How the 'Wild West' of Green Marketing Was Tamed: A History of the U.S. Green Guides

In a 1991 interview on Minnesota Public Radio, a listener mentioned that environmental claims on packaging were vague and confusing to consumers. "Half the time I can't figure it out," he said, "I don't know what they're trying to say." Then-Minnesota Attorney General Hubert "Skip" Humphrey, a guest on the program, agreed.

"I went to the store the other night, walked down an aisle, and sure enough, I saw claims like you mentioned. There was a spray can that said 'environmentally safe' — who knows what that means..." he responded.

At that time, a decade had passed since scientists began worrying about the impact of chemicals in aerosols and refrigerators on the ozone layer, and several years since the Montreal Protocol was signed to phase out these substances, but marketers' claims about being "ozone-friendly" were still largely unchecked.

That changed on July 28, 1992, when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — under pressure from both a group of state attorneys general led by Humphrey and manufacturers seeking guidance — issued the Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.

The guides, quickly nicknamed the Green Guides, were designed to provide clear direction to businesses on environmental claims about products and packaging. Since then, they have helped popularize the term "greenwashing" and driven numerous policy adjustments over the years.

Although the Green Guides themselves are not independently enforceable, the FTC can cite them in lawsuits under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.

After updates in 1996, 1998, and 2012, the FTC is currently considering what could be one of its most impactful revisions to the Green Guides. With public debate intensifying over the effectiveness of recycling and states enacting laws to regulate environmental marketing, this update could mark a significant shift in the FTC's regulatory approach.

The Green Guides, Deja Vu

In 1990, a survey by J. Walter Thompson published in Advertising Age showed that 96% of consumers felt they needed more information to understand environmental marketing claims. So when the FTC issued the Green Guides, it aimed to guide companies in crafting claims in ways consumers could understand — such as whether packaging is recyclable and how to dispose of it — while making it easy for marketers to meet the guides' requirements with substantiated language.

More than three decades later, modern consumers have grown up in a recycling system, but they face a new, perhaps more difficult problem: rapidly growing distrust.

Suzanne Shelton, president and CEO of market research firm Shelton Group, says that years of marketing centered on recyclability allowed consumer packaged goods companies to assuage consumers' concerns about consumption. In her view, these messages conveyed: "Buy away, don't feel guilty, because you'll throw it in the blue bin, it'll go to a magical place called 'away,' and it'll turn into something else."

But things have changed. A recent Shelton Group survey of 6,500 people found that nearly a third of Americans are not confident that what they throw in the recycling bin is actually recycled. Four years ago, that figure was only 14%.

There are other striking similarities between the current moment and the early 1990s.

Back then, many state governments were considering or enacting regulations aimed at environmental marketing claims. Today, recent laws in California and Oregon are forcing marketers to change how they communicate recyclability, such as removing the chasing arrows around resin identification codes and replacing them with clear, accurate recycling instructions.

At that time, packaging-related technology was evolving rapidly, with a focus on biodegradability. Now, the discussion has shifted to chemical recycling of plastics and the scaling of plant-based and compostable materials.

The macro sustainability issues then revolved around ozone depletion and landfill space. Today, they concern carbon emissions and material circularity.

Another key similarity: in the early '90s, consumers were eager to incorporate sustainability into their purchasing decisions but were confused or distrustful about whether packaging entering the recycling stream was actually being recycled.

"It was a real 'Wild West' environment, and companies realized that being green could give them a competitive advantage," says Doug Blanke. He served as assistant attorney general and director of the consumer protection division in the Minnesota Attorney General's Office during Humphrey's tenure.

Blanke says that in response, some manufacturers "reformulated their products," but others "just reformulated their advertising." He specifically mentioned fast-food companies, some of which used polystyrene foam containers with recycling symbols.

"When we looked into it, we found that recycling polystyrene foam was technically feasible, but the nearest recycling facility was 400 miles away in Chicago. You're not going to ship McDonald's containers to Chicago for recycling," Blanke said.

After the FTC issued the Green Guides, Blanke moved on to focus on consumer protection in the tobacco industry, but he believes the Green Guides were effective and served their intended purpose.

Marketers, manufacturers, consumers, and environmental groups all got what they wanted: clear guidelines written in language all stakeholders could understand. And the legal cases the attorneys general task force brought and won before and after the guides' issuance — including one against a manufacturer claiming its diapers were biodegradable — sent an effective message to other companies: they could face legal scrutiny.

"You don't want to be the poster child for environmental irresponsibility," Blanke said. "I mean, biodegradable diapers? Come on."

However, Blanke believes that without pressure from the attorneys general task force, the FTC would not have created the Green Guides. Nor does he think state attorneys general today could collaborate as seamlessly as they did back then, given the less partisan atmosphere at the time.

Not all stakeholders were optimistic after the guides were issued. In Marketing News (a publication of the American Marketing Association), environmental researcher Bentham Paulos and Abt Associates senior analyst Andrew Stoeckel wrote in 1993 that they were "not sure [the guides] have had the effect marketers expected."

They described two complaints from marketers: the guides were voluntary in theory but not in practice, amounting to a "Catch-22" — the FTC said, "If you voluntarily comply with our recommendations, we won't force you"; and second, they believed the Green Guides failed and could not address the looming issue of state laws regulating environmental marketing claims.

However, there was hope that any state seeking to enact new laws would use the Green Guides as a model, thereby reducing the need for marketers to adjust their environmental marketing strategies.

Evolution of the Guides

Within two years of the initial guides' release in 1992, a group of researchers from the University of Illinois and the University of Utah audited their early impact by examining brand labels across supermarket product categories.

