Editor’s Note
This article highlights the UK CMA’s updated guidance on environmental claims, emphasizing that liability for misleading “green” statements extends across supply chains. Businesses must actively verify and avoid disseminating unsubstantiated claims to mitigate enforcement risks.
On 22 January 2026, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published updated guidance on making environmental claims across supply chains. The guidance provides greater clarity — and warns of enforcement — for liability for misleading “green claims” across supply chains. Any company that repeats, relies on or disseminates such claims may face enforcement action.
Failures to verify the statements made may trigger fines of up to 10% of global turnover under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.
The CMA will prioritise cases involving systemic governance and compliance failures. In practice, downstream businesses, particularly retailers and customer-facing brands, are likely to be the primary enforcement targets.
Green claims compliance is not a marketing issue. Environmental, sustainability and governance (ESG) issues have become board-level consumer protection risks requiring robust internal controls, documented substantiation and active supply chain oversight.
The CMA’s latest guidance reflects a broader global trend. Similar enforcement priorities have emerged elsewhere, such as from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (updated Green Guides, 2024), the European Commission (Green Claims Directive proposal, 2023) and the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (2023). Businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions face convergent but not identical standards.
Building on the CMA’s 2021 Green Claims Code (“Code”), the new guidance “Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain” (“Supply Chain Guidance”), responds to stakeholder requests for greater clarity on how responsibility is shared between suppliers, manufacturers, brands and retailers – particularly where claims rely on information provided by third parties (such as upstream suppliers or manufacturers). It also includes a useful checklist and illustrative examples to help businesses understand how these principles may apply in practice.
A “green claim” can take many forms. It may be an express statement, an image or logo, or even the omission of information, where the overall impression is that a product, service or business is environmentally beneficial or less environmentally harmful. Common examples include claims such as “eco-friendly”, “recyclable”, “sustainable” or “carbon neutral”.
Under UK consumer protection law, green claims must not mislead consumers. As reflected in the Code and reinforced by the Supply Chain Guidance, this means environmental claims must in practice:
- be truthful and accurate;
- be clear and unambiguous;
- not omit or hide important information;
- make fair and meaningful comparisons (where comparisons are used);
- consider the full life cycle of the product or service; and
- be substantiated by robust and credible evidence, which is up-to-date.
Outcome: Both the retailer and the brand have a responsibility to ensure that the claim is not misleading, but the CMA is likely to focus on the supermarket as the entity that marketed the product with misleading credentials and is best placed to correct the issue. For instance, the retailer could withdraw the body wash from the range and substitute it with a product that satisfies the range requirements. Alternatively, the retailer could include the body wash in a different environmental range that specifically groups products with recycled packaging.
Example 1: A retailer/manufacturer sells its own-brand tents labelled “made from recycled polyester”, when in fact the tents contain less than 50% recycled content. The business relied on a supplier’s statement that the material is “greener as it is recycled” and did not have internal processes in place to verify the claim before marketing it.
Example 2: An online retailer sells trainers labelled “100% recycled”, based on product information supplied by a brand; despite the retailer’s regular checks and evidence requests, a customer complaint reveals only the sole is recycled.
