteria:
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL-SPECIFIC CLAIMS
A. General
Unless substantiation can be provided, broad environmental claims must either be avoided or qualified. Further, claims must not create broader positive impressions than what is communicated by the specific claim.
• Example: Naming or describing a product as “Eco-Friend” would be deceptive if it leads to the belief that the product has environmental benefits which you cannot substantiate. However, the claim would not be deceptive if "Eco-Friend" were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Note that the same standards hold true for any graphic seal, design or icon designed to communicate positive environmental attributes or benefits. Each must be accompanied by prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 4
1/07/09
• Example: A product is labeled “environmentally preferable.” This claim is qualified
by stating that it “contains no harmful VOCs.” However, if the production or use of
the product creates any other harmful emissions, the claim is deceptive, as it can be
interpreted in a broader context than what is specifically described.
B. Recyclability
A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be
collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse,
or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an
established recycling program. However, unqualified claims of recyclability for a
product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor
incidental components, is recyclable.
To further avoid the potential for deception:
1. If a product or package is made of both recyclable and non-recyclable
components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to clearly
state which portions or components are recyclable.
2. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs
and collection sites.
• Example: A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays
the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of
arrows in a triangular shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the
component plastic resin) on the front label of the container, in close proximity to
the product name and logo. The manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code
in this manner constitutes a recyclability claim.
Unless recycling facilities for this container are available to a substantial majority
of consumers or communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the
limited availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code,
without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container
(e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not constitute a claim of
recyclability.
Note from this example, taken directly from FTC documents, how
important it is for marketers of plastics used in packaging to understand the
guidelines: The FTC considers the “chasing arrows” symbols to be
potentially deceptive to consumers if not handled in the manner described.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 5
1/07/09
If recycling is not widely or generally available, claims should be qualified
to indicate the limited availability of programs. Two examples are “This
container may not be recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for
this container may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate
qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities
with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to
which programs are available.
3. No incidental components should be present that significantly limit the
ability to recycle a product or package. For example, if labeling
significantly reduces recyclability of a package, it would be deceptive to
refer to the package as recyclable.
4. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but is not
accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed
as recyclable. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to communicate
that “This package contains 20% recycled material” but it would be
deceptive to state that the package can (once again) be recycled.
C. Recycled Content
A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have
been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during
the manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (postconsumer).
Specific conditions include:
1. To the extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer
material, the manufacturer or advertiser must be able to substantiate that
the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste
stream. This is particularly important for plastics molders, fabricators and
processors:
• Example: A molder routinely collects spilled resin and scraps left over from the
original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the molder
combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of
the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive
because the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally reused by
industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not normally have
entered the waste stream.
2. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made between
pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are
asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 6
1/07/09
post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.
3. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material,
a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid deception about
the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or
package.
• Example: A “juice box” (aseptic package) is made from layers of foil, plastic,
and paper laminated together. The label claims that “one of the three layers of
this package is made of recycled plastic.” The plastic layer is made entirely of
recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the recycled plastic layer
constitutes a significant component of the entire package.
D. Biodegradation
Claims of degradability should be qualified “by competent and reliable scientific
evidence” to avoid consumer deception about (1) the product or package’s ability
to completely break down into elements found in nature, (2) in the environment
where it is customarily disposed, and (3) the rate and extent of degradation.
Unless otherwise specified, a product must biodegrade or photodegrade in the
environment in which it is usually disposed (e.g., a sanitary landfill), and must do
so at a reasonably fast rate. Unless clearly stated, degradation must also be
complete, with no leftover synthetic or complex byproducts or residue.
• Example: According to the law, paper cannot be described as simply “biodegradable”, as
it will not break down in its typical disposal environment, a landfill, at a reasonably fast
rate. Technically, a paper product which claims to be biodegradable should qualify this
statement by including a statement such as: “When composted in a facility designed to
handle this type of paper, usually an industrial composting facility.”
However, clearly stating an exception to an unqualified claim can legitimize the
claim and remove the potential for deception:
• Example: Loop carriers are described as “Photodegradable” and qualified with the
phrase "Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight." The claim is
supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product will break down
in a reasonably short period of time after being exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently
small pieces to become part of the soil. Because the claim is qualified to indicate the
limited extent of breakdown, the manufacturer does not have to meet the elements for an
unqualified photodegradable claim, i.e., that the product will not only break down, but
also will decompose into elements found in nature.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 7
1/07/09
E. Composting
A compostability claim must be substantiated by “competent and reliable scientific
evidence” that all the materials in the product or package will (1) break down
into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioners, mulch,
(2) in a safe and timely manner, (3) in an appropriate composting program or
facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Claims must be substantiated, and
will be considered deceptive if:
1. Composting cannot occur in a home compost pile or device, and/or it is not
revealed that composting must occur in municipal or institutional facilities
and that the availability of these facilities is limited.
