I have developed a list of twenty one key factors for analyzing green claims, for use by my graphic design students at New Mexico State University. The list’s purpose is to help them develop sensitivity to the subject in order to produce more critical work. The impetus for creating it stems from events in 2007 when the Advertising Federation, an industry group in the U.S. fell short of actually recommending that the Federal Trade Commission institute new guidelines limiting green claims in advertising, branding and packaging. Despite the voluntary nature of the proposed guidelines large advertising firms resisted the possibility of their environmental claims being even tacitly examined by the Federal government. The FTC did eventually create the guidelines and though useful in an imaginary lawsuit are quite Byzantine. They did however help me to devise this list by identifying some of the regular green claims that are made along with others collected during critiques and exercises with students.
- Does the claim isolate a particular feature or service that might distract the audience from examining how it affects impacts holistically?
- Is the claim paired with images that picture the product or service in a natural setting that it has no specific connection with?
- Is the claim paired with images that connote growth such as leaves, trees or globes in a way that does not signify anything specific?
- Does the claim include rebranding through the use of a new logotype or other text that include the word “green” or the color green?
- Is the claim paired with a mark or symbol for an industry sponsored oversight group rather than an independent third party representing ethical consumers? Can the claim be substantiated through any third party?
- Is the claim paired with a design hierarchy that implies greater relative sustainability through scale and the proximity of words and images? Does this include disclosures in small print or reference another unseen document?
- Is the claim paired with small print, jargon or fine details that obscure important facts about the actual percentage of post consumer waste used or the proportions that are recyclable?
- Does the claim use vague qualifying terms to disclose the product’s actual percentage or average contribution to sustainability?
- Does the claim make clear whether it is referring to the product, the package or its manufacture?
- Does the claim make reference to what we commonly assume to be recyclable, as in the material properties of the product, such as a claim of recyclability applied to aluminum foil?
- Does the claim properly communicate what portion of the product or packaging can be easily separated for recycling?
- Does the claim infer that the product or package is widely recyclable within the geographic range in which it is sold, when it is not?
- Is the claim technically true but convey a broader application or false impression (such as a product like a garbage bag, labeled recyclable or biodegradable which is normally destined for a landfill or incinerator)?
- Does the claim conflate the terms/concepts ‘recycled’ or ‘recyclable’ with ‘post-consumer waste’, ‘repurposed’ or ‘remade’?
- Does the claim ambiguously state a comparison but not reference whether the comparison is to a competitor or an earlier iteration of the same product?
- Does the claim make a broad, vague or misleading comparison? For example are there claims the product has the highest recycled content in a product category wherein very little of the category is typically recycled, or a claim of – “less waste” or “less toxic” wherein a significant amount of toxic waste is a common byproduct of the manufacture?
- Is the claim really a shell-game? Such as stating that a paper product is non-chlorine bleached but its manufacture still releases other harmful substances of equal or greater toxicity?
- Does the claim include unregulated or vague terms such as “friendly”, “gentle”, “safe”, “practically non-toxic”, “superior” or “natural”?
- Does the claim make assertions of “biodegradable”, “photodegradable” or “compostable” when the item is likely to remain inert in typical conditions?
- Does the claim encourage individual consumers to recycle or reuse in the absence of any collective government or industry waste systems?
- Does the claim represent an insignificant portion of the company’s business and seem to overstate an environmental attribute or benefit?
