In France, greenwashing is defined as "any message (however it is disseminated):

• that may mislead the public about the true ecological quality of a product or service or about the reality of the company's sustainable development policies and approach,

• or that could encourage behaviours contrary to ecological transition".

The first greenwashing wave swept over France in the mid-2000s: companies were using the claim indiscriminately, without any true ESR policy or tangible outcomes. The mobilisation of NGOs made it possible to tighten up the regulatory system and dampen companies’ eagerness to use it.

Twenty years later, we see that the number of cases has multiplied. Greenwashing has not disappeared, quite the contrary! The main difference with the first wave is that companies have set up actions to reduce their impacts: ecolabelling, more responsible sourcing of raw materials, energy efficiency, recycled packaging, financing of environmental or social projects, and so on. They have advantages to showcase, but the advertising claims are often exaggerated or inaccurate.

Greenwashing is an obstacle to ecological transition.

Greenwashing represents an unfair commercial practice towards companies that are genuinely committed, contributes to the loss of confidence in the discourse of companies and misleads the public on the reality of the efforts to be made. For all these reasons, greenwashing is a brake on the ecological transition and should be fought.

The risks for the company.

Damage to the company's "responsible" image and "employer brand", crisis communication, internal tensions, costs associated with having to interrupt or modify an advertising campaign, financial penalties, and so on. The risks for companies accused of greenwashing are far from negligible!

Deteriorating the "employer brand" image.

Some of the criticisms made on networks try to make companies less attractive, particularly in the eyes of students and young graduates. This also concerns employees already working in companies, at a time when finding meaning in one's work is increasingly important. Accusations of greenwashing raise questions about the reality of the company's commitment and may resonate with personal feelings.

Financial penalties.

Legal action for greenwashing and sentencing to pay fines and damages remain rare events, but they do exist. And they are likely to increase in the coming years with the tightening of legislation. Indeed, the "Climate and Resilience" Law, promulgated on 22 August 2021, clearly assimilates greenwashing to a "misleading commercial practice" and increases the financial penalties (fine of 300,000 euros). In addition, abuse, or misuse of the claim of carbon neutrality may also be sanctioned by substantial fines.

Advertising regulation in France

In France, as in other Western countries, the control of advertising is entrusted to an organisation that represents all the players in the advertising industry. This is a "self-regulatory" system based mainly on the "name and shame" principle, where companies that contravene ethical rules are stigmatized.

The French advertising regulator (ARPP) is the authority in charge of defining the ethical rules and ensuring that they are correctly applied. Thus, the opinion of the ARPP's legal experts is mandatory before any advertisement is broadcast on television. For all other media (press, posters, websites, social networks, etc.), the opinion is optional. On average, for 2019, this represented:

· 1,800 advance notices per month for all media (TV, internet, billboards, press, radio, etc.), at every step of a campaign’s design,

· 2,000 advertising films and commercials checked each month before being broadcast on television and audio-visual on-demand media services.

The ethical rules in advertising cover many areas: personal image and respect of the individual, eating behaviours, statements and references, etc. It is the "sustainable development" recommendation that defines the rules that apply to advertisers and agencies when they use an ecological argument or refer to the challenges of ecological transition. Its content is presented below.

Finally, advertisements can be analysed after they have been broadcast by the impartial experts who make up the Jury of Advertising Ethics (JDP). Any citizen, association or institution can easily file a complaint via the Jury's website. The procedure to analyse the complaint and the arguments of the advertiser, its agency or the broadcaster takes about two months. The opinion of the JDP is then published on its website. If the breach of the rules is proven, the JDP asks the advertiser to stop using the claim and/or visual. In 2019, approximately 600 complaints were filed with the JDP, across all themes, of which 517 were found to be justified. We do not know what percentage of complaints are related to the sustainability recommendation.

The Sustainable Development Recommendation

The Sustainable Development Recommendation contains 9 chapters, as summarised here. The complete description can be found on the ARPP2 website. These are the rules which apply to any advertising using green claims.

Eco-citizen impacts. Advertising must avoid any representation likely to trivialise or promote practices or ideas contrary to the objectives of sustainable development. Advertising must not discredit commonly accepted sustainable development principles, objectives, advice or solutions.

1. Truthfulness of actions. Advertising must not mislead the public about the reality of the advertiser's actions or the sustainability credentials of its products. The advertiser must be able to substantiate the claims with objective, reliable, truthful, and verifiable information at the time of advertising.

2. Proportionality of messages. The advertising message must accurately express the advertiser's action or the properties of its products, in accordance with the justifying elements that can be transmitted.

3. Clarity of the message. The advertiser must indicate in the ad how its activities or products have the claimed qualities. When clarification is necessary, it must be clear, legible, or audible.

4. Fairness. Advertising must not attribute exclusive virtues with regard to sustainable development to a product or advertiser when those of competitors are similar or analogous. An advertiser may not cite certain actions as if they are exclusive when they are actually required for all by regulations currently in force.