2. Consumers are misled into believing that landfilling will produce results
similar or equal to backyard composting,
3. The results of composting are not 100% usable as conditioners or mulch.
• Example: The description of a corn-based plastic as compostable (and/or
biodegradable) is deceptive if it is not clearly stated that products made from this
plastic must be composted in an institutional facility, and that the availability of
such facilities is limited.
However, limiting the sale of products to areas in which they can be composted, or
stating specifically where they can be composted, is acceptable and not considered
deceptive. In the example just mentioned, a description such as “Compostable
only in the area where this product or package was purchased” or “Compostable in
Northern Oregon” would typically not be considered deceptive.
F. Source Reduction
Source reduction claims should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about both the amount of reduction and the basis for any
comparison that is asserted. It is perfectly fine to say “This package creates 10% less
waste than our previous package.” However, simply stating “This package creates 10%
less waste” is ambiguous, and open to being considered deceptive.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 8
1/07/09
V. IT’S BETTER TO BE SAFE…
As you can see, the laws are clear regarding the need for environmental claims to
be specific and substantiated. However, please keep these points in mind:
1. Whether a claim is specific enough, or provides proper substantiation, is
open to interpretation.
2. The FTC staff routinely issues new interpretations of the law. These may
complement or conflict with previous interpretations, including those
included here.
3. As an active participant in the development of communications materials,
it may be hard for you to be completely objective when it comes to
evaluating the legality of proposed environmental marketing claims.
4. This document was written from a U.S. perspective, but it is fairly safe to
assume that the FTC philosophy of specificity and substantiation is valid
globally. However, if marketing products outside of the United States,
please check the appropriate statutes and regulations for that region. This
is especially important in Europe, where product comparison claims are
either outlawed outright or considered to be a form of unfair competition.
5. Finally, please remember that the potential financial and perceptual costs
of making a mistake regarding environmental claims are high. Consult with
your Legal and Environmental Affairs Departments before making public
any environmental claim.
Robert Lilienfeld, Editor
FOOTNOTES
i Environmental Marketing Claims: Message to Vendors from the EPA and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), EPA-744-F-97-005, June 1997.
ii FTC, Part 260, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
http://www.use-less-stuff.com/Environmental-Marketing-Guidelines.pdf
Environmental Marketing Guidelines
Prepared By Robert M. Lilienfeld, Editor
The Use Less Stuff Report
I. INTRODUCTION
The marketplace increasingly demands products that deliver high levels of functionality with reduced levels of environmental impact. Businesses are looking for ways to meet these demands, and in so doing must effectively communicate both the functional and environmental benefits of their offerings.
On the functional side, strong companies usually have a history of providing customers with data that support their product claims. Over time, this has become increasingly easier to do, as customers today are quite knowledgeable about the information needed to make decisions.
The environmental side is quite different, as benefits such as “more sustainable,” “greener,” and “eco-friendly” cannot be assigned numerical values, since they are qualitative in nature. Also, as of yet there are no agreed-upon mechanisms or third party organizations that can evaluate these types of claims or enforce protocols, methodologies, and use of terms. Significantly, environmental claims are different in a third way. Unlike functional benefits, which become a tangible part of your customers’ products, environmental benefits have the potential to be communicated by your customers as part of the marketing message to their customers. This means that companies must work hard to meet regulations and legislation designed to protect “consumers” at all levels.
II. THE BASICS
The key body of U.S. law and regulations governing marketing communications is The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which established its namesake, the FTC. Section 5 of the Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition” and was amended in 1938 to also prohibit “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” A representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if: (1) it is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (2) it is likely to affect
consumers’ conduct or decisions with respect to the product at issue.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 2
1/07/09
Further, the FTC works jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that an organization’s environmental claims meet legal requirements. The EPA is as concerned about business-to-business activities as it is about business-to-consumer communications, as its literature regarding “deception” specifically calls out advertising, labeling, catalogs and sales presentationsi.
III. THE BIG PICTURE
Listed below are the four areas that are of most concern to the FTC regarding advertising claims of all types, but specifically those relating to the environment. Please keep in mind that the FTC makes it clear that you must comply with all of these concerns, not just those you feel are most advantageous or especially relevant to your product or message:
1. The single most important point to remember when making claims is to be as specific as possible. Doing so will require that claims be substantiated by communicating all of the following:
• What is being claimed -- Reduced energy consumption during production
• By how much -- By 12%
• Compared to what -- Versus the previous product formulation
Claims that are general or vague are not only considered to be meaningless, the FTC considers them to be deceptive. Technically, this means that claims which appear to be simple and harmless, such as “eco-friendly” and “green,” are actually open to scrutiny and legal action at the federal level. Such action can occur when the FTC is made aware of claims, either by their reviewing your materials or, more likely, via complaints from competitors, special interest
groups, state attorneys general, etc.
