Your Supplier Called It Sustainable. The CMA Says That's Now Your Problem.

In January 2026, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published new guidance that quietly shifted the legal ground under every business making environmental claims in the UK. The document — 'Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain' — clarifies something businesses have been ignoring for years: you can be held liable for a green claim you didn't write, never approved, and may not even have noticed you were making.

If you sell a product labelled as 'eco-friendly' by your supplier, stock goods marketed as 'carbon neutral' by a brand you distribute, or repeat sustainability claims you received from a manufacturer — the CMA now says that responsibility sits with you too. And with fines of up to 10% of global turnover now available under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, this is not a risk to file away for later.

This article explains exactly what the CMA changed, why it matters to businesses of all sizes, and what practical steps you need to take now to reduce your exposure.

What the CMA Actually Published in January 2026

On 22 January 2026, the CMA published a document titled 'Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain.' It sits alongside and builds on the original 2021 Green Claims Code, which set out six principles for making truthful, clear, and substantiated environmental claims.

The 2021 Code focused primarily on claims a business made directly to consumers. It was widely understood as guidance about what you say in your own marketing materials. If you wrote 'sustainably made' on your website, you needed to be able to back that up. Most businesses understood the risk as being about their own words.

The January 2026 guidance extends that responsibility in a way that many businesses have not yet absorbed. It makes clear that UK consumer protection law applies not just to the business that originates a claim, but to every business in the chain that repeats, relies on, or passes that claim on to consumers.

The CMA published this guidance in response to requests from businesses for greater clarity on shared responsibility. The result is a framework that does not introduce new law — but does make very clear how existing law applies to the full supply chain. The practical effect is significant.

What 'Making' a Green Claim Now Means

You Don't Have to Write It to Own It

Under the new framework, a business is considered to be 'making' an environmental claim if it creates it, but also if it repeats, endorses, or relies on a claim made by someone else in the supply chain. This is the part most businesses haven't got their heads around yet.

A retailer displaying a supplier's 'sustainably sourced' label on a shelf is now treated as making that claim. A distributor that includes a manufacturer's 'net zero by 2030' statement in their product listings is making that claim. A brand that forwards supplier data to justify its own environmental credentials is making that claim. The origin of the words is no longer a defence.

The Three Ways You Can Now Be in Scope

The guidance identifies three broad routes through which a business can be treated as making a green claim it didn't originate:

• Repeating — you communicate a supplier's environmental claim to your customers, whether in product descriptions, marketing materials, on-shelf labels, or social media.

• Relying — you use a supplier's claim to support your own broader sustainability positioning, for example citing a 'sustainably sourced' ingredient to justify a product's 'eco' branding.

• Passing on — you transmit a claim through the chain without scrutiny, such as a distributor who includes manufacturer-provided environmental copy in customer-facing materials.

For many UK SMEs — particularly retailers, distributors, and resellers — this will apply to a significant portion of their current marketing without them realising it.

The Problem with Inherited Claims

The common assumption across UK retail and distribution has been: 'We got this information from our supplier. The responsibility is theirs.' That assumption was always legally shaky. The January 2026 guidance makes clear it is not safe to rely on.

The guidance is explicit that where a claim depends on information held upstream, downstream businesses are expected to take reasonable steps to access sufficient information to verify it. If that verification is not possible — for example if a supplier refuses to share supporting evidence — the CMA expects businesses to change, qualify, or reconsider making the claim. If a supplier won't provide evidence for a claim they're asking you to repeat, that is itself a signal about the claim's reliability.

The Enforcement Picture Has Changed — and the Fines are Substantial

The CMA's enforcement powers were significantly strengthened when the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) came into force. The consumer protection elements of the Act went live on 6 April 2025. Before this, the CMA had to go through the courts to enforce consumer protection law — a process that was slow, resource-intensive, and largely limited to cases involving large organisations.

The DMCCA changed that fundamentally. The CMA can now:

• Determine for itself whether consumer law has been breached — without needing a court order

• Issue fines of up to 10% of a company's global annual turnover

• Impose daily penalties for continued non-compliance until a breach is remedied

• Act against businesses of any size, not just major corporations

To put this in practical terms: a business with £2 million annual turnover faces a potential fine of up to £200,000 for a single breach. A business with £10 million turnover faces up to £1 million. These are not theoretical maximums reserved for egregious cases — they are the statutory ceiling, and the CMA has indicated greenwashing is a priority area.

Innocent Breach Is Still a Breach

One of the most important — and least discussed — elements of the new guidance is this: the CMA has stated explicitly that where it is pursuing civil enforcement action, an innocent or unwitting breach remains a breach of consumer law.

You cannot defend a misleading green claim by saying you didn't know it was wrong, or that you were just repeating what your supplier told you. The relevant question is whether the claim was accurate and substantiated — not whether you intended to mislead anyone.

There is some mitigation available. The CMA has indicated that businesses that take proactive steps to stop and correct misleading claims before an investigation begins may benefit from reduced penalties. But the absence of robust internal processes for verifying claims is itself likely to be viewed as an aggravating factor. Inaction has a cost.

What This Means for Different Types of UK SME

Retailers and Distributors

If you stock products from multiple suppliers and display their environmental claims in-store or online, you are making those claims under the CMA's framework. You need to know what claims you are displaying, where they originated, and whether they can be substantiated. Passing on a supplier's environmental label without any verification process is no longer a reasonable position.

The practical starting point here is a claim audit — mapping every environmental claim that appears on your products and identifying whether each one came from you or from a supplier. The ones that came from suppliers are where your gap is likely to be.

Manufacturers and Suppliers

If you supply products to retailers or distributors with environmental claims attached — on packaging, in product specifications, or in the documentation you provide — those claims will flow downstream and your buyers will start to ask for evidence. Retailers who take the CMA's guidance seriously will build verification requirements into their supplier relationships.

This creates both a risk and an opportunity. Suppliers who can provide clear, well-documented evidence for their environmental claims will become easier to trade with. Those who can't will face growing commercial pressure, regardless of whether the CMA investigates.

Brands Sourcing from Third Parties

If you source products from third-party manufacturers and make environmental claims based on their production processes — certified organic, responsibly manufactured, sustainably sourced — those claims need to be verifiable. You cannot rely solely on a supplier assurance that something is true. You need to be able to access the underlying evidence, and in the absence of that, you need to qualify the claim so that it accurately reflects what you actually know.

If your environmental credibility depends on claims that originate with a supplier and you cannot independently verify them, the CMA's guidance is clear: qualify or remove those claims until you can.

What 'Reasonable Steps' Actually Means in Practice

The guidance repeatedly references the requirement to take 'reasonable steps' to verify claims. The CMA is deliberately flexible here — it acknowledges that what is reasonable will vary depending on the size of the business, the significance of the claim, and the availability of supporting evidence. Larger businesses with more resources are expected to do more. But the principle applies universally.

What Evidence Should You Be Holding?

For any environmental claim in your supply chain — whether you wrote it or inherited it — you should be able to point to:

• Third-party certification or audit reports that directly and specifically support the claim being made (not just a general certification that doesn't cover the specific product or process in question)

• Supplier-provided data that has been reviewed and queried, not simply accepted at face value

• Records confirming that claims are current — certifications expire, production processes change, and conditions that supported a claim two years ago may no longer apply

• Internal sign-off showing the claim was reviewed before publication or distribution

The more prominent the claim — and the more central it is to purchasing decisions — the more rigorous the verification needs to be. A 'carbon neutral' product claim that features prominently in your marketing requires more substantiation than a footnote reference to a recycled packaging component.

When to Qualify Rather Than Remove

The guidance is clear that the preferred outcome is not silence — it is precision. Qualifying a claim means tightening it so it accurately reflects what you actually know. 'Made from sustainable materials' becomes 'Made from materials certified as sustainable under [specific scheme].' 'Carbon neutral product' becomes 'Carbon footprint assessed and offset under [specific programme] — see our website for methodology.'

This kind of specificity reduces your legal exposure while still communicating meaningful information to customers. It also makes it harder for a regulator to argue the claim is misleading — because a qualified, specific claim leaves less room for misinterpretation.

The September 2026 EU Deadline: A Double Pressure for Businesses Selling into Europe

For UK businesses that also sell into EU markets, the picture is about to get more complicated. The EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT), which was adopted in March 2024, must be transposed by EU member states by 27 March 2026 and will apply from 27 September 2026.

From that date, generic environmental claims — 'eco-friendly', 'green', 'sustainable', 'natural', 'carbon neutral', 'climate neutral', 'biodegradable' — will be prohibited in EU consumer-facing marketing unless backed by a recognised performance standard or official label scheme. Self-made labels and unsupported broad claims will simply not be legal.

It is worth noting that the EU's more detailed Green Claims Directive — which would have required pre-verified substantiation for specific environmental claims — had its withdrawal announced by the European Commission in June 2025 after political opposition. But the ECGT was already in force and remains binding. The confusion around the Green Claims Directive has led some businesses to believe that EU green claims regulation has loosened. It hasn't. The ECGT bans generic claims, and the September deadline is live.

UK businesses with EU customers are therefore facing simultaneous tightening from two directions — from the CMA's supply chain guidance now, and from the ECGT's claims restrictions from September. A review of your environmental claims is not a one-jurisdiction exercise.

Practical Steps: What to Do in the Next 90 Days

The January 2026 guidance is not a future obligation — it clarifies how consumer law already applies. Enforcement could begin at any time. These are the practical steps businesses should prioritise.

• Audit every environmental claim in your supply chain. List all green claims that appear on your products, listings, packaging, website, and marketing materials. For each one, note whether it originated with you or came from a supplier.

• Identify high-risk claims. Prioritise absolute or prominent claims — 'carbon neutral', 'sustainable', 'net zero', 'eco-friendly', 'biodegradable'. These are the claims most likely to attract enforcement attention and the ones that need the most substantiation.

• Request evidence from suppliers. For any claim you've inherited, go back to the source and ask for the supporting evidence. Be specific: what certification or data supports this exact claim, for this exact product, right now?

• Update supplier contracts. Include obligations for suppliers to notify you when claims change or certifications lapse, and to provide access to evidence upon request.

• Qualify or remove claims you cannot verify. If a supplier can't provide substantiation, you have three options: obtain it from another source, rewrite the claim so it accurately reflects what is known, or remove it.

• Build an ongoing verification process. Certifications expire. Production processes change. Build a regular review of your active green claims into your business operations — this is not a one-time exercise.

• Document your decisions. If the CMA investigates, records showing what steps you took and why will matter. Keep a log of claims reviewed, evidence reviewed, decisions made, and by whom.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this apply to small businesses?

Yes. The CMA's guidance and the underlying consumer protection law apply to businesses of all sizes. The DMCCA's enforcement powers are available regardless of company size. The difference is that what counts as 'reasonable steps' is calibrated to your resources — a sole trader is not expected to conduct the same level of due diligence as a national retailer. But no business is exempt from the underlying obligation to ensure claims are accurate.

We just display our supplier's label — surely that's their responsibility?

Not under the new guidance. Displaying, repeating, or relying on a claim made by your supplier means the CMA considers you to be making that claim. The fact that the wording originated with someone else does not remove your liability if the claim turns out to be misleading. This is one of the most significant practical changes in the January 2026 guidance.

We have a supplier certification. Is that enough?

It depends on the certification and on exactly what claim is being made. A recognised third-party certification from a reputable scheme is good evidence — but you need to check that it actually supports the specific claim being made, that it is still valid, and that it covers the specific product or process in question. A general ISO 14001 environmental management certification does not automatically validate a specific 'carbon neutral product' claim.

What sectors is the CMA most likely to target?

The CMA has previously focused on sectors with high volumes of consumer-facing green marketing, including fashion, retail, food and drink, travel, and household goods. It is most likely to pursue cases involving claims that are prominent, widespread, and capable of being tested against a clear standard — which means absolute claims like 'carbon neutral', 'net zero', and 'sustainable' carry higher risk than specific, qualified ones.

Should we just remove all environmental claims to be safe?

No. Removing accurate, well-substantiated claims would be an overreaction — and could actually harm businesses that have done the work to substantiate what they're saying. The goal is to make sure every claim you make can be evidenced. If you can verify it, keep it. If you can't, qualify or remove it until you can. The direction of travel in green claims regulation is towards precision — not silence.

What about the EU's Green Claims Directive? I heard it was withdrawn.

Yes — the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw the proposed Green Claims Directive in June 2025. But this does not mean the EU has stepped back from regulating green claims. The ECGT Directive is still binding and comes into effect in September 2026, banning generic environmental claims in EU consumer markets. The confusion around the Green Claims Directive has led some businesses to wrongly conclude that less regulation is coming. It isn't. The rules are still tightening.

My Green Comms helps SMEs cut through sustainability regulation and communicate with credibility. If you're unsure whether your current claims stand up to scrutiny, get in touch — we'll tell you what we think.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have concerns about your legal accountability for environmental claims, speak to a qualified solicitor.