WA Green Claims Rules: A Practical Guide to Avoiding Greenwashing

WA businesses must ensure environmental advertising is truthful, evidence-based and clear about carbon credits, future targets and the business’s own actions.

Businesses advertising environmental benefits in Western Australia must ensure their claims do not mislead consumers under Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says emissions claims should be truthful, accurate, transparent and supported by credible accounting.[S1]

The same principles apply whether a claim appears on packaging, a website, social media, point-of-sale material or an advertisement.[S2] A business does not avoid risk by using technical language if an ordinary consumer is likely to take a broader or more favourable meaning from the overall message.[S3]

What counts as a green claim?

A green claim is any representation about a business’s environmental performance, emissions, products, services or future environmental impact. Examples include claims that a product is “carbon neutral”, “net zero”, “low emissions”, “renewable”, “sustainable” or “better for the planet”.

The legal risk usually comes from the impression created by the claim, not just whether each individual word can be defended. The ACCC’s central question is what an ordinary and reasonable consumer would understand in the context where the claim appears.[S3]

That means qualifications hidden in fine print may not correct a prominent headline. Businesses should test the complete advertisement, including images, labels, disclaimers and surrounding claims.

Start with evidence and accounting

Before publishing an emissions claim, identify the precise proposition being made and prepare evidence that supports that proposition. The ACCC recommends complete, reputable and clear accounting rather than selective figures chosen to create a favourable impression.[S1]

A defensible calculation should generally:

• Explain how the figure was reached.
• Use an established and reputable emissions-accounting framework.
• Include significant emissions sources relevant to the claim.
• State which emissions have been excluded and why.
• Use realistic assumptions rather than figures selected to overstate performance.
• Allow a fair comparison with a historical period or baseline.
• Be understandable to consumers without technical expertise.[S4]

The accounting boundary matters. A claim about a product may need to consider more than the emissions from the factory. Depending on the claim, relevant sources may include raw materials, transport, energy use, packaging, disposal or other parts of the product’s life cycle. An omission can be misleading if consumers would reasonably expect that source to be included.

Keep records of the data, assumptions, methodology, boundaries and calculations. If the method, data or assumptions change, record the change and be able to explain its effect on the comparison.[S4]

Use precise language about reductions

Avoid broad statements such as “emissions-free” or “zero carbon” unless the business can substantiate the full meaning consumers are likely to take from them. A more reliable approach is to specify the subject, metric, baseline and period.

For example, a claim should make clear whether it means:

• The business has reduced its operational emissions.
• A product has lower life-cycle emissions than a specified alternative.
• The business has purchased and surrendered credits.
• The business has set a future target rather than achieved a present result.

A statement such as “30% lower emissions” is incomplete without information about what is being measured, the comparison point and the relevant time period. The evidence must support the dominant message, not merely a narrow technical interpretation that consumers are unlikely to identify.[S4]

Explain carbon credits clearly

Purchasing carbon credits is not the same as directly reducing a business’s own emissions. If a claim relies on credits, the marketing should say so clearly and explain the relevant project and crediting arrangement.[S5]

Businesses should consider disclosing:

• That the claim is based on purchasing and surrendering credits.
• What the project does and when it occurred.
• The scheme from which the credits came.
• The registry recording their issue, ownership and surrender.
• How the business assessed the project’s integrity.
• Whether the project provides additional, permanent and non-double-counted benefits.[S5]

“Additionality” asks whether the emissions benefit would have occurred without the project. “Permanence” concerns whether stored carbon will remain sequestered for an appropriate period. “No double counting” means the same reduction has not been claimed by multiple parties.[S5]

Businesses should also investigate social, environmental and governance risks, including whether a project harms communities or ecosystems.[S5] Claims should distinguish credits bought for voluntary marketing from credits acquired to satisfy a statutory obligation or a consumer participation scheme.[S5]

Separate your actions from outside changes

A business should not claim responsibility for an emissions reduction that resulted from a broader market, regulatory or economy-wide change rather than its own conduct. Marketing should distinguish the effect of the business’s investments and operational decisions from changes that would have affected it anyway.[S10]

For example, if the electricity grid becomes less emissions-intensive, a business should not automatically describe the resulting reduction as entirely its own achievement. The claim should identify what the business actually did and what resulted from external developments.

Businesses should also distinguish voluntary initiatives from legal requirements. Consumers may understand “we reduced emissions” differently from “we complied with a mandatory standard”. Combining the two can exaggerate the business’s environmental performance.[S1]

Treat future claims as promises requiring reasonable grounds

Targets such as “net zero by 2050” or “carbon neutral by 2030” describe the future and require reasonable grounds when communicated to consumers. A target should not be presented as if it has already been achieved.[S1]

Marketing should separate what is happening now, what has been committed and what remains uncertain. Businesses should explain the steps supporting the target, including interim milestones, planned expenditure, governance, assumptions and any dependence on new technology, regulation or government support.[S8]

Keep documents showing how the target was set, who approved it and how progress will be reviewed. Update the supporting material as circumstances change.[S8]

A practical pre-publication checklist

Before approving an environmental advertisement, ask:

1. What exactly will an ordinary consumer understand the claim to mean?

2. Does the evidence support that overall impression rather than only a narrow wording?

3. What emissions, products, activities, locations and periods are included?

4. Are significant exclusions explained prominently enough?

5. Is the comparison based on a fair and consistent baseline?

6. Does the claim rely on credits, and if so, is that fact clear?

7. Are the credits identified, surrendered and checked for integrity?

8. Does the claim distinguish the business’s own action from legal or economy-wide changes?

9. Is a future target clearly presented as a target rather than an achieved result?

10. Are the records sufficient to reproduce and defend the calculation?

If the answer to any question is no or uncertain, revise the wording, improve the evidence or delay publication. Clearer claims usually reduce both consumer confusion and enforcement risk.

What WA businesses should remember

Western Australian businesses are subject to the Australian Consumer Law when promoting environmental credentials to consumers. The safest approach is not to avoid environmental claims altogether, but to make narrower, specific claims that match reliable evidence and explain material qualifications clearly.[S1]

A claim is strongest when a consumer can quickly understand what changed, how it was measured, what the business did, whether credits were involved and whether the statement describes the present or the future. That approach helps businesses communicate genuine decarbonisation without turning technical uncertainty into greenwashing.

FAQ

Do WA businesses have to follow the ACCC emissions guidance?

The guidance is intended to help businesses assess consumer-facing emissions claims. It explains how to reduce the risk that advertising will be misleading under the Australian Consumer Law.[S2]

Can a business say it is carbon neutral after buying credits?

A business may make a claim only if it can substantiate the claim and clearly explain that it relies on purchased and surrendered credits, including relevant project and registry information.[S5]

Is “sustainable” too vague to use?

A broad term is risky if consumers may understand it as a wide environmental claim that the business cannot substantiate. The wording should be specific enough to communicate the actual benefit and its limits.[S3][S4]

Can a business advertise a net-zero target?

A future target should be supported by reasonable grounds, documented plans and clear information distinguishing current achievements from intended future steps.[S8]

What records should a business keep?

Keep the emissions data, boundaries, assumptions, methodology, baselines, calculations, credit records, approvals and documents supporting any future target.[S4][S5][S8]