2. To further prevent deception, any qualifications or disclosures relating to your claims should be clear, prominent and easily understood. According to the FTC, “Clarity of language, relative type size and proximity to the claim being qualified, and an absence of contrary claims that could undercut effectiveness, will maximize the likelihood that the qualifications and disclosures are
appropriately clear and prominent.” ii
3. Environmental claims, attributes and benefits should not be explicitly or implicitly overstated. This requires that both the absolute and relative merits of a claim be considered.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 3
1/07/09
• Example: Claiming that a package has been reduced in weight by 50% would be considered deceptive by the FTC if the package in question now weighed 1 gram, versus 2 grams in the past. However, a 50% move from 16 oz. to 8 oz. would probably be considered acceptable, based upon the absolute change in question.
• Example: A resin is described simply as being “recyclable.” However, the current recycling infrastructure cannot handle this resin. Even if the resin is technically capable of being recycled, the claim is deceptive since it asserts an environmental benefit where no significant or meaningful benefit exists.
4. Comparative claims must be stated in a way that makes the basis for comparison as clear as possible. The comparison should also be substantiated.
• Example: You want to promote the fact that your production process produces 25% fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than competitive processes. You must be able to state the specific GHG levels for your process and all of your competitors, and ensure that the competitive data is both accurate and current. Based upon FTC general regulations and its guidelines relating to advertising claims and substantiation, and the environmental guidelines developed by the FTC either singly or jointly with the EPA, all marketing and sales materials should
meet the following criteria:
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL-SPECIFIC CLAIMS
A. General
Unless substantiation can be provided, broad environmental claims must either be avoided or qualified. Further, claims must not create broader positive impressions than what is communicated by the specific claim.
• Example: Naming or describing a product as “Eco-Friend” would be deceptive if it leads to the belief that the product has environmental benefits which you cannot substantiate. However, the claim would not be deceptive if "Eco-Friend" were followed by clear and prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Note that the same standards hold true for any graphic seal, design or icon designed to communicate positive environmental attributes or benefits. Each must be accompanied by prominent qualifying language limiting the positive representation to a particular product attribute that could be substantiated, providing that no other deceptive implications were created by the context.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 4
1/07/09
• Example: A product is labeled “environmentally preferable.” This claim is qualified
by stating that it “contains no harmful VOCs.” However, if the production or use of
the product creates any other harmful emissions, the claim is deceptive, as it can be
interpreted in a broader context than what is specifically described.
B. Recyclability
A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be
collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse,
or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an
established recycling program. However, unqualified claims of recyclability for a
product or package may be made if the entire product or package, excluding minor
incidental components, is recyclable.
To further avoid the potential for deception:
1. If a product or package is made of both recyclable and non-recyclable
components, the recyclable claim should be adequately qualified to clearly
state which portions or components are recyclable.
2. Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs
and collection sites.
• Example: A nationally marketed 8 oz. plastic cottage-cheese container displays
the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) code (which consists of a design of
arrows in a triangular shape containing a number and abbreviation identifying the
component plastic resin) on the front label of the container, in close proximity to
the product name and logo. The manufacturer's conspicuous use of the SPI code
in this manner constitutes a recyclability claim.
Unless recycling facilities for this container are available to a substantial majority
of consumers or communities, the claim should be qualified to disclose the
limited availability of recycling programs for the container. If the SPI code,
without more, had been placed in an inconspicuous location on the container
(e.g., embedded in the bottom of the container) it would not constitute a claim of
recyclability.
Note from this example, taken directly from FTC documents, how
important it is for marketers of plastics used in packaging to understand the
guidelines: The FTC considers the “chasing arrows” symbols to be
potentially deceptive to consumers if not handled in the manner described.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 5
1/07/09
If recycling is not widely or generally available, claims should be qualified
to indicate the limited availability of programs. Two examples are “This
container may not be recyclable in your area,” or “Recycling programs for
this container may not exist in your area.” Other examples of adequate
qualification of the claim include providing the number of communities
with programs, or the percentage of communities or the population to
which programs are available.
3. No incidental components should be present that significantly limit the
ability to recycle a product or package. For example, if labeling
significantly reduces recyclability of a package, it would be deceptive to
refer to the package as recyclable.
4. A product or package that is made from recyclable material, but is not
accepted in recycling programs for such material, should not be marketed
as recyclable. In such a situation, it would be appropriate to communicate
that “This package contains 20% recycled material” but it would be
deceptive to state that the package can (once again) be recycled.
