NGO that just forced Shein to drop net-zero claims is coming for other firms

DUH campaign adds to greenwashing scrutiny that also includes case brought by Procter & Gamble and guidance from Dutch regulator

Companies should prepare for legal challenges over their climate pledges, according to the NGO that just stopped Shein making net-zero claims.

German environmental campaign group Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) filed a case against the Dublin-based entity that operates Shein’s online platforms, arguing that the Chinese fashion giant didn’t provide credible evidence it could meet its stated goal.

Shein had its near-term and long-term targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative in 2025, committing to reduce its emissions by 90% by 2050.

The cuts must be made against its 2023 emissions – a year in which they nearly doubled, from 9.17m metric tonnes in 2022, to 16.68m.

In 2024, the firm disclosed a further rise of 23%.

DUH argued that Shein has failed to explain how it will achieve its net-zero target in the face of such growth, and alleged this constituted a breach of Germany’s Act Against Unfair Competition.

The case was settled before it got to court, with Shein signing a legally-binding cease-and-desist agreement that means it can only advertise its net-zero target if it provides concrete information about how it plans to achieve it, and explains how it will address its residual emissions.

Breaches could result in major fines.

Shein said it had “engaged constructively with DUH over recent months,” and had published additional information to offer “greater transparency” around its sustainability ambitions and progress.

DUH claims to have identified further examples of Shein allegedly making sustainability claims it can’t back up, and has initiated new legal challenges.

But it is also targeting other firms.

It is currently conducting proceedings against Continental for advertising its intention to become climate neutral by 2050 at the latest, which DUH claims isn’t backed up by sufficient evidence.

And it has cases pending against Apple Distribution International and Barilla over claims that some of their products are carbon neutral.

Last year, a court ruled in favour of DUH in a case against Adidas, concerning its entity-level climate claims.

“We are continuously reviewing further proceedings against the future-related promises made by large corporations,” said DUH campaigner Roman Schilling.

“Companies that announce they themselves, their products or services will be ‘CO2-neutral’ or ‘climate-neutral’ in the coming decades are already creating a green image for themselves,” he told Real Economy Progress.

“Such advertising claims must be credibly substantiated and presented in a way that is comprehensible to consumers. Anything else is, in our opinion, massive greenwashing and must be stopped immediately.”

Procter & Gamble gets competitor’s ads banned in UK

In the UK, Procter & Gamble successfully got a competitor’s advert banned last week.

The consumer goods titan filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) against Kit & Kin, a B-corp selling baby products.

Its nappies and wipes were described using environmental claims that Procter & Gamble said could be misleading to consumers.

They included claims the products were “sustainable”, “biodegradable” and “better for our world”.

ASA, which can only accept a complaint from a company if it’s already tried to resolve the issue directly, upheld all three of Procter & Gamble’s challenges.

It said it “considered consumers would interpret the claim ‘eco’ as meaning the product about which it was made was either beneficial for, or at least not detrimental to, the environment”.

It also said that comparative claims should include the benchmark against which they’re being measured, and environmental claims should be readily understood by consumers.

The ads were banned as a result.

Dutch regulator highlights bad practice

Last month, Dutch financial regulator AFM released a study on the credibility of green claims being made by financial institutions in the country.

It warned against making statements that weren’t backed up by “specific actions”, or relying on secondary, sprawling or hard-to-find documents – such as Frequently Asked Questions or sustainability reports – to support claims.

In another of its examples of bad practice, it described a bank which “indicates that its goal is to be climate-neutral before 2050 [but] does not explain in which specific year the goal must be achieved, how it must be achieved, or what progress has been made”.