ASA rulings target fashion retailers’ environmental product claims

The question

What do the ASA’s rulings against Adidas, UNIQLO and Calvin Klein reveal about its approach to environmental claims made about fashion products and what does this mean for advertisers?

The key takeaway

Retailers need to take particular care when describing fashion products as “recycled” or “organic”. Unless all the materials in the products are recycled or organic, consumers are likely to interpret these descriptions as absolute claims in relation to the whole product. Hence they need to frame any such claim with great care, ideally on a narrow and very specific basis which can be fully substantiated.

The background

The UK advertising codes - the CAP Code and BCAP Code - include general rules prohibiting misleading advertising as well as specific rules in relation to environmental claims. Both CAP and the ASA have also issued a plethora of advice and guidance as well as rulings confirming where particular ads have either breached (more often than not) or not breached (rare but not unheard of) the rules.

In addition, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published both its general Green Claims Code, as well as specific guidance on “Complying with consumer law when making environmental claims in the fashion retail sector”. The CMA fashion-specific guidance states that “advertisers should not imply that a product was entirely made of a single fabric if that was not true”. The Adidas, UNIQLO and Calvin Klein rulings hinge on this point.

The development

In all three cases, the ASA concluded that the ads breached CAP Code rules 3.1 and 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 11.1 and 11.3 (Environmental claims).

Adidas

The ASA questioned whether Adidas’s claim “Recycled Running Shoes” was misleading and could be substantiated. The ASA ruled that the claim - especially when read alongside the statement “Check Out Our Recycled Shoe Range Today” - was likely to be interpreted as meaning that all their shoes in the running shoe range were made from 100% recycled materials. It follows that the claim was absolute and, since Adidas did not provide evidence to support this claim, it was concluded that it was likely to mislead.

Calvin Klein

The ASA held that consumers were likely to interpret the claim “Responsibly sourced collections – Recycled, Organic & More” as meaning that all products were made from recycled, organic or other environmentally preferred materials. While some products contained substantial proportion of this material, the evidence did not demonstrate that all the products were entirely made from those materials. As a result, the basis of the claim was unclear, and it was held that the ad was likely to mislead.

UNIQLO

The ASA held that consumers would interpret UNIQLO’s claim “Recycled Materials” to be understood as meaning that all the fabrics used were made entirely from recycled materials. The claim was held to be absolute and therefore required a high level of substantiation. Since this was not provided by UNIQLO, it was ruled that the ad was likely to mislead.

In all three cases, the ASA upheld the complaints and informed the companies that the ads must not appear in that form again. The companies must also ensure that any future ads that made environmental claims were clear and did not make any absolute claims that could not be substantiated.

Why is this important?

The investigation aligns with the ASA’s shift towards a more proactive approach to monitoring ads. Rather than waiting for a complaint to be made, the ASA’s use of its Active Ad Monitoring system allows them to actively survey online ads in specific sectors and potentially prompting investigations.

The decisions also highlight the ASA’s strict approach to environmental descriptors used for products. When retailers describe fashion products as “recycled” or “organic”, consumers are likely to interpret these descriptions as absolute claims and in relation to the whole product. If these claims are not qualified or cannot be substantiated by showing that all the materials in the products are recycled or organic, then they will be held to be misleading.

Any practical tips?

Advertisers should:

• avoid making absolute claims about products if they cannot be substantiated by robust evidence
• where an absolute claim cannot be sufficiently substantiated, consider using qualified terms (for example, “collection includes recycled material” [with exact details on materials/percentage of product as a whole]), and
• use precise, unambiguous wording when describing products and their materials/features, including auditing all relevant product ranges to ensure that every environmental claim can be substantiated for the products advertised.

Autumn 2026