C. Recycled Content
A recycled content claim may be made only for materials that have
been recovered or otherwise diverted from the solid waste stream, either during
the manufacturing process (pre-consumer), or after consumer use (postconsumer).
Specific conditions include:
1. To the extent the source of recycled content includes pre-consumer
material, the manufacturer or advertiser must be able to substantiate that
the pre-consumer material would otherwise have entered the solid waste
stream. This is particularly important for plastics molders, fabricators and
processors:
• Example: A molder routinely collects spilled resin and scraps left over from the
original manufacturing process. After a minimal amount of reprocessing, the molder
combines the spills and scraps with virgin material for use in further production of
the same product. A claim that the product contains recycled material is deceptive
because the spills and scraps to which the claim refers are normally reused by
industry within the original manufacturing process, and would not normally have
entered the waste stream.
2. In asserting a recycled content claim, distinctions may be made between
pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. Where such distinctions are
asserted, any express or implied claim about the specific pre-consumer or
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 6
1/07/09
post-consumer content of a product or package must be substantiated.
3. For products or packages that are only partially made of recycled material,
a recycled claim should be adequately qualified to avoid deception about
the amount, by weight, of recycled content in the finished product or
package.
• Example: A “juice box” (aseptic package) is made from layers of foil, plastic,
and paper laminated together. The label claims that “one of the three layers of
this package is made of recycled plastic.” The plastic layer is made entirely of
recycled plastic. The claim is not deceptive provided the recycled plastic layer
constitutes a significant component of the entire package.
D. Biodegradation
Claims of degradability should be qualified “by competent and reliable scientific
evidence” to avoid consumer deception about (1) the product or package’s ability
to completely break down into elements found in nature, (2) in the environment
where it is customarily disposed, and (3) the rate and extent of degradation.
Unless otherwise specified, a product must biodegrade or photodegrade in the
environment in which it is usually disposed (e.g., a sanitary landfill), and must do
so at a reasonably fast rate. Unless clearly stated, degradation must also be
complete, with no leftover synthetic or complex byproducts or residue.
• Example: According to the law, paper cannot be described as simply “biodegradable”, as
it will not break down in its typical disposal environment, a landfill, at a reasonably fast
rate. Technically, a paper product which claims to be biodegradable should qualify this
statement by including a statement such as: “When composted in a facility designed to
handle this type of paper, usually an industrial composting facility.”
However, clearly stating an exception to an unqualified claim can legitimize the
claim and remove the potential for deception:
• Example: Loop carriers are described as “Photodegradable” and qualified with the
phrase "Will break down into small pieces if left uncovered in sunlight." The claim is
supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence that the product will break down
in a reasonably short period of time after being exposed to sunlight and into sufficiently
small pieces to become part of the soil. Because the claim is qualified to indicate the
limited extent of breakdown, the manufacturer does not have to meet the elements for an
unqualified photodegradable claim, i.e., that the product will not only break down, but
also will decompose into elements found in nature.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 7
1/07/09
E. Composting
A compostability claim must be substantiated by “competent and reliable scientific
evidence” that all the materials in the product or package will (1) break down
into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioners, mulch,
(2) in a safe and timely manner, (3) in an appropriate composting program or
facility, or in a home compost pile or device. Claims must be substantiated, and
will be considered deceptive if:
1. Composting cannot occur in a home compost pile or device, and/or it is not
revealed that composting must occur in municipal or institutional facilities
and that the availability of these facilities is limited.
2. Consumers are misled into believing that landfilling will produce results
similar or equal to backyard composting,
3. The results of composting are not 100% usable as conditioners or mulch.
• Example: The description of a corn-based plastic as compostable (and/or
biodegradable) is deceptive if it is not clearly stated that products made from this
plastic must be composted in an institutional facility, and that the availability of
such facilities is limited.
However, limiting the sale of products to areas in which they can be composted, or
stating specifically where they can be composted, is acceptable and not considered
deceptive. In the example just mentioned, a description such as “Compostable
only in the area where this product or package was purchased” or “Compostable in
Northern Oregon” would typically not be considered deceptive.
F. Source Reduction
Source reduction claims should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
consumer deception about both the amount of reduction and the basis for any
comparison that is asserted. It is perfectly fine to say “This package creates 10% less
waste than our previous package.” However, simply stating “This package creates 10%
less waste” is ambiguous, and open to being considered deceptive.
Environmental Marketing Guidelines Page 8
1/07/09
V. IT’S BETTER TO BE SAFE…
As you can see, the laws are clear regarding the need for environmental claims to
be specific and substantiated. However, please keep these points in mind:
1. Whether a claim is specific enough, or provides proper substantiation, is
open to interpretation.
