Home / Publications / CMS Green Globe / Sustainability claims and greenwashing in Ukraine

Ukraine - Sustainability claims and greenwashing

What are the top three developments in Ukraine concerning green claims and the associated risk of greenwashing?

Sustainability claims have become a powerful marketing and sales tool during the past decade. As a result, many businesses, including those operating in Ukraine, face a temptation to use sustainability claims in their marketing activities. In turn, the regulatory authorities in Ukraine have been keeping this growing trend firmly within their focus.

Under the effective law in Ukraine, sustainability claims fall under consumer rights protection, advertising and labeling rules, unfair competition practices as well as certification compliance requirements. This implies that even unintended violations related to “greenwashing” may be subject to investigation and scrutiny by the authorities, including the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (the “AMCU”) and the State Service for the Foodstuff Safety and Consumer Protection. Furthermore, such violations may result in civil and administrative liability for the businesses making false sustainability claims and engaging in greenwashing.

Therefore, businesses conducting their activities in Ukraine should carefully consider their sustainability claims, policies, and marketing strategies, as well as ensuring compliance with the effective legal requirements.

The most recent trends in sustainability claims regulation and enforcement in Ukraine are presented below.

1. Organic and ‘eco’ products regulation comes under the enforcing authority’s spotlight

The application of specific sustainability claims in Ukraine is regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On Basic Principles and Requirements for Organic Production, Circulation, and Labelling of Organic Products” No 2496-VIII dated 10 July 2018 (the Law”).

The Law sets out a general legal framework on who can market and label organic products using sustainability claims such as “organic” or “ecological”, and under what circumstances such claims can be made. The Law also establishes a detailed certification procedure, further elaborated upon in several supplementary regulatory acts.

Generally, to be able to use specific terminology in relation to organic products and goods, a company operating in Ukraine must be registered as an operator and obtain a certificate confirming compliance with the organic production requirements. Non-compliance with this requirement is considered a violation of labeling rules and may respectively lead to violation of advertising and competition regulations.

The AMCU systematically verifies compliance with the Law. In particular, the AMCU has initiated several proceedings against companies that used the terms “organic”, “eco”, and similar claims in their product labeling and advertising, which resulted in the companies’ activities being found to amount to dissemination of misleading information and a recommendation for them to cease infringement of competition laws.

Following this trend, the AMCU will likely issue more decisions penalising companies that fail to meet the above sustainability claims requirements in the upcoming years.

The fines for disseminating misleading information can reach up to 5% of the company’s annual income (revenue) from sales of products (goods, works, services), and the perpetrator may be forced to compensate damage suffered by the affected parties in the courts.

2. Avoidance of specific claims, such as “organic” or “biological”, does not release advertisers from the risk of non-compliance

The AMCU has also been targeting other types of sustainability claims that fall outside of the organic certification and labeling requirements.

This trend is well-illustrated by the recommendations issued by the AMCU to an operator in the food industry. Even though this particular operator did not use any specific indications implying “organic” production, it stated in its labeling and advertising that the product was produced in one of the “clean/pure” regions of Ukraine. The claim was followed by a lengthy and poetic description of the production surroundings that further implied the product was produced in a specific region and that this location guaranteed that the product itself was “clean” and “of high quality”.

However, the AMCU found that the product was neither produced, nor did it include other products or materials produced in, the designated “clean/pure” region. Furthermore, even though the respective claims were registered as a trademark in Ukraine, the AMCU still regarded their usage in the product’s labeling and advertising as dissemination of misleading information.

Therefore, the current trend is that all kinds of sustainability claims, irrespective of the specific laws regulating their usage, will be in the AMCU’s focus. In this case, the violations identified by the AMCU will be subject to the same level of fines i.e., up to 5% of a company’s annual income (revenue) from sales of products (goods, works, services) and the potential compensation of inflicted damage.

3. Sustainability claims in the agricultural sector face reduced scrutiny during martial law

The most common sustainability claims (terms such as “organic”, “ecological”, etc.) are widely used in the agricultural industry and are subject to certification compliance in Ukraine. Under the general rule, companies that hold certificates confirming organic production compliance outside of Ukraine can use the sustainability claims provided in the Law only if a number of specific requirements are fulfilled.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the damage inflicted by the war on the agricultural industry in Ukraine steered Ukraine’s government to lift a number of restrictions and requirements for business activities in the agricultural sector, including those concerning sustainability claims.

In particular, the government allowed usage of sustainability claims by companies that hold organic production compliance certificates issued outside of Ukraine until 1 July 2024 without the necessity for them to comply with the former stringent requirements under the Law. Nevertheless, the general sustainability claims compliance remains relevant for businesses operating in Ukraine even during the martial law regime.

Key contacts

Maria Orlyk
Managing Partner
Kyiv (CMS RRH)
T +43 1 40443 0
Olga Shenk
Partner
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang
Kyiv (CMS CMNO)
T +380 44 391 7721
Diana Valyeyeva
Lawyer
Kyiv (CMS RRH)
T +43 1 40443 0

Subscribe to CMS Green Globe newsletter

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.