5. Signs, labels, logos, symbols, self-declarations. Signs or symbols may only be used if their origin is clearly indicated and if there is no risk of confusion as to their meaning. These signs must not be used in such a way as to suggest official approval or third-party certification if this is unfounded.

6. Vocabulary. The terms and expressions used should not mislead the public about as to the nature and the impact of the advertiser's product properties or actions with respect to sustainable development. If it is impossible to justify general formulations (e.g. ecological, green, ethical, responsible, preserve, fair, sustainable, etc.), the advertisement must put them into perspective by using formulations such as "contributes to".

7. Visual or audio presentation. Without excluding their use, the use of natural elements or elements evoking nature must not mislead consumers about the environmental properties of the product or the advertiser's actions.

8. Complex systems. Where advertising relies on complex demonstrations ('green electricity', 'carbon offsetting', 'Socially Responsible Investment', etc.), care must be taken not to mislead the public about the real scope of the mechanism.

I filed a complaint in April 2021 against this advertisement which shows an Adidas brand, Stan Smith model sneaker crushing a plastic bottle. The tagline had two parts: "Stan Smith Forever" and "100% iconic, 50% recycled*". The asterisk refers the reader to a footnote in smaller print at the bottom of the poster: "A new Stan Smith with a Primegreen upper made from a minimum of 50% recycled materials. Any plastic used on the shoe is recycled."

The brand's logo is placed on the upper right, beside a circular logo marked “End Plastic Waste’” logo, translated into French by “Let’s put an end to plastic waste.” The sneakers are white and green. All the texts, as well as the Adidas logo, are in green print, clearly making a reference to ecological issues.

In its opinion published on 9 August 2021, the Advertising Ethics Jury confirmed that this ad does indeed disregard the ethical advertising rules.

"The advertisement does not enable the consumer to determine the total proportion of the shoe that is recycled, which is the most relevant data with regard to the claim used (‘50% recycled’). Therefore, the ad “ignores the requirements of the ARPP ‘Sustainable Development’ Recommendation in terms of clarity of the message.” (point 4).

In terms of Adidas’ use of the logo, “which evokes planet Earth", it suggests that the company is engaged in an approach aiming to end plastic waste. The claim is further reinforced by the image, showing a Stan Smith shoe crushing an empty plastic bottle. And yet, the observations presented to the JDP showed that while the plastic used to make the sneakers consists of abandoned plastic waste, particularly ocean plastic, it is undisputed that this does not mean recyclable plastic. At the end of its life, a discarded sneaker will add to the mass of non-recycled plastic waste and, in all likelihood, add to the resulting pollution. It cannot, therefore, be claimed that the marketing of these shoes would constitute a means of ‘putting an end to’ plastic waste." "Under these conditions, the Jury considers that the ad also ignores 3 and 6 of the Sustainable Development Recommendation."

To promote its micro-filtered water fountain, the Castalie firm puts forward the following claim on its website: "The carbon impact of our water fountains is 88% lower than for a plastic bottle (in gCO₂/L). "

Following a complaint submitted by the National Federation for bottled and packaged water (FNECE), the Advertising Ethics Jury analysed the advertisement and the study which had led to the complaint being filed against Castalie.

The Jury noted the following points in particular:

• The study report indicated a "potential reduction generated by choosing Castalie" between 66 and 73 % per litre, if this replaces the utilisation of PET bottles as a solution; which is not consistent with the 88 % difference indicated by the advertiser.

• The comparison in the study only concerns one of the fountains sold by the brand (Pure Meca), whereas the advertising claim refers to all of the models it offers for sale ("our fountains"). Finally, in its opinion published on 6 September 2021, the Advertising Ethics Jury concluded that the claim ignored the principle of truthfulness (point 2) of the Sustainable Development Recommendation.

The advertisement in question, posted on the web, shows a woman standing in the middle of a wasteland, wearing Levi-brand clothes. To the left of the image, there are leaves and branches arranged against a backdrop of blue sky. The text accompanying the visual was translated into French as "Sustainable clothes. Sustainable choices. For our planet." In small print, under the visual, the following statement appears: "You are what you wear - Discover the new collection of water-efficient, forest-friendly and waste-reducing styles".

In its opinion of 6 September 2021, the Jury acknowledged that Levi's "clearly makes numerous efforts to reduce the ecological impact of its products, in particular through the use of Lyocell Tencel, organic cotton requiring less irrigation of cultivated plots, and recycled materials', but notes that it is 'unable to justify, in general, the alleged sustainability of all the garments it produces with regard to the availability of water resources, respect for forests and the reduction of waste that the criticised advertisement puts forward."

Finally, the Jury "considers that the overall formulations used, which are neither relativised nor justified, are likely to mislead the public about the properties of the entire collection promoted and the scope of the advertiser's actions in terms of sustainable development" (point 7).