2. The FTC staff routinely issues new interpretations of the law. These may
complement or conflict with previous interpretations, including those
included here.
3. As an active participant in the development of communications materials,
it may be hard for you to be completely objective when it comes to
evaluating the legality of proposed environmental marketing claims.
4. This document was written from a U.S. perspective, but it is fairly safe to
assume that the FTC philosophy of specificity and substantiation is valid
globally. However, if marketing products outside of the United States,
please check the appropriate statutes and regulations for that region. This
is especially important in Europe, where product comparison claims are
either outlawed outright or considered to be a form of unfair competition.
5. Finally, please remember that the potential financial and perceptual costs
of making a mistake regarding environmental claims are high. Consult with
your Legal and Environmental Affairs Departments before making public
any environmental claim.
Robert Lilienfeld, Editor
FOOTNOTES
i Environmental Marketing Claims: Message to Vendors from the EPA and the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), EPA-744-F-97-005, June 1997.
ii FTC, Part 260, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Green Certifications - Nobody knows them....
Most Green Labels Fail to Catch Shoppers' Eyes, Survey Finds
Published September 23, 2009
NEW YORK, NY — [Editor’s note: This is an updated version that corrects the name of the federal agency issuing the organic label.]
According to a recent survey of 2,000 people in the U.S., the bulk of the more than 400 green labels on products have failed to make any mark in the minds of shoppers, and that among those that people are familiar with, there is very little trust in those labels.
The most familiar labels are the Recycling symbol, the U.S. government's Energy Star label, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Organic label. Recycling and Energy Star are the most visible labels, with 89 percent and 87 percent recognition, respectively. The Organic label has 62 percent recognition, and the remaining labels fall off quickly from there. (See chart below for full results.)
 |
Beyond the familiarity (or lack thereof), the survey found that only two of these labels are high on shoppers' radars: 31 percent say they "always" buy Energy Star-labeled products, and 20 percent say they "always" buy Recyclable.
The number of respondents claiming to "always" purchase the next two most-familiar labels, USDA Organic and the Smart Choice label, falls dramatically to 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively. (See the chart below for the full rankings.)
Related News & Blogs
GreenerDesign.com |
“While the majority of U.S. consumers are unfamiliar with most trustmarks today, we believe that certifications can work for forward-looking brands in several ways,” Mitch Baranowski, founding partner of BBMG, said in a statement. “Trustmarks help ensure companies follow best practices by setting clear and transparent standards. They serve as important proof points for overall brand messages and stories. And they can provide an objective, third-party stamp of approval that demonstrates how companies are following through on their social and environmental claims.”
To that end, Baranowski posted a list on the BBMG blog of seven recommendations for how to promote a label that will stick in shoppers' minds, and keep from succumbing to some of the most common pitfalls of green product branding. Among his list of recommendations:
• Claim ownership. If you’re going to go through the time and trouble of establishing and promoting certification standards, you deserve credit. Acronyms need help. The LEED trustmark is clearly brought to you by the U.S. Green Building Council.
• Design for the long haul. Reducing a complex idea to its visual essence takes time and expertise. But it’s done every day. Give designers clear direction (and space) to create symbols that are durable, functional and beautiful. Most people will only know the certifications through the symbol; it’s important.
• Go for one clear idea. It’s amazing how many trustmarks say…nothing at all…or way too much. It’s laughable to consider Fruit Loops a smart choice for breakfast, but at least the Smart Choices mark sends a clear message.
Baranowski's full list of recommendations is online at BBMG's blog, and more details about the trustmark survey are online at BBMG.com.
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/09/23/most-green-labels-missing-mark-survey-finds
LEED Certified - not all it's cracked up to be
Metrics - you manage what you measure - old news. But apparently not to LEED. Nothing measured, nothing managed. So has LEED turned into Greenwashing? The climate doesn't care about what you do, as long is works right?
There is one factoid in this article that I find to be so sad and maddening...
So our tax credit money went for worse than nothing... ....
But in its own study last year of 121 new buildings certified through 2006, the Green Building Council found that more than half — 53 percent — did not qualify for the Energy Star label and 15 percent scored below 30 in that program, meaning they used more energy per square foot than at least 70 percent of comparable buildings in the existing national stock.
If I was a tenant paying a premium for a green building, I'd ask for my money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html?_r=2&hp
There is one factoid in this article that I find to be so sad and maddening...
So our tax credit money went for worse than nothing... ....
But in its own study last year of 121 new buildings certified through 2006, the Green Building Council found that more than half — 53 percent — did not qualify for the Energy Star label and 15 percent scored below 30 in that program, meaning they used more energy per square foot than at least 70 percent of comparable buildings in the existing national stock.
