ASA rejects Flo environmental marketing claims

Here We Flo has been told to change environmental claims used in social-media advertising after the Advertising Standards Authority upheld complaints over language including “plant-powered” and “good for the planet”.

The ruling concerned three Instagram posts for the period-care business. The advertisements included claims about plant-derived materials, organic bamboo, and organic cotton across pads and tampons.

The ASA investigated whether the environmental language gave consumers an adequately clear and substantiated picture of the products. Both issues examined by the regulator were upheld.

Here We Flo argued that “plant-powered” referred to the substantial proportion of plant-derived materials used in its products rather than claiming they were entirely plant based or had no environmental impact. It also said the wording was intended to describe composition rather than a complete life-cycle benefit.

The regulator concluded that the presentation was likely to mislead where the basis of the claim was not sufficiently clear. It also examined claims around organic materials and the extent to which certification supported the language used.

The ASA told Here We Flo to make the basis of environmental claims clear and to hold strong evidence for absolute claims about environmental impact.

The decision adds to growing compliance pressure around sustainability marketing. Environmental language often compresses complicated questions about sourcing, manufacturing, packaging, transport, product use, and disposal into a handful of words. Broad claims can therefore communicate easily while remaining difficult to substantiate across the full life cycle of a product.

Terms such as “plant-powered”, “good for the planet”, “green”, “sustainable”, and “eco” can be interpreted more broadly than the narrow characteristic a business intends to describe. A product may contain plant-derived material, for example, without evidence that its total environmental impact is lower across manufacturing, logistics, use, and disposal.

The compliance burden extends across several business functions. Sustainability teams may understand the scope and limitations of environmental data, while brand and marketing teams need concise language that works in consumer communications. Legal and compliance functions then have to determine whether the finished campaign accurately reflects the evidence available.

Recent ASA rulings on carbon-offsetting language have similarly shown that participation in an environmental scheme does not automatically substantiate broad claims about a product’s impact.

Consumer expectations are shifting at the same time. Research examined by Business Quarter this summer found greater scrutiny of familiar sustainability imagery and a stronger emphasis on evidence and authenticity.

The Flo ruling therefore sits within a wider move away from environmental language that depends on implication. Marketing teams increasingly need to identify precisely what part of a product or process is being described and ensure that wording does not suggest a larger benefit than the evidence can support.

The ASA told Here We Flo that the advertisements must not appear again in the form investigated. Future claims concerning plant-derived content, environmental benefit, and organic certification must explain their basis more clearly.

For brands using environmental positioning, the decision reinforces the need to treat sustainability claims with the same evidence discipline as product, price, performance, and health claims. The shorter and broader the claim, the more important it becomes that the underlying evidence supports the impression consumers are likely to take from it.