A practical guide for marketing directors, brand managers, and procurement teams managing greenwashing risk in branded merchandise programs. Covers Canada's Competition Act, the FTC Green Guides, and the EU’s EmpCo rules (in force since September 27, 2026), plus a six-step audit and a plain-language glossary.
By Tara Milburn, Founder & CEO of Ethical Swag · Published September 13, 2026 · Last updated October 13, 2026
Update, October 2026: I wrote this the week I left for PPAI's Responsibility Summit. The summit confirmed the main point: if you can't prove it, don't print it. What I heard is in the new section below. Also, update includes Canada’s March 2026 changes.
Somewhere in your marketing right now, a product is probably described as sustainable, eco-friendly, or some flavor of planet-conscious. Here's the uncomfortable question: how much of that would hold up if someone actually asked you to prove it?
That question got more expensive to answer wrong. Greenwashing doesn't require lying, it just requires a claim that leaves a more positive impression than the evidence supports. Canada's Competition Act has real enforcement teeth for exactly this, the FTC's Green Guides carry the same standard in the US, and if any of your campaigns or supply chain touch the EU, a hard new deadline just landed there too. All three judge claims the same way: not by whether the wording is technically defensible, but by the overall impression it leaves. “Well, technically” doesn't hold up in front of any of them.
Key takeaways
|
What Counts as Greenwashing Here
Most greenwashing in this industry isn't a lie so much as a shortcut. A product description gets written from a sales sheet, which came from a distributor, who summarized a supplier's website. By the time it reaches a buyer, “recycled packaging” has quietly become “sustainable product,” and nobody involved meant to mislead anyone.
A few patterns worth checking your own materials against:
• Calling something “eco-friendly” because of one attribute, recycled packaging, say, when the product itself has no certification behind it
• Treating a supplier's stated commitment to sustainability as proof, without ever asking for documentation
• Applying “sustainable” to an entire product line when only some items in it actually qualify
• Claiming carbon neutrality through offsets without saying what those offsets actually are
None of this requires bad intent. It requires someone to notice, and regulators are increasingly the ones doing the noticing.
Where the Rules Actually Stand
Canada and the US are where most of our clients operate, and where this already applies today, no waiting period, no proposal still working its way through anything. If any of your campaigns, sourcing, or resale reach into the EU, there's also a hard new deadline worth knowing about. Same underlying question everywhere: does the impression match the evidence?
Canada | United States | European Union | |
Rule | Competition Act (2024) + Bureau's final guidelines | FTC Green Guides | |
Standard | Adequate and proper testing (product claims); adequate and proper substantiation (business claims) | Truthful, substantiated, not misleading overall | Verified performance required; vague terms banned outright |
Takes effect | In force since 2024; narrowed in March 2026 | Unchanged since 2012; a review has been open since 2022 | In force since September 27, 2026, no transition period |
Canada raised the stakes again in June 2025. The Competition Bureau published final guidelines on what counts as adequate proof, and a new private right of action let individuals and organizations take greenwashing complaints straight to the Competition Tribunal. Then in March 2026, Parliament pulled some of that back. Bill C-15 dropped the requirement that company-wide claims follow an internationally recognized methodology, and private parties can no longer bring those company-level claims to the Tribunal themselves. What hasn’t changed: product claims still need adequate and proper testing, company claims still need adequate and proper substantiation, and the Commissioner of Competition can still investigate and seek penalties. Private parties can also still ask the Tribunal for permission to challenge product claims that aren’t backed by testing, or any environmental claim that’s false or misleading. The bar for proof is the same. What changed is who can take you to the Tribunal over it.
A separate EU proposal, the Green Claims Directive, made headlines for similar reasons, but the European Commission effectively withdrew it in 2025. It's EmpCo that actually carries legal weight there, and it's the one with a real deadline, worth flagging if EU exposure is part of your world, easy to ignore if it isn't.
One EmpCo rule is worth knowing about either way, since it's good practice regardless of where you sell: it bans self-created sustainability labels that aren't backed by a recognized certification scheme. We use a simple emoji system internally to help our own team sort products fast, by attributes like recycled content or B Corp status. We've always been careful to call it exactly what it is, an internal shorthand, not a certification. It's a small distinction, but it's the same one this whole post is about, and it's a lot easier to get right on your own materials before anyone asks than after.
The Words That Carry the Most Risk
• Eco-friendly and green: both imply a broad benefit that's almost never true for one product.
• Sustainable: overused to the point of meaning nothing on its own.
• Carbon neutral: fine if you can show the math, real reductions, disclosed offsets. Risky if you can't.
• Recyclable: only true if recycling infrastructure actually exists where the product will be used.
• Biodegradable: only true under specific conditions. Say what they are.
• Natural: not a regulated term anywhere. Says almost nothing.
Quick definitions
|
What Substantiation Actually Looks Like
The evidence has to match the size of the claim. A specific claim needs specific proof. A broad one needs broad proof, which is exactly why broad claims are usually indefensible.
Recycled content: GRS certification, with the actual percentage and traceability
Organic material: GOTS certification for that specific product
Safe materials: OEKO-TEX Standard 100 for the finished product
Responsible forestry: FSC certification and chain of custody
Fair labor: Fair Trade or SA8000 certification for the facility
Company-level claims: a third-party audit or recognized methodology, B Corp, UN SDG reporting, or measured emissions
Substantiation isn't a file sitting somewhere. It's documentation that exists before the claim goes out, that actually matches what the claim says, and that you could hand over if someone asked.
