Greenwashing with Plant-Based Soap: Lessons from the ARB's Sunlight Platinum Ruling

In a recent decision with important implications for environmental and sustainability-related marketing claims, the Advertising Regulatory Board (“ARB”) upheld a complaint against Unilever South Africa Proprietary Limited (“Unilever”) concerning claims appearing on Sunlight Platinum dishwashing liquid packaging. The ruling demonstrates that even technically accurate environmental claims may fall foul of advertising standards where they create a misleading overall impression for consumers.

A copy of the ruling is accessible here.

This follows another recent ruling by the ARB which considered similar issues around green credential claims. Our article discussing that ruling is accessible here.

Background

The complaint related to a prominent statement on the front of the product packaging describing the product as containing “100% plant-based active”. The complainant argued that this claim was inconsistent with a disclaimer on the back label of the product stating that “other non-plant-based actives are included”. According to the complaint, consumers could reasonably understand the front-of-pack statement to mean that the product itself, or all of its active ingredients, were plant-based.

Unilever explained that the claim referred to rhamnolipids, a key surfactant ingredient derived through biological fermentation processes and verified by independent expert evidence as being 100% plant-based. It further argued that the back-label disclaimer adequately clarified that the product also contains other non-plant-based active ingredients.

The Code of Advertising Practice requires advertisers to hold documentary evidence, obtained from or evaluated by an independent, credible expert in the relevant field, to substantiate objective advertising claims before publication. In this matter, Unilever provided independent expert evidence supporting the claim that the rhamnolipid ingredient was 100% plant-based. The dispute therefore did not concern the adequacy of the substantiation itself, but rather whether the packaging claim accurately and clearly communicated the true position in relation to the use of ingredient in the product to consumers without creating a misleading overall impression.

The ARB’s Findings

The ARB accepted independent expert evidence confirming that the rhamnolipid ingredient itself is 100% plant-based, renewable and biodegradable. The dispute, however, was not whether the ingredient possessed these characteristics, but whether the packaging claim accurately conveyed this information to consumers.

The ARB found that the phrase “100% plant-based active” was ambiguous and capable of several reasonable interpretations. Consumers could understand the statement to mean (i) that all the ingredients are plant-based, (ii) that the only active ingredient is plant-based, although there may be other non-plant based ingredients, or (iii) that one of the active ingredient is plant-based, but there are other active ingredients. Only one of those interpretations reflected the reality of the product composition (being the last interpretation).

The ARB further held that the prominent positioning of the claim on the front label amplified the likelihood of consumer confusion and rejected the argument that a disclaimer on the back of the packaging was sufficient to correct a potentially misleading headline claim. The ARB noted that advertisers may not rely on qualifying language elsewhere on a product to cure an ambiguous or misleading representation.

Notably, the ARB observed that plant-based claims carry significant weight with consumers seeking products perceived to be healthier or more environmentally responsible. It concluded that the claim amounted, in effect, to a form of greenwashing and found that it breached the Code of Advertising Practice provisions dealing with honesty, responsibility and misleading claims. Unilever was directed to amend the claim within three months.

Implications for ESG and Consumer Communications

The ruling confirms that environmental and sustainability-related claims will be assessed according to the overall impression created for the ordinary consumer and not solely by reference to the advertiser’s intended meaning. Even where an individual element of a claim can be substantiated, the broader message conveyed to consumers must also be accurate and clear.

The decision also demonstrates the ARB’s willingness to scrutinise marketing statements that rely on environmentally positive language or imagery, and to strictly apply the Code of Advertising Practice provisions to avoid greenwashing by advertisers. Businesses promoting plant-based, environmentally friendly or sustainability-related attributes should ensure that claims are precise, appropriately qualified and presented in a manner that does not create a misleading overall impression.

For insurers, risk professionals and corporate governance practitioners, the ruling serves as a reminder that greenwashing risks do not arise only from formal ESG reports and sustainability disclosures. Product packaging, advertising campaigns and consumer-facing communications may equally create regulatory, reputational and liability exposure where environmental claims are inadequately explained or overstated.

Concluding Remarks

This decision marks another step in the development of South African greenwashing jurisprudence. It illustrates that regulators will look beyond technical substantiation and consider how environmental claims are actually perceived by consumers. Businesses should therefore carefully review environmental and plant-based claims to ensure that they are both factually correct and presented with sufficient context and clarity.