Home / Publications / CMS Green Globe / Sustainability claims and greenwashing in Bulgari...

Bulgaria - Sustainability claims and greenwashing

What are the top 3 developments in Bulgaria concerning green claims and the associated risk of greenwashing?

The topic of green claims is gaining significant popularity across the world, as countries are being asked to explore different methods and approaches to their contribution to the transition to clean energy. This shift is pivotal in order for issues such as climate change and sustainability to be properly addressed. Accordingly, organisations have started to assess their environmental footprint and possible improvements with regards to their approach towards sustainability. Bulgaria itself has undertaken some steps to facilitate such environmental protection; it has brought in basic environmental protection legislation, and has also developed a national environmental strategy to mitigate adverse environmental consequences. Unfortunately, Bulgaria still lags behind when it comes to green claims and the associated risk of greenwashing. The development of a framework to deal with those issues has been slow; however, the Bulgarian authorities have now begun to concentrate their efforts on taking action in this respect.

Below, we briefly summarize the top 3 areas of development regarding green claims and greenwashing in the territory of Bulgaria.

1. National Ethical Standards govern environmental claims in marketing communications

The National Ethical Standards for Advertising and Commercial Communication in Bulgaria ("National Ethical Standards") envisage principles regarding marketing communications of environmental claims. According to the National Ethical Standards, the term “environmental claim” refers to "any statement, symbol or graphic that indicates an environmental aspect of a product, component, or packaging". The legal principles derive from different national and international standards, including the International Standard ISO 14021 on "Self-declared environmental claims".

The principles aim to facilitate honest and truthful presentation of claims in advertising. In Bulgaria, marketing communications should not contain any statement which can potentially mislead the ‘reasonable consumer’ regarding the environmental benefits of an advertised product, or the actions implemented by the trader aimed at protecting the environment. The rationale for this principle is not to diminish consumers’ concerns for the environment, or to exploit their environmental knowledge.

Additionally, claims such as "ecologically safe" or "environmentally friendly", should be kept to a minimum unless they can be validly proven. The National Ethical Standards also encourage the use of scientific findings or technical demonstrations only in instances where they are supported by trustworthy, reliable evidence. For instance, if an environmental claim refers to health or safety, it should be backed by suitably robust scientific evidence.

Environmental claims should also never be made in a manner that implies that they apply to more aspects of a product's life cycle, or more of its characteristics, than the evidence supports. In practice, this means that the stage or subject to which a claim refers should always be apparent from the outset. A life cycle analysis should support a claim of life-cycle benefits. For example, when a claim mentions the elimination of substances or things that influence the environment, it should be obvious what has been eliminated.

2. Increased alignment of directors’ duty of care standards with ESG factors

Under Bulgarian law, joint-stock companies’ directors must comply with the “duty of care” standard, i.e., to act in the best interest of the company and its shareholders. At first glance, it is rather challenging for the duty of care principle to be reconciled with the recent changes in corporate governance in favour of ESG considerations. This is because ESG considerations can result in additional costs or reduced financial gains, for example.

On the other hand, ESG could be reconciled with the duty of care standard only in the case that the relevant ESG considerations in concern result in a long-term value for the business. If ESG considerations are implemented with the aim of mitigating or eliminating risks such as revenue losses, a decline in customer base, reputational risks, etc., then they will be in line with the duty of care principle.

Such risk management activities are tightly connected with the responsibilities of directors, and thus they should be implemented within a company’s policies. Arguably, it is possible that a failure to take into account ESG considerations when dealing with such risks may result in a breach of a director’s duty of care. Additionally, such failure can negatively affect the company’s activities and reputation. This is due to the fact that more and more emphasis is now placed on proactive ESG initiatives and internal mechanisms for demonstrating a responsibility towards the environment and other issues of sustainability.

3. Non-financial reporting

In Bulgaria, public interest entities which are considered large under the Accountancy Act and whose workforce exceeds 500 employees are required to file a non-financial statement, including the information necessary to comprehend the development, performance, condition of the respective entity, and impact of its operation.

Any such non-financial statement should include information regarding, amongst other things, environmental and social issues. At present, the number of entities that are obliged to file such a report is insignificant, given the aforementioned two-pillar approach. Nevertheless, this is expected to change once the forthcoming Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSDR) is transposed into Bulgarian law. Within  this new legal regime, greenwashing is set to be targeted even further (with the ultimate aim of ending instances of greenwashing altogether), and it is anticipated that higher environmental standards will be set for traders and consumers alike.

