01
Digital Presence
We dive deep into website copy, landing pages, and long-form 'sustainability' or 'impact' sections where vague terminology can slowly pile up.
Environmental claims now carry real regulatory weight. What you say, and how you say it, matters.
At Verdant ESG, we review your sustainability messaging with the same level of scrutiny a regulator applies. The aim is to stress-test your claims against the CMA Green Claims Code and ASA/CAP rules and pinpoint regulatory triggers and gaps before they lead to enforcement action.
The approach
The Regulators' Stress-Test
In our Green Claims Risk Audit, we are not performing a standard copy-edit or a general sustainability review.
We take a structured and technical approach to analyse your public-facing environmental claims and test them against the standards set by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).
Your claims must not only be accurate, but also:
- Clearly explained
- Properly qualified
- Reflective of the context
- Supported by credible and current evidence
Find the vulnerabilities in your entire communications ecosystem and get a practical roadmap to strengthen your position.
Our focus
Total Coverage
Regulatory risk doesn't sit in one place. It is an aggregation that builds across pages, campaigns, legacy content, public disclosures, etc. Our review takes a holistic approach, reviewing:
02
Campaign and Social Language
Our review covers high-visibility advertising, social media hooks, and influencer content where qualifiers may not always be included.
03
Packaging and Labels
We analyse on-pack claims, symbols, and logos that may imply a broader environmental benefit than the evidence shows.
04
Product Descriptions
The audit ensures technical specifications and eco-features meet the standards for consumer understanding and clarity.
05
Investor and Public Reports
We stress-test your ESG disclosures and public-facing reports to ensure they are supported by evidence and follow the guidelines consistently.
06
Comparative Assertions
We review claims like 'Greenest,' 'Better for the Planet,' or 'Lower Impact' claims to ensure they meet strict fairness and meaningful comparison requirements.
The methodology
The 6-Point Framework
Our evaluation considers every claim's strength against the framework set out by CMA/CAP/ASA guidelines. The following aspects are the core of the framework:
- 01
Clarity and Ambiguity
Does the claim use absolute language (e.g., Sustainable, eco-friendly) that implies no environmental impact? We find and fix the terms that may be considered vague or misleading.
- 02
Qualification
Is the basis of your claim clearly explained? We ensure that limitations, such as a claim that applies only to specific aspects of a product, are prominently displayed to avoid "omission" liabilities.
- 03
Substantiation
Does the evidence exist now? We audit your evidence packs to ensure they are current, relevant, and can adequately defend specific claims.
- 04
Life-Cycle Limitations
Does the claim focus on one 'green' aspect while ignoring a 'net negative' in another area? We check for the 'Halo Effect' where a minor improvement is used to mask a larger environmental impact.
- 05
Supply Chain Support
We verify that marketing assertions are supported by the realities of procurement. If you claim 'Responsibly Sourced,' we check if the underlying supplier data actually supports the assertion.
- 06
Consumer Understanding
We assess how a 'reasonable consumer' would understand your claims, ensuring that technical jargon does not mask a lack of matching action.
The deliverables
A Roadmap to De-Risking
The result of a Green Claims Risk Audit is a detailed Regulatory Exposure Report. In it, we include:
Risk Triage
High, medium, and low-risk flags for all reviewed material.
Strategic Rewrites
Specific adjustments to language to maintain commercial impact while satisfying the regulators.
Evidentiary Gap Analysis
Identifying where your claims outpace your data and what specific evidence is needed to bridge the gap.
Governance Recommendations
Suggestions for internal sign-off processes to ensure future claims adhere to regulatory guidelines.