If I was a tenant paying a premium for a green building, I'd ask for my money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/science/earth/31leed.html?_r=2&hp
The Federal Building in downtown Youngstown, Ohio, features an extensive use of natural light to illuminate offices and a white roof to reflect heat.
It has LEED certification, the country’s most recognized seal of approval for green buildings.
But the building is hardly a model of energy efficiency. According to an environmental assessment last year, it did not score high enough to qualify for the Energy Star label granted by the Environmental Protection Agency, which ranks buildings after looking at a year’s worth of utility bills.
The building’s cooling system, a major gas guzzler, was one culprit. Another was its design: to get its LEED label, it racked up points for things like native landscaping rather than structural energy-saving features, according to a study by the General Services Administration, which owns the building.
Builders covet LEED certification — it stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design — as a way to gain tax credits, attract tenants, charge premium rents and project an image of environmental responsibility. But the gap between design and construction, which LEED certifies, and how some buildings actually perform led the program last week to announce that it would begin collecting information about energy use from all the buildings it certifies.
Buildings would provide the information voluntarily, said officials with the United States Green Building Council, the nonprofit organization that administers the LEED program, and the data would be kept confidential. But starting this year, the program also is requiring all newly constructed buildings to provide energy and water bills for the first five years of operation as a condition for certification. The label could be rescinded if the data is not produced, the officials said.
The council’s own research suggests that a quarter of the new buildings that have been certified do not save as much energy as their designs predicted and that most do not track energy consumption once in use. And the program has been under attack from architects, engineers and energy experts who argue that because building performance is not tracked, the certification may be falling short in reducing emissions tied to global warming.
Some experts have contended that the seal should be withheld until a building proves itself energy efficient, which is the cornerstone of what makes a building green, and that energy-use data from every rated building should be made public.
“The plaque should be installed with removable screws,” said Henry Gifford, an energy consultant in New York City. “Once the plaque is glued on, there’s no incentive to do better.”
Scot Horst, the council’s senior vice president for its certification program, said that any changes in the process would have to be made by consensus to ensure that the building industry would comply. Already, some construction lawyers have said that owners might face additional risk of lawsuits if buildings are found to underperform.
The council is planning several meetings with builders, owners, developers and others around the country in September and October to promote its building performance initiative, which could lead to further revisions in the rating program to ensure buildings reduce energy consumption as much as they can.
Mr. Horst called the issue of performance one of his “absolute priorities.”
“If you’re not reducing carbon, you’re not doing your job,” he said.
The LEED label, developed by the council in 1998 to have a third-party verification of a building’s environmental soundness, certifies new homes, schools and other buildings, as well as existing ones. (The certification for existing buildings is the only one currently tied to energy performance.) Its oldest and largest program, in terms of square footage, is the certification of new commercial and institutional buildings, with 1,946 projects already certified and 15,000 more that have applied for certification. Many other buildings include environmentally friendly features and advertise themselves as “green” but do not seek the LEED label.
The program uses a point system based on a broad checklist of features and buildings can be certified by accumulating points on not just efficient energy use but also water conservation, proximity to public transportation, indoor air quality and use of environment-friendly materials.
Council officials say that these other categories also help reduce energy use and emissions. And many architects and engineers praise the comprehensiveness of the label. But the wide scope of the program, many in the industry point out, also means that buildings have been able to get certified by accumulating most of their points through features like bamboo flooring, while paying little attention to optimizing energy use.
Another problem is that the certification relies on energy models to predict how much energy a planned building will use, but council officials and many experts agree that such models are inexact. Once a building opens, it may use more energy than was predicted by the design. And how a building is used — how many occupants it has, for example — affects its energy consumption.
“If the occupants don’t turn off the lights, the building doesn’t do as well as expected,” said Mark Frankel, technical director for the New Buildings Institute, which promotes improved energy performance in new commercial construction and conducted the research commissioned by the Green Building Council on LEED buildings.
“In the real world, the mechanical systems may have problems, so that increases energy use,” Mr. Frankel said, adding that keeping track of energy use is rarely a priority for owners.
LEED energy standards have grown more stringent over the years, and construction like the Youngstown federal building, built in 2002, would not be certified under the current version of the program, the G.S.A. study noted. The LEED standard goes through periodic revisions, and this year, the minimum energy requirements needed for the basic LEED certification for new buildings were raised.
The LEED program was created in 1998 and has gone through periodic revisions
But in its own study last year of 121 new buildings certified through 2006, the Green Building Council found that more than half — 53 percent — did not qualify for the Energy Star label and 15 percent scored below 30 in that program, meaning they used more energy per square foot than at least 70 percent of comparable buildings in the existing national stock.