Subscribe to CMS Green Globe newsletter

Key contacts

Antonia Kehayova
Counsel
Sofia
T +359 2 447 1322
Berdzh Draganov
Associate
Sofia
T +359 2 447 1325

Discover related products

Discover related products


02/10/2023
Expert Guide on ESG in Real Estate
In the ever-evolving landscape of real estate development, investment, and operation, a remarkable surge in ESG (environmental, social, and governance) regulatory activity is reshaping the sector. With these changes come new and vital requirements th
Comparable
09/04/2024
CMS Expert Guide to plastics and packaging laws
 Plastics and packaging have attracted  consumer, media and legislative interest over recent years with an array of laws being proposed to incentivise behavioural and design change. Significant reforms are expected globally to deal with environmental
Comparable
06/12/2023
Green Claims & Green(er) Products
21/08/2023
European Commission publishes European Sustainability Reporting Standards...
On 31 July 2023, the European Commission published the first set of the European sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). This is the first big step towards the implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which came i
16/03/2022
Greenwashing: reputations on the line
As global heating and other environmental issues have come to the forefront of public consciousness in recent years, with extreme weather events and increasingly urgent warnings about the damage humans are doing to the planet, consumers have taken a greater interest in the environmental impact of the products they buy and use. Dozens of surveys have revealed that consumers prefer en­vir­on­ment­ally-friendly products, and that they are willing to pay a premium to get them. Naturally, business have responded to this concern, with brand-owners increasingly highlighting the benign or even beneficial effects their products and services have on the natural world. However, environmental issues are highly technical, and therefore raise a significant risk of confusing and misleading consumers, who may be persuaded to part with their cash to obtain products whose environmental benefits may be less than they appear. A European Commission website screening project, which reported in January, found that green claims were exaggerated, false or deceptive in 42% of cases, and more than half the time the information provided was in­ad­equate. 2021 therefore saw an increased focus from regulators on misleading green claims. In the UK, the Competition and Markets Authority recently published a new Green Claims Code, setting out six key principles for traders to follow when making environmental claims, together with over 100 pages of examples and more detailed advice, and has implied that enforcement in this area may follow soon in 2022. The Advertising Standards Authority recently carried out a review of its regulation of green claims regulation, announcing its decisions following the first stage of its review in September. In January 2021 the Netherlands Consumer and Markets Authority published Guidelines on Sustainability Claims, and in August 2021, the French government issued its Climate and Resilience Law. Similar developments are in train across Europe. Given the level of public concern about the environment, we expect that a finding that a business has been misleading consumers about its environmental credentials has the potential to be even more damaging to its reputation than other advertising breaches. Here are some key points to remember when making green claims. 1. Be clear Environmental claims are often technical and complex. Where terms are unclear, explain what you mean by them. Use appropriate qualifications and clarifications in the ad – significant qualifications should not be on a separate web page or another location where they are likely to go unread – but remember that these must be genuine qualifications of clarifications, and may not contradict the main claim. Avoid industry jargon, or explain it when used. 2. Be specific Identify the specific environmental benefit of your product or service and state it clearly. Avoid terms like “sus­tain­able”, “green”, “en­vir­on­ment­ally friendly”, “eco-friendly” or “kind to the planet”, which are largely meaningless. Comparative claims, such as “more sustainable” or “greener”, may be acceptable if you explain the specific environmental benefit clearly. A claim made for a product or service generally should be based on a “cradle-to-grave” assessment, taking into account the environmental effects of inputs such as raw materials, water and electricity, manufacturing, transport, use and end-of-life disposal. Even with more narrowly-framed claims, make sure you consider all aspects – a common pitfall is to claim that packaging is recyclable or plastic free, without considering whether inner packaging, glue or tape, all of which form part of the packaging, meet that description. 3. Limit your claims to what you can prove Start with the evidence you have, and work out what claims you can make based on that evidence. A common pitfall is to start with the claim and then cast about for evidence to support it, which often leads to a broader claim than can be substantiated. If you have taken waste out of the supply chain, limit your claim to the supply chain. If you have reduced CO2 emissions from transport, limit your claim to transport. 4. Sub­stan­ti­ation should be thorough and detailed Because they are often technical and detailed, environmental claims may require in-depth substantiation, and you may need to expend significant time and effort compiling it. For example, claims regarding carbon neutrality or reduced carbon require a thorough survey of a business’s operation and supply chain over a significant period, first to determine its baseline carbon emissions and then to track its progress towards reduced carbon or carbon neutrality. Be aware that terms such as “bio­de­grad­able”, “organic”, “renewable”, “com­postable”, “recycled”, “re­cyc­lable”, “reusable” and “car­bon-neut­ral” have specific technical meanings, and be ready to substantiate them accordingly. Substantiation by reference to an independent test standard, such as ISO 14021 on self-declared environmental claims, tends to be more persuasive than a standard developed in-house. Take care with symbols, which have specific meanings and rules for use. Make sure evidence is up to date. Make sure claims are accurate for normal use of the products, or qualify them accordingly – for example, if a product is only biodegradable in a specialist facility, and is likely to go to landfill where it will not degrade any quicker than normal products, do not claim “bio­de­grad­able”, or at least state that specialist facilities are required. 5. Don’t claim normal product features, or things you are required to do by law, as environmental benefits For example, in the UK, rinse-off toiletry products may not contain micro beads. Claiming such products are “micro bead free” is misleading, as it implies that the products have a particular environmental advantage over other products, which they do not. 6.  Take care with comparisons Comparative advertising raises its own specific issues, and, where it refers to a competitor or its product or service by name, can substantially heighten risks by opening up the possibility of trademark infringement. Make sure you compare like with like – the comparison should be of products or services meeting the same needs or intended for the same purpose. The features compared should be material and representative, and also “veri­fi­able”, which requires the detailed basis of the comparison to be disclosed proactively, either in the advertising itself or by way of a “signpost” in the ad directing readers to the source of information.