During the study period, researchers found that brands had made significant changes in line with the FTC guides. Environmental claims overall became more specific and meaningful. Claims mentioning ozone decreased, likely because the Green Guides required marketers to substantiate such claims, but general environmental benefit claims nearly tripled.

Packaging recyclability claims increased, but not in a way that helped alleviate consumer confusion — because, inconsistent with the Green Guides, these claims lacked specificity and were mostly vague, such as "Please Recycle." However, the guides required marketers to provide specific instructions on where and how to recycle packaging or products, unless recycling facilities were available to a "substantial majority of consumers or communities."

In the first update in 1996, language was added requiring marketers to substantiate claims like "environmentally preferable," and the FTC also sought to clarify instructions for using the chasing arrows symbol. It advised marketers to specify whether the symbol indicated recycled content or recyclability. Additionally, it instructed marketers to state where recycling occurs and what recycled content the product contains, if any.

As environmental marketing and consumer interest in sustainable products grew rapidly, the FTC quickly conducted a second round of revisions in 1998.

These revisions included: recyclability claims could cover "reuse, reconditioning, and remanufacturing of the product or its components into another product," while recycled content claims should only be made for "products or packaging that are reused as 'raw materials' in the manufacture or assembly of a 'new' package or product." With the growth of multi-channel commerce, the agency also clarified that service marketers and marketing conducted via the Internet and email were also subject to the guides.

The agency did not issue its next update until 2012. It initiated the process through workshops in 2007, with an update originally planned for 2010, but it was slowed by the presidential administration transition that began in 2008.

In addition to new sections on carbon offsets, green certifications and seals, renewable energy, and renewable materials claims, the 2012 Green Guides also included other packaging-related revisions, such as compostability claims. Besides clarifying whether a package or product would "safely and promptly" become usable compost in an industrial compost facility or a home garden setting, the update clarified that "promptly" means "in approximately the same time as the compostable materials."

While earlier versions advised marketers to qualify recyclability claims when recycling facilities did not cover a "substantial majority" of consumers or communities, the 2012 update clarified this meant at least 60%, and "the lower the access rate to facilities, the more marketers should emphasize the limited nature of product recycling." This change quickly gave rise to voluntary brand support systems like the How2Recycle label, which has become a focal point of discussion in the latest update process.

In comments submitted to the FTC for the next round of updates, industry and advocacy groups shared differing views on updating the guides to address issues like contamination in the recycling stream. In some cases, recyclers wanted clearer language for certain products, while the companies behind the products favored a more nuanced approach to recyclability claims for new materials.

Although groups disagreed on some issues, many agreed that the current guides fail to adequately inform consumers or prevent misleading claims.

Past and Future Enforcement Battles

Although the guides have sparked many broader debates, the FTC's actual enforcement efforts have fluctuated over time.

The agency, along with seven states, sued Mobil Corporation for advertising Hefty trash bags as "degradable" under the action of light, air, and water. Mobil agreed to stop the ad campaign and paid a $150,000 settlement in 1991 (before the Green Guides were issued). It was the first lawsuit resulting in a consent order against a company for false environmental claims, but not the last.

The agency spent nearly a decade dealing with cases related to a plastic additive whose manufacturer claimed could make plastic biodegrade. In 2013, the FTC announced six enforcement actions, one of which included a $450,000 civil penalty.

But the FTC is not the only organization using the Green Guides to ensure marketer compliance. The National Advertising Division (NAD), an independent industry self-regulatory system affiliated with BBB National Programs, also applies these guides in its work.

"It's the advertising industry's self-regulatory effort to protect brands, not mislead consumers, and level the playing field so everyone knows the rules and operates in a clear and transparent manner," says David Mallen. He served as deputy director at NAD for 15 years before entering private practice and is now an advertising and media lawyer at Loeb & Loeb.

NAD recently brought a case against American Beverage, requiring the organization to modify "certain idealized claims about the use of recycled material in bottles, as well as claims related to collaboration with the ABA nonprofit and achieving sustainability goals together."

As the FTC works on the next version of the Green Guides update, Shelton says many of her clients across the packaging value chain are highly focused on how chemical recycling will be treated and whether it will be addressed.

"I think a lot of people are worried the FTC might make certain decisions that could destroy the industry, because the industry is moving in that direction. Hard-to-recycle packaging and multilayer packaging, all of that is moving toward chemical recycling," she said.

But she says that overall, her clients do ensure strict compliance with the FTC's Green Guides, especially because the agency continues to bring lawsuits based on serious violations.

"Our clients tend to treat them like law," Shelton said. "In my view, it operates as intended. It's like having a school crossing guard." The guard isn't a police officer, "but having an authoritative-looking person present often makes you behave."

As in the early '90s, state attorneys general are also voicing their opinions on the changes they'd like to see. But given that the latest coalition of attorneys general is all Democratic, partisan politics may begin to play a larger role as they push the FTC to set high standards for recyclability definitions and warn against giving chemical recycling a green light.

Looking ahead to the next round of Green Guides revisions, Mallen says it's important to remember that the agency's goal "is not to achieve any particular environmental outcome, but to ensure consumers are not misled."

Therefore, transparency is the ultimate goal, even if it means not telling consumers what they want to hear.

"If you tell consumers, 'You have to take this to the store, otherwise it won't be recycled' — that might not be a great outcome for those worried about plastics in landfills," he said. "But at least you raise the bar for both actual outcomes and expectations. Perhaps the best advertising can ultimately do is be clear and transparent."

Visual editor Sean Lucas contributed to this article.

Correction:This article has been updated to correct the name of the nonprofit organization affiliated with the National Advertising Division.