Anecdotal information from follow-up research to that study indicated that the best-performing buildings had limited window areas and tended to be smaller.
Sometimes, a building’s inhabitants are the first to notice energy-wasting features.
At the Octagon, a LEED-certified residential rental building on Roosevelt Island in New York City, residents like Alan Siegal say that obvious energy savers, like motion sensors in the hallway, are hard to miss.
But Mr. Siegal, 59, a customs service broker, said his three-bedroom apartment has floor-to-ceiling glass windows that offer great views but also strong drafts.
“If there’s a lot of glass, is that going to be efficient?” he asked.
Bruce Becker, whose company Becker and Becker Associates developed and owns the Octagon, said that the windows offer day lighting but conceded that there were plenty of opportunities to become more energy efficient. He said the Octagon would soon switch to a fuel cell system for heat and electricity, partly to cut energy costs at a time of a depressed rental market.
Mr. Horst, the LEED executive, said that LEED may eventually move toward the E.P.A.’s Energy Star model, which attests to energy efficiency only for the year the label was given, similar to restaurant ratings.
“Ultimately, where we want to be is, once you’re performing at a certain level, you continue to be recertified,” Mr. Horst said.
Monday, September 7, 2009
SD Forum on Solar Energy
Attended a breakfast meeting in San Francisco with panelists from various solar companies - established and start ups - working on a variety of aspects and markets in solar.
Here are the key concepts that I learned:
LCOE - Levelized Cost of Energy - levelized over peak and non peak. Just one metric and should not be all that is used to make decisions.
Feed In Tariff - utility pays you (homeowner) for production
Grid Parity
There are different kinds of solar technology and which one is the best to use depends on your location.
Wind energy has achieved grid parity. 4-8 cents for nuclear and coal.
Wind has large maintenance costs that solar does not.
Solar projected to reach grid parity in 2013.
Solar industry is running on very thin margins.
Different solar technologies:
Thin film PV - cost not there yet, up and coming
Crystalline Si
Concentrated PV - cheapest with clear sun
Tracking technology increasing energy production without having to add additional panels.
The efficiency of the WHOLE system, not just the solar cells, makes the different between being profitable and not profitable. Example- invertors and other items that decrease the energy that does make it out of the solar cells.
Utilities are becoming distributors, not generators, and they are fighting this change.
Germany has driven a lot of innovation esp, with the Feed In Tarriff. You are paid a bonus for generating electricity - you have to run and maintain it.
Big companies are buying smaller VC backed companies that are doing software products related to controlling the grid.
Future of Distributed Energy promising but the challenge is marrying it to the Smart Grid which does not exist.
Here are the key concepts that I learned:
LCOE - Levelized Cost of Energy - levelized over peak and non peak. Just one metric and should not be all that is used to make decisions.
Feed In Tariff - utility pays you (homeowner) for production
Grid Parity
There are different kinds of solar technology and which one is the best to use depends on your location.
Wind energy has achieved grid parity. 4-8 cents for nuclear and coal.
Wind has large maintenance costs that solar does not.
Solar projected to reach grid parity in 2013.
Solar industry is running on very thin margins.
Different solar technologies:
Thin film PV - cost not there yet, up and coming
Crystalline Si
Concentrated PV - cheapest with clear sun
Tracking technology increasing energy production without having to add additional panels.
The efficiency of the WHOLE system, not just the solar cells, makes the different between being profitable and not profitable. Example- invertors and other items that decrease the energy that does make it out of the solar cells.
Utilities are becoming distributors, not generators, and they are fighting this change.
Germany has driven a lot of innovation esp, with the Feed In Tarriff. You are paid a bonus for generating electricity - you have to run and maintain it.
Big companies are buying smaller VC backed companies that are doing software products related to controlling the grid.
Future of Distributed Energy promising but the challenge is marrying it to the Smart Grid which does not exist.
The challenges of Sustainable supply chain
I attended at CTO event where the Supply Chain director of Method products spoke.
He put sustainable supply chain in an interesting way: Past, Present, and Future.
Past is the SOURCE.
Present is the USE.
Future is DISPOSAL
He put sustainable supply chain in an interesting way: Past, Present, and Future.
Past is the SOURCE.
Present is the USE.
Future is DISPOSAL
Friday, August 14, 2009
Understanding and Preventing Greenwash: A Business Guide
http://www.bsr.org/reports/Understanding_Preventing_Greenwash.pdf
Understanding and
Preventing Greenwash:
A Business Guide
Rina Horiuchi and Ryan Schuchard, BSR
Lucy Shea and Solitaire Townsend, Futerra
July 2009
41 pages
I haven't read it yet, but plan to and write up comments.
Here is an article about the report.
