“Environmentally friendly”, “zero waste”, “eco-responsible”… These mentions have flourished on many products in recent years. The first investigation carried out by the Fraud Repression (DGCCRF) on the subject, made public on Thursday, however shows that they are frequently misleading, proving to be simple “greenwashing”. Of the 1,100 establishments checked between 2021 and 2022, one in four was “anomalous”, points out the service of the Ministry of the Economy.
The DGCCRF specifies that it has focused on environmental claims on non-food products (cosmetics, textiles, furniture, toys, food packaging, etc.) and certain services, such as hotels and laundry. She reports having checked “all types of media (packaging, label, website, social networks, catalog, showcase, in-store advertising, etc.”).
The “abnormalities” identified are “very varied”, she says. The most often encountered is that of “globalising” claims, that is to say not referring “not to a particular environmental impact” but suggesting “rather an overall benefit for the environment”, according to the Directorate General for Competition , Consumption and Fraud Control. For example “environmentally friendly”, “ecological” or “eco-responsible”. The DGCCRF takes the example of “the presentation as ‘eco-responsible’ of wooden crockery imported from Asia”.
Some “green” claims encountered have also turned out to be “unjustified”, points out the management, which refers more specifically to “rewarding mentions without justification (local origin of their products, contribution to a particular cause or reduction of waste), in the aim to stand out from their competitors. She cites in particular the example of a jar of honey “with the mention “for each jar sold, a donation is donated to the association (X) which fights to save bees” when only one donation had been made. by the company in 2016”.
Other mentions noted were they “imprecise or ambiguous”. For example “a garden hose with the mention “recycled PVC” without specifying the actual quantity of recycled material incorporated into the product when it is mandatory”. It also notes the sometimes abusive use of mentions of the “100%” or “zero” type, for example “raw materials which respect 100% nature” or “zero waste”. Some controlled registrations were even “contrary to legal provisions”, finally underlines the DGCCRF. “For example, the mention of “even more planet-friendly products” and various green logos on chemical products have been observed, whereas European and national regulations prohibit this type of mention for these products”, she indicates.
Result of the races: 141 warnings, 114 injunctions and 18 criminal or administrative reports were drawn up by the DGCCRF against the establishments in anomaly. According to the organization, this investigation made it possible to remove the references concerned. “Following these checks, the professionals, in a very large majority, carried out a return to compliance by modifying or deleting the misleading claims. Similarly, allegations that cannot be substantiated have very often been withdrawn by professionals, ”says the administration, saying it is strengthening its controls this year against greenwashing.
