Ask and you shall receive: enforcement on sustainability claims
Posted: March 13, 2025 Filed under: Advertising, Authors, Disclosure of information, Enforcement, Food, Information Comments Off on Ask and you shall receive: enforcement on sustainability claims
Misleading sustainability claims are prominently present on food products in the Netherlands. This is the conclusion of the research (see here, in Dutch) that the European think thank Questionmark conducted on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature (Dutch Ministry). Last month, the Dutch Ministry presented the outcomes of Questionmark’s research to the Dutch House of Representatives (see here for the letter, in Dutch). In this blogpost, we provide a summary of Questionmark’s report and look to the future of sustainability claims enforcement in the Netherlands.
Sustainability claims report
Questionmark collected over sixty potentially misleading sustainability claims and tested them against the Guidelines Sustainability Claims by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), and the Code for Sustainability Advertising (CSA) by the Dutch self-regulatory Advertisement Code Committee (ACC). It appeared not difficult to find ambiguous claims in the food sector. Absolute claims and vague terms like ‘sustainable’ were found on ordinary Dutch food products like peanut butter and coffee. Below we present 7 categories of questionable claims that Questionmark details in its report.
#1 ‘Sustainable’ and other vague terms
The most commonly found type of questionable claims concerns vague terms. Examples include “we use sustainably grown peanuts” and “we support the plant”. Such claims give the impression that all sustainability problems are addressed in the production of the respective food, while in reality it often concerns the improvement of only one or a few aspects of the production of the food. Furthermore, consumers do not know what the sustainability benefit of the food is if vague terms are being used. Both the ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims (rule 1) and the CSA (explanation to art. 3) therefore require sustainability claims to be specific.
#2 ‘100%’ and other absolute claims
Absolute terms leave the impression that (the production of) the food has no negative impact, or even a positive impact, on the environment. Examples include “100% sustainably sourced coffee” and “good for nature and farmland birds”. Food products can however not ‘improve’ the environment. Both the ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims (rule 1) and the CSA (explanation to art. 4) require claims to be factually correct. Absolute claims are normally difficult to substantiate and should therefore not be used without the required nuance.
#3 ‘Calculated’ sustainability
Certain sustainability claims are based on a ‘calculated’ solution, such as the claim “climate neutral”. In reality, it is impossible to produce a climate neutral product. The claimed neutrality is usually based on the purchase of CO2-compensation certificates. Claiming that a food is climate neutral therefore gives a distorted picture of reality. The ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims (p.15) therefore calls to not use claims based on CO2-compensation. These claims can easily be misleading, even if the procedure behind it is explained.
Other calculated solutions include the use of a ‘mass balance’ system, whereby certified ‘sustainable’ raw materials are mixed with uncertified raw materials. The use of this calculation method is not always specified in the sustainability claim, leaving the consumer with the impression that the product at stake effectively contains sustainable ingredients. The ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims (p. 25) require in such case clarification that the product at stake ‘contributes’ towards the production of more-sustainable raw materials, but that it is not a guarantee that the product itself contains such.
#4 Disposal route presented as sustainable
Claims like “100% recyclable” or “compostable” (usually used for the packaging of food) give the impression that the waste problem for this product is resolved. The claim that a product may be disposed in a certain way does however not mean that the product will actually be recycled or composted end of life. This partly depends on the disposal route the consumer chooses after having consumed the food, and partly on the available techniques to really recycle or compose products.
The ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims (p. 10) call to be clear about conditional claims, which are only true under certain circumstances or conditions. The CSA (art. 9) only allows environmental claims relating to (separate) waste collection and/ or waste processing if the recommended method of collection or processing is available and can be applied in practice.
#5 Questionable quality marks
Some foods are advertised with a logo that looks like an independent and trustworthy quality mark while the logo is in fact developed by the producer of the food itself, or is based on a quality mark with little distinctive environmental requirements or without compliance control. The picture below shows examples of such logos as illustrated in Questionmark’s report.
Picture: Examples of quality marks in the report ‘Duurzaamheidsclaims in de voedselmarkt’, Questionmark, October 2024, p. 12.
The ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims (p. 24) call on companies to limit the number of logos and labels, and to make greater efforts to use labels that are introduced and checked by an independent organization. The CSA (explanation to art. 8) refers in this regard to the Quality Mark Guide by the Dutch public information organization Milieu Centraal, which provides information about the requirements set by quality marks and about control and transparency.
#6 Presenting ambitions as reality
The ambition to produce a more sustainable food in the future is sometimes presented as a current sustainability benefit of the food, which may be misleading. Such sustainability ambitions are sometimes based on a quality mark. Examples include the quality mark ‘Climate Neutral Certified’, which helps companies achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Another example is the quality mark ‘On the way to Planet Proof.’ The CSA (art. 3.2) requires that in case of sustainability ambitions, it should be made sufficiently clear that it concerns an aim and not the current situation. More details on how to formulate sustainability ambitions can be found in rule 4 of the ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims.
#7 Uncontrolled ‘top’ quality marks
‘Top’ quality marks mentioned in the Quality Mark Guide by Milieu Centraal are not verified against the Dutch rules on sustainability claims. It happens therefore that ‘top’ quality marks use absolute claims such as “sustainable” or “planet proof” in their logo, or that it is not clear that a part of the claim concerns an ambition for the future. While these quality marks do not deliberately mislead consumers, it is confusing that they communicate in a way that is not allowed for other advertisers. Examples include the MSC quality mark referring to ‘sustainable fishing’ as well as the quality marks mentioned under #6 above.
Not all bad
To show that not all sustainability claims in the food sector are (potentially) misleading, Questionmark also discusses clear and unambiguous claims. Although claims like “100% plant-based”, “vegan” and “palm oil free” have an absolute character, it is not impossible to substantiate such statements. These claims are therefore not necessarily misleading. Claims made by the dairy industry are furthermore highlighted for the efforts this industry makes to explain the specific sustainability benefits of their products rather than using absolute, unsubstantiated terms.
Questionmark’s recommendations
Questionmark contacted the advertisers of the ambiguous claims with the request to these. Some of these advertisers agreed to improve their claims only after Questionmark submitted a claim to the ACC, or after the ACC ruled in favor of Questionmark. Questionmark therefore concludes that the complaint mechanism through the ACC works well, but cannot serve as an alternative to structural enforcement by the government. It therefore has the following recommendations to the Dutch Ministry:
- Actively enforce the rules on sustainability claims.
- Keep the government’s approach complementary to that of the ACC. The government can primarily take a proactive approach, while the ACC works reactively based on complaints. The government’s approach could be more focused on preventing misleading claims, for example through the deterrent effect of fines.
In addition to these main recommendations, Questionmark recommends the following steps:
- Explore the role of better education of advertisers (in the food industry) about the ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims.
- Embrace the EU’s proposed Green Claims Directive (for which the inter-institutional negotiations started on 28 January 2025), which establishes a prior approval system for sustainability claims.
- Ensure that the logos of the (top) quality marks included in the Quality Mark Guide by Milieu Centraal comply with the ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims.
Our recommendations
The timing of Questionmark’s recommendations for improved governmental oversight could not be more accurate: the ACM communicated last month that sustainability claims in the food sector is one of its focus areas for 2025. The Dutch Ministry also communicated to be working on sustainability claims, in the context of greater transparency in the food chain (see the letter linked to in the introduction of this blogpost).
The legal basis for enforcement by the ACM can be found in the general ban on misleading practices in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), as implemented in the Netherlands in book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code. The ACM Guidelines Sustainability Claims provide an interpretation of these rules when it comes to sustainability claims. We do not exclude that the ACM will with one eye also have a look at the Anti-Greenwashing Directive (see here for a presentation we held on this topic). These rules shall apply from 27 September 2026. The implementation of these EU rules into Dutch law is on schedule. When it comes to claims on disposal routes, we recommend taking into account the recently adopted Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which will apply as of 12 August 2026 and contains rules on claims such as ‘recyclable’ and ‘compostable’.
What can companies do to be well-armed, both against governmental enforcement and complaints from competitors or consumers via the ACC? In our view, Questionmark hits the nail on the head: education, education and education. If you are a food business, make sure that you are familiar with the above. We are happy to help navigating the landscape of sustainability claims, whether it is via an (online) in-house training, a check on any specific claim, or otherwise.