Understanding and
Preventing Greenwash:
A Business Guide
Rina Horiuchi and Ryan Schuchard, BSR
Lucy Shea and Solitaire Townsend, Futerra
July 2009
41 pages
I haven't read it yet, but plan to and write up comments.
Here is an article about the report.
SAN FRANCISCO, August 11 /CSRwire/ - Despite countless indicators that today's "battered consumer" is seeking deep discounts and shopping for necessities only, consumer demand for environmentally friendly products is on the rise, according to National Geographic and Globescan's 2009 Greendex survey of consumers in 17 countries.
At the same time, consumers are becoming more frustrated with the green messages that frequently accompany these products-many of which are perceived as misguided, unsubstantiated, or, worst of all, just "noise." In other words, the messages are construed as "greenwash."
BSR's new report, "Understanding and Preventing Greenwash: A Business Guide," cowritten with Futerra Sustainability Communications, helps companies understand where they fall in this "greenwash matrix," and how they can move toward effective communications that align with the true impacts of their environmental initiatives.
"Today's savvy consumers are not just spending their dollars more wisely to save money," said Diane Osgood, BSR's Vice President, CSR Strategy. "They want to trust the company from which they are buying goods and services, and honest communications are key. The recent Edelman Trust barometer survey shows that the quality and transparency of information going to the consumer is as important as the quality of the good or service for building customer trust. Our guide helps companies curtail greenwash and build the trust of consumers."
According to the report, a framework that incorporates impact, alignment, and communication can help companies stop greenwash and begin using effective environmental communications.
"Greenwash is more than a distraction for the consumer; it threatens the entire market for green products and services," added Lucy Shea, Chief Executive of Futerra. "Even while consumer trust goes down the drain, with only 10 percent believing green claims, demand for credible, environmentally friendly products and services is rising. Greenwash exacerbates this tension. The danger is that consumers lose all faith in green advertising, in effect dragging demand down."
Impact: Making Sure It's Real
A company's sustainability practices or products must be based on real, significant environmental impact. If the underlying objective behind an environmental initiative is to improve corporate reputation or goodwill and not to address environmental impact, the company is likely to be accused of greenwash. If the company has invested more resources into communicating about the activity rather than investing in the activity itself, it may not have any significant environmental impact that is worth communicating.
Key questions to evaluate impact: 1. Is the issue material to the business? 2. Has the company already achieved the results in its claim?
Alignment: Building Internal and External Support
An initiative with significant impact must be aligned with multiple functions throughout the company-including strategy, procurement, design, government affairs, and marketing. The best way to check the integrity of the initiative is with a credible third party.
Key questions to evaluate alignment: 1. Did the company's initiative include multiple departments within the organization? 2. Are other activities in the company consistent with the message? 3. Did the company engage with stakeholders and incorporate their feedback?
Communication: Making Accurate Claims
Companies should focus on clarity and transparency without using a self-aggrandizing tone. Even if the claim represents the environmental impact accurately, if consumers do not understand the claim, the message is ineffective. Along the same lines, the use of data can help the company measure performance against objectives and set a baseline for future improvement.
Key questions to evaluate communication: 1. Does the company have the data to back up its claim? 2. Is it easy for people to understand the company's claim and its significance? 3. Is the company focusing on one attribute while ignoring knock-on effects of others?
"As the one-year anniversary of the global financial crisis draws near, this is a critical period for redefining the role of business in society," Osgood said. "Trust in corporations has plummeted, and that trust will either be rebuilt or continue its downward trend."
Companies today are eager to demonstrate that they are part of the solution-to global warming, to declining ecosystem function, or to keeping toxic chemicals out of our children's products. But as long as consumers struggle sorting out legitimate environmental claims from among the misguided and unsubstantiated noise of competing messages, companies risk accusations of greenwash.
Download a copy of this report at www.bsr.org/reports/Understanding_Preventing_Greenwash.pdf. About BSR A leader in corporate responsibility since 1992, BSR works with its global network of more than 250 member companies to develop sustainable business strategies and solutions through consulting, research, and cross-sector collaboration. With six offices in Asia, Europe, and North America, BSR uses its expertise in the environment, human rights, economic development, and governance and accountability to guide global companies toward creating a just and sustainable world. Visit www.bsr.org for more information. About Futerra Futerra is the award winning global communications agency. We have bright ideas, we captivate audiences, build energetic websites one day and grab opinion formers' attention the next. But the real difference is that Futerra has only ever worked on corporate responsibility. From Microsoft to Newscorp, Royal Dutch Shell to Greenpeace, the United Nations to Ben and Jerry's, Futerra has built a unique expertise in corporate responsibility and communicating sustainability.
Source: CSRwire News Feed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