This isn't theoretical for us either. This week, we've been working with an international conservation organization, US-based with a compliance team in the UK, that's buying promotional products from us to sell in support of their programs. Their review didn't take our word for anything: photos of the actual product labels, audit documentation, round after round of follow-up questions. It took real back-and-forth to get through, but we got there. Most of our clients never ask for anywhere near that level of proof. They just want to know they're buying from a source that's already doing that work in the background. Either way, the documentation has to exist before someone asks for it, not get assembled after. Once that project wraps, we'll be able to share specifics. For now, it's a good example of what an audit trail actually has to hold up to.
A Six-Step Audit You Can Actually Run
List every environmental claim you're making: product pages, sales decks, event materials, email, social, packaging, print. Don't skip anything just because it's old.
Sort each claim into three piles: specifically proven, probably true but undocumented, and unsupported.
For the second and third piles, decide: can you get the documentation, can you make the claim more specific, or does it need to come out?
Ask your distributor for certification documentation on the products you're citing. If they can't produce it, that tells you something.
Bring legal and procurement into the review. This shouldn't sit only with marketing.
Build a sign-off step for new claims so documentation gets checked before publishing, not after someone challenges it.
Keeping the Words People Search For, Without the Risk
People still search “eco-friendly promotional products.” Dropping that language entirely costs you visibility. Using it without backing costs you a lot more.
The fix isn't complicated. Use the search term in headings and questions, where you're acknowledging what people are looking for, then get specific in the actual copy. Instead of “eco-friendly tote bags,” write “tote bags made with GRS-certified recycled content.” Search engines and AI answer engines both reward that kind of specificity now, so this isn't really a tradeoff anymore.
Image: PPAI Lawyers, compliance leads and sustainability folks in one room. Better than it sounds.
What I Heard at PPAI's Responsibility Summit
Some of the most useful sessions were led by lawyers and compliance people. That sounds dry. It wasn't. It was practical and specific, and it was a relief to hear the industry say it out loud: environmental claims need proof behind them.
A few things worth knowing:
EU green claims enforcement began September 27. Broad terms like "eco-friendly" or "green" now need evidence, not good intentions.
California is moving on textiles. SB 707, the state's textile EPR law, was called the most important U.S. textile regulation right now, and Europe is expected to follow.
PFAS rules vary state by state, so knowing what's actually in a product matters more than ever.
After the summit, I stayed for Proof Over Promises, a smaller gathering of suppliers, distributors and sustainability leads working on how our industry can back up its climate claims. The name says it all.
PPAI's Jonny Auping wrote about the week and shared a story I told there: a woman always cut her ham in half before cooking it because her mother did. Turns out her mother's oven was just too small. A lot of "eco-friendly" labels work the same way. People keep using them because everyone else does, not because anyone checked. Check out Jonny's story here.
As Jonny put it about today's buyers: "They don't just care. They want data."
What this means for your next order: ask your supplier for the proof behind any claim before it goes on a product page, a kit insert or a sales deck. And swap the vague word for the specific fact. "Made from 100% recycled polyester, GRS certified" says more than "eco-friendly" ever did.
Read more from PPAI: link to article here.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is my organization legally liable for greenwashing in our promotional materials?
Potentially, yes. In Canada, the Competition Bureau enforces the rules, and individuals and organizations can also ask the Competition Tribunal for permission to challenge product claims that aren’t backed by proper testing, or any claim that’s false or misleading. FTC deceptive advertising rules apply in the US. Add the EU's EmpCo rules if you sell or market there. The more visible the claim, the more it matters that you can back it up.
What if our distributor made the claim, not us?
Doesn't matter. If you repeat it in your own marketing, it's yours to substantiate. Ask for documentation instead of taking their word for it.
We already have printed materials out there with broad claims on them. Now what?
Add qualifying language where you can, plan accurate replacement copy for the next print run, and use this as the reason to build a real review process going forward. Fixing it before someone flags it is always better than fixing it after.
Does using certified products automatically make us compliant?
It's a strong start, but it depends how you talk about them. A GOTS-certified shirt is still marketed misleadingly if you call it “sustainable” without saying what the certification actually covers, and what it doesn't.
Where can I learn more?
The Competition Bureau publishes its final guidelines and case examples directly. The FTC's Green Guides are on their website. PPAI also maintains a sustainability terms glossary and an FTC Green Guides summary worth bookmarking. We've also written before about where the sustainability conversation in this industry tends to go wrong, worth a read if you want the fuller picture. None of this is legal advice. For anything specific to your program, talk to counsel familiar with your jurisdiction.
Want the longer version?
We built a Sustainable Buyer's Guide that walks through the material-level decisions (recycled content, compostable versus biodegradable, packaging, e-waste), our plain-language term glossary, and the rating system we use internally to sort products by verified attributes instead of a marketing adjective.
Download the guide and we'll follow up directly, no automated drip.
Or if you would rather just talk it through, book a meeting here.
Ethical Swag is not a legal services provider, and this isn't legal advice. For specific compliance questions, consult qualified legal counsel familiar with your jurisdiction.