AIRLINK 90.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.64 (-0.7%)
BOP 5.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.08 (-1.43%)
CNERGY 3.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.75%)
DFML 42.03 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-0.64%)
DGKC 90.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.30 (-0.33%)
FCCL 22.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.22%)
FFBL 36.56 Decreased By ▼ -0.24 (-0.65%)
FFL 9.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.53%)
GGL 9.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.51%)
HASCOL 6.57 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.76%)
HBL 131.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.50 (-0.38%)
HUBC 164.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.35 (-0.21%)
HUMNL 10.65 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.28%)
KEL 4.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-0.42%)
KOSM 4.18 Increased By ▲ 0.04 (0.97%)
MLCF 37.80 Decreased By ▼ -0.19 (-0.5%)
OGDC 134.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.74 (-0.55%)
PAEL 26.35 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.38%)
PIBTL 6.23 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (1.63%)
PPL 122.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.78 (-0.63%)
PRL 24.48 Increased By ▲ 0.27 (1.12%)
PTC 12.45 Increased By ▲ 0.03 (0.24%)
SEARL 58.79 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-0.69%)
SNGP 68.60 Decreased By ▼ -0.65 (-0.94%)
SSGC 9.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.4%)
TELE 8.15 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (1.49%)
TPLP 9.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-0.44%)
TRG 61.30 Increased By ▲ 0.20 (0.33%)
UNITY 31.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.39 (-1.23%)
WTL 1.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.55%)
BR100 8,492 Decreased By -4.4 (-0.05%)
BR30 27,154 Decreased By -135.8 (-0.5%)
KSE100 80,271 Decreased By -11.8 (-0.01%)
KSE30 25,793 Increased By 1.6 (0.01%)

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

200 characters