On this page

Substantiation requirements by jurisdiction

The evidence standards behind environmental claims, compared by legal test, timing, proof burden and disclosure rule.

The comparative question

Every claims regime requires evidence, but “substantiation” conceals four different questions: what type and quality of evidence is adequate; whether it must exist before the claim; who bears the burden when challenged; and whether the evidence stays in a private file, is disclosed publicly, or is verified before use. A package claim can satisfy one axis and fail another.

Evidence must also match the proposition. Laboratory testing is suited to degradation performance; chain-of-custody records to content and sourcing; infrastructure data to recyclability in practice; lifecycle modelling to comparative environmental performance. A certificate is not universally superior evidence. It is adequate only to the extent that its scope and method address the meaning the package conveys.

Comparison table

Jurisdiction	Core standard	Timing and proof	Disclosure or verification	Packaging implication
European Union	General misleading-practices law, specific blacklisted claim forms under Directive (EU) 2024/825, and PPWR Article 14 for packaging properties regulated by the PPWR.	The trader must be able to support the claim; PPWR compliance is demonstrated in technical documentation.	Predominantly ex post enforcement. The blocked Green Claims Directive's proposed ex ante certificate is not current law.	Claims about PPWR-regulated properties must concern performance beyond applicable minima and state whether they relate to the unit, part or portfolio.
United Kingdom	Misleading-actions and omissions law, interpreted through the CMA Green Claims Code and unfair-commercial-practices guidance.	Evidence should be robust, credible, relevant and up to date. The claim is assessed by the overall impression.	Evidence is ordinarily held for regulator review; the CMA can enforce administratively under the DMCC Act regime.	A qualification must be prominent enough to change the impression made at the point of claim.
United States	Section 5 deception law and the FTC Green Guides' “competent and reliable scientific evidence” standard, supplemented by state law.	Substantiation must exist when the claim is made. The FTC evaluates express and implied meanings.	Held for enforcement; private and state litigation may apply different procedural burdens.	Recyclability claims require evidence about access and appropriate facilities, not only design compatibility.
California	General false-advertising and unfair-competition law plus SB 343 criteria for recyclability representations.	The party using the claim must assess statutory collection, sorting and processing criteria against CalRecycle's study and other evidence.	No pre-clearance by CalRecycle. The agency states that it does not decide the lawfulness of a particular label.	The chasing-arrows symbol and other indicators are regulated as representations; a resin code does not automatically establish eligibility.
Canada	Competition Act product environmental-benefit claims must be based on an adequate and proper test; business claims require adequate and proper substantiation.	The evidence must precede the claim. The statute places proof on the person making the representation for the specified provisions.	Held for enforcement; the Bureau's guidelines are interpretive and do not bind courts or every private applicant.	The 2026 amendments removed the internationally recognised methodology phrase for business claims but did not remove the product-claim test.
Netherlands	General consumer law interpreted through ACM sustainability-claims guidance.	Claims should be supported by facts, kept current and expressed specifically.	Evidence is available to the authority; negotiated commitments have been a prominent enforcement form.	Vague terminology and unexplained badge-like presentation can create risk even where an underlying attribute exists.
France	Two instruments. L.541-9-1 is a word-ban (“biodégradable”, “respectueux de l’environnement”, industrial-only “compostable” on plastic): there is no substantiation path that restores the word. Separately, Decree 2022-539 conditions carbon-neutrality advertising on published lifecycle reporting. Consumption Code L.121-2 remains the general misleading-practices overlay.	Evidence requirements depend on the claim; prescribed disclosures can form part of legal adequacy.	Some claims require public disclosure rather than a private file alone.	Method and scope may need to travel with the claim or be directly accessible from it.
Australia	Australian Consumer Law prohibitions on misleading or deceptive conduct and false representations, supported by ACCC environmental-claims guidance.	Businesses should have reasonable evidence and should not overstate scientific or disposal outcomes.	Ex post enforcement; certification does not displace responsibility for the overall representation.	Claims should specify the part of the product or package and the conditions under which an outcome occurs.
Germany	UWG §§ 5 and 5a, as applied in BGH I ZR 98/23 (Katjes, 27 June 2024): an ambiguous environmental term must be explained in the advertising itself.	The explanation is contemporaneous with the advertisement. A QR code or compensator website is not the advertisement.	Competitor and Wettbewerbszentrale injunctions; no CMA-style administrative file.	If “klimaneutral” prints, the meaning (reduction versus compensation) must print with it. From 27 September 2026 an explained offset-based product claim remains an EmpCo point 4c practice.
Nordic markets	National marketing / consumer-protection statutes, read through ombudsman guidelines. Finland: a general environmental claim requires a life-cycle study (CPA s. 2 guidelines, 1992/2002/2025 ch. 6).	The claim must be supportable when made. Future-dated carbon slogans are treated as present representations.	Ombudsman guidance and Market Court / Consumer Ombudsman decisions; not a pre-clearance mark.	State whether the claim is about the pack or the product. Nordic sorting pictograms are not a claims licence.

The four axes in practice

Evidence type. Recycled-content statements are ordinarily proved through records, mass-balance accounting or chain of custody; compostability through a defined test standard; recyclability through both package design and the infrastructure available where sold. Evidence of technical possibility does not prove actual access. Evidence of access does not prove actual recycling.

Timing. The strongest systems treat substantiation as a precondition, not a defence assembled after challenge. Canada’s statute and the FTC’s doctrine are explicit. The UK’s “up to date” formulation adds a continuing duty. Claims based on collection data go stale quickly, because programme acceptance and processing markets change.

Burden. A reverse onus changes the litigation value of the evidence file. In Canada the specified provisions place proof on the person making the claim. Elsewhere an enforcer may bear the formal burden of establishing deception, while the absence of a substantiation record remains powerful evidence. In practice the process often converges: the claim is released only after a dated file is approved.

Meaning. Evidence is measured against what the consumer is likely to understand, not only the words the drafter intended. A file supporting “30% recycled content attributed through mass balance” may not support an unqualified “30% recycled” statement if the latter conveys physical content. Qualification is part of substantiation, because it defines the proposition the evidence must carry.

References

Federal Trade Commission, 16 CFR Part 260. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 20 August 2026).

Competition and Markets Authority (2021), Green Claims Code. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 20 August 2026).

Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34, s. 74.01. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 20 August 2026).

Competition Bureau (2025, with 2026 update notice), Environmental claims and the Competition Act. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 20 August 2026).

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (2023), Guidelines regarding sustainability claims. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 20 August 2026).

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2023), Making environmental claims: A guide for business. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 20 August 2026).

Note on sources and verification

This page condenses the more detailed analysis in What counts as adequate substantiation? and the jurisdiction articles in Theme 4. The table states general rules and does not resolve the meaning or evidentiary sufficiency of a particular claim. The Competition Bureau's page carried a notice on 20 August 2026 that its 2025 guidance would be updated following the March 2026 amendments; the consolidated statute controls where the older guidance uses the deleted methodology phrase.

Last verified: 23 August 2026.