AIRLINK 177.45 Decreased By ▼ -2.91 (-1.61%)
BOP 11.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.54%)
CNERGY 8.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.23%)
CPHL 96.24 Decreased By ▼ -4.17 (-4.15%)
FCCL 44.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.98 (-2.13%)
FFL 15.91 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.63%)
FLYNG 27.91 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.07%)
HUBC 141.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-0.41%)
HUMNL 12.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.15%)
KEL 4.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.99%)
KOSM 5.87 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.51%)
MLCF 60.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.14 (-1.84%)
OGDC 211.70 Decreased By ▼ -2.62 (-1.22%)
PACE 5.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.7%)
PAEL 46.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-0.73%)
PIAHCLA 17.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-1.74%)
PIBTL 10.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.22%)
POWER 11.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-2.71%)
PPL 169.68 Decreased By ▼ -3.03 (-1.75%)
PRL 34.51 Decreased By ▼ -1.51 (-4.19%)
PTC 22.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.64 (-2.75%)
SEARL 94.01 Decreased By ▼ -2.05 (-2.13%)
SSGC 39.77 Decreased By ▼ -1.57 (-3.8%)
SYM 14.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-1.8%)
TELE 7.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.81%)
TPLP 10.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.6%)
TRG 65.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.94 (-2.86%)
WAVESAPP 10.32 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (3.2%)
WTL 1.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.49%)
YOUW 3.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.26%)
AIRLINK 177.45 Decreased By ▼ -2.91 (-1.61%)
BOP 11.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.54%)
CNERGY 8.51 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.23%)
CPHL 96.24 Decreased By ▼ -4.17 (-4.15%)
FCCL 44.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.98 (-2.13%)
FFL 15.91 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.63%)
FLYNG 27.91 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.07%)
HUBC 141.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.59 (-0.41%)
HUMNL 12.99 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.15%)
KEL 4.43 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-1.99%)
KOSM 5.87 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.51%)
MLCF 60.76 Decreased By ▼ -1.14 (-1.84%)
OGDC 211.70 Decreased By ▼ -2.62 (-1.22%)
PACE 5.76 Decreased By ▼ -0.16 (-2.7%)
PAEL 46.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.34 (-0.73%)
PIAHCLA 17.53 Decreased By ▼ -0.31 (-1.74%)
PIBTL 10.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.13 (-1.22%)
POWER 11.84 Decreased By ▼ -0.33 (-2.71%)
PPL 169.68 Decreased By ▼ -3.03 (-1.75%)
PRL 34.51 Decreased By ▼ -1.51 (-4.19%)
PTC 22.62 Decreased By ▼ -0.64 (-2.75%)
SEARL 94.01 Decreased By ▼ -2.05 (-2.13%)
SSGC 39.77 Decreased By ▼ -1.57 (-3.8%)
SYM 14.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-1.8%)
TELE 7.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.81%)
TPLP 10.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.6%)
TRG 65.96 Decreased By ▼ -1.94 (-2.86%)
WAVESAPP 10.32 Increased By ▲ 0.32 (3.2%)
WTL 1.32 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.49%)
YOUW 3.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.26%)
BR100 12,356 Decreased By -124.5 (-1%)
BR30 37,420 Decreased By -588 (-1.55%)
KSE100 116,020 Decreased By -755.4 (-0.65%)
KSE30 35,606 Decreased By -242.8 (-0.68%)

FRANKFURT, (Germany): Companies in Germany can only promote their products as “climate neutral” if they back up the environmental claims with sufficient detail in the advert itself, a top court ruled Thursday.

The ruling was made in a case brought against German confectionery manufacturer Katjes by an association that aims to tackle unfair business practices.

It centred on an advert that appeared in a trade publication for the food industry, which stated that “since 2021, Katjes has been producing all products in a climate-neutral fashion”.

It included a picture of a packet of fruit gums with a “climate neutral” logo and the website address of a partner firm that helps companies in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

The ruling found the production of the sweets was not carbon-neutral however — rather, the confectionery manufacturer supported environmental protection projects to offset emissions through its partner.

Two lower courts had dismissed the case but the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in favour of the association, the Centre for Combatting Unfair Competition.

“In the case of advertising that uses an ambiguous environmental term such as ‘climate neutral’, the specific meaning must be explained in the advertising itself in order to avoid misleading the public,” the court said in its decision.

The risks of misleading were “particularly high” in environment-related advertising, it said, adding that labels such as “climate neutral” were important for consumers when making purchasing decisions.

When it came to the Katjes advert, it was vital to explain the claim as directly reducing emissions is considered more important for climate protection than offsetting them, the court found.

Comments

Comments are closed.