BR100 Decreased By (-0.91%)
BR30 Decreased By (-1.47%)
KSE100 Decreased By (-0.78%)
KSE30 Decreased By (-0.75%)
AGHA 6.67 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.15%)
BECO 4.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.46%)
BML 56.17 Decreased By ▼ -1.15 (-2.01%)
BOP 30.12 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-0.76%)
CNERGY 12.98 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.07%)
CSIL 5.31 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.85%)
FCCL 51.65 Decreased By ▼ -1.14 (-2.16%)
FFL 14.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.23 (-1.56%)
FNEL 1.21 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (8.04%)
KEL 6.06 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.49%)
KOSM 5.84 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.92%)
LOTCHEM 26.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.1%)
MLCF 91.23 Decreased By ▼ -1.93 (-2.07%)
NBP 164.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.47 (-0.29%)
NCPL 53.18 Decreased By ▼ -2.48 (-4.46%)
NPL 59.12 Decreased By ▼ -2.04 (-3.34%)
OGDC 313.39 Decreased By ▼ -3.34 (-1.05%)
PACE 9.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-1.01%)
PAEL 35.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-1.09%)
PIBTL 14.71 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.2%)
PPL 221.36 Decreased By ▼ -5.55 (-2.45%)
PRL 91.22 Decreased By ▼ -1.80 (-1.94%)
PTC 59.19 Decreased By ▼ -1.07 (-1.78%)
SSGC 23.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.51 (-2.14%)
TBL 8.75 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
TELE 7.61 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-2.44%)
TPL 22.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.32 (-1.43%)
TPLP 12.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-3.16%)
TREET 21.73 Decreased By ▼ -0.43 (-1.94%)
TRG 55.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.77 (-1.36%)
By

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 for this article.