The first advertisement shows a woman holding a stand-up bag of Daddy sugar in front of her face, with the branches of a sugar beet plant sticking out behind it. The image is accompanied by texts that read: "Daddy reminds you that sugar is a plant", and then a play on words in French like "Daddy, sweet for sure!", along with a French flag. The second ad shows sugar beet plants in the ground, four of them in the foreground. Underneath, on a white band, four bags of Daddy sugar are shown, hiding the root of each beet and giving the illusion that leaves are coming out of each pack . This visual is accompanied by texts: "At the outset, Daddy is vegetal." and "Daddy, sweet for sure", and a small French flag.

This advertising campaign has been the subject of several complaints from individuals (including my own). They accuse it of inducing the idea that eating sugar is the same as eating a vegetable and misleads consumers about the real impact of sugar on health and the environment.

The Advertising Ethics Jury handed down its opinion on 4 January 2021. It confirmed that the first advertisement does not comply with professional ethics rules: "The factually incorrect or, at the least, exaggerated nature of the text ['Sugar is a plant'], reinforced by the general presentation of the visual, is such as to mislead the consumer as to the essential characteristics of the product and to induce him or her to consume sugar in the belief that its plant origin guarantees that it is wholesome and conducive to good health, a characteristic commonly attached to plants, fruit and vegetables." This advertisement disregards points 2, 3, 4 and 7 of the "Sustainable Development" Recommendation.

With regard to the second poster, however, the Jury considered that the text "At the outset, Daddy is vegetal" emphasised the plant origin of the sugar being promoted, without repeating the factually incorrect assertion that sugar itself is a plant. The representation of sugar beet plants in the ground is a clear reference to the growing of this root and to French agriculture, echoed by the tricoloured flag. While this visual gives the optical illusion that the beet leaves are sprouting from the sugar packs, the latter are not planted in the ground but are embedded in a white strip clearly distinct from the photograph itself. This advertisement is thus limited to pointing out and highlighting the fact that sugar, although it is a processed product, is extracted from sugar beet grown in France and is not a synthetic product. The Jury therefore considers that this poster is not likely to mislead the consumer"

The advertisement was displayed on a digital billboard in the window of a Kusmi Tea outlet. It shows landscapes of tea plantations accompanied by the image of a tiger and a can of tea. Along with the images are the words "A tea to protect wild tigers", "Protect the wild tigers with us", "Discover our new organic recipe", or "An ethical and committed plantation". The advertisement also features the logo of the NGO WWF.

I reported this advertisement to the JDP because I felt that the claim "A tea to protect wild tigers" did not accurately express the advertiser's action and was not proportionate to the actions taken.

The Jury of Advertising Ethics considered my complaint to be well-founded: Although the Jury understands that the brand wished to highlight a partnership with the NGO WWF", it noted in its opinion published on 23 September 2020 that "the claim is neither justified nor relativised" and that "the advertising campaign in question disregards points 2 and 6 of the ARPP's 'Sustainable Development' Recommendation.

The limits of the self-regulatory system

I have been analysing environmental communication and greenwashing practices for twenty years. In particular, I have contributed to the ARPP-ADEME "Advertising and the Environment" report since 2015 and I regularly submit complaints to the Jury for Advertising Ethics. I therefore have a good view of how the self-regulation system works in France and how it has evolved in recent years. Is it effective enough? I don't think so.

What works rather well:

• The work done by the ARPP's legal experts before an ad is broadcast. Every month they examine thousands of advertisements to analyse compliance with the various ethical rules (sustainable development, but also personal image and respect of individuals, eating habits, etc.) and formulate opinions that can block the airing of advertising films broadcast on television. Following these opinions is optional for other advertising formats.

• The procedure for filing a complaint is simple and quick, via a form on the JDP website, and is open to any citizen.

What works moderately well:

• The rules are sometimes unknown to the professionals themselves.

• Opinions are published discreetly on the JDP website. No press releases are issued; the opinions do not appear in the specialist press. However, during hearings at the JDP's plenary session, the advertiser and/or the agency are often represented by two people (legal department, marketing or communications department) and sometimes even by a lawyer. If they go to such trouble to defend their point of view, it is because the opinion given is of some importance. "Name and shame" is partially effective and could be made stronger.

• The time taken to process each complaint is about two months from the time an advertisement is reported to the time the notice is published. This is too long, since advertising campaigns usually run for only a few days and "the damage can already be done". However, it is short when compared to the average time required to obtain a court decision (e.g., 9 months before the administrative judge).

What does not work:

• Ex-ante control of advertisements, before they are disseminated, is too often optional. Checking by the ARPP's legal experts is only performed systematically and with power to

• block, for advertising films which are broadcast on television and on audio-visual on-demand media services. It is optional for all other formats, and there are clearly abuses.

• Most advertisers and ad agencies do not understand what is at stake in greenwashing. In an analysis of all opinions issued by the JDP un 2019-20203, I showed that only 28% of the companies concerned by a complaint adopt a responsible position and acknowledge their mistake. On the contrary, 72% maintain that their campaign does not contravene ethical rules, even though the complaints were all ultimately deemed to be founded. There is an urgent need to raise awareness and educate those involved in the advertising industry.