Students win striking greenwashing case against Colgate-Palmolive

What if a company says a bottle is 100 percent recyclable, but in practice the bottle is unlikely to be recycled? What if it is possible, but it doesn’t happen? That question was answered in a high-profile case that could have implications for future recycling claims.

This concerns a case filed with the Advertising Code Committee by students against the American multinational Colgate-Palmolive. That company must adjust sustainability claims surrounding the sale of Ajax Lime all-purpose cleaner. The decision is in the hands of NRCbut not yet public, because Colgate-Palmolive can still appeal.

The case was conducted by four students from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam who are following a master’s degree in climate law. Running a real business, a so-called law clinic, is an optional subject. Previously, students won this way a striking case against Shellwhich contains slogans such as “Make a difference, drive CO₂-neutral” had to withdraw. According to their teacher, Clemens Kaupa, this new case could have many consequences for companies that promote recycling.

‘Downcycled’

The case revolved around a number of claims. For example, the Ajax Lime bottles say: “Bottle and cap recyclable”. The company’s website also stated: “Bottle and cap 100 percent recyclable.”

Consumers who stand in the supermarket with the bottle in their hand can get the feeling that the bottle is circular, the students argued. If they throw it in the plastic waste bin, it will be turned into a new bottle of all-purpose cleaner, or otherwise a comparable product – at least that is the appearance of the claim.

But the reality is different, students say. They cited a study stating that more than half of Dutch household plastic waste is not recycled. And if it is recycled, in practice it is often not made into new plastic bottles, but can be ‘downcycled’, for example into the dark gray bases of mobile traffic signs, according to the students.

Colgate-Palmolive argued that the claim is factually correct, and that it is not the company’s fault that “the government” is not getting its act together when it comes to recycling. The multinational has no influence on the actual recycling process, the group stated.

It also countered that banning such a claim would discourage the sustainability of products and packaging. It is important, according to the company, that companies design their products in such a way that they are recyclable and dare to communicate about this.

Remarkably, the students were right. Because, according to the Commission, “environmental claims relating to the recycling of products are only permitted if this reuse is sufficiently achieved.” In other words: if it is possible, but often does not happen in practice, you should not give the wrong impression.

100 percent recycled

The other point of contention in the case was that the bottles state that they are made “from 100 percent recycled plastic.” According to students, these bottles cannot be made from 100% recycled plastic. Plastic becomes less and less good with recycling, so new plastic is often added to improve the quality. This is done, for example, by mixing plastic left over from the production process. That is new plastic, so strictly speaking it is not 100 percent recycled.

According to Colgate-Palmolive, apart from a number of additives, the bottles are indeed made entirely from recycled plastic. The Advertising Code Committee ruled on this point that the company must first prove this to be right.

Teacher Kaupa thinks it is an important victory. “Plastic pollution is a major problem, for the environment, but also in terms of CO₂emissions. These types of claims give consumers the feeling that plastic is circular, but that is simply not the case. It is important that we move away from the use of single-use plastic.”

Colgate-Palmolive could not be reached for questions on Tuesday afternoon NRC. The company has until early January to appeal the ruling.

To share





Email the editor