Write the factual core first
Identify the product, component or activity being described, and the period and geography covered. Name the measurable fact and its source. Read the statement as a customer would: imagery, headings and missing qualifications can change the impression even when one sentence is technically accurate.
Use the CMA principles as a review prompt
The Green Claims Code addresses accuracy, clarity, omissions, fair comparisons, lifecycle context and substantiation. Use the official guidance as a starting point when reviewing customer-facing wording. Applying a checklist does not itself create legal clearance or independent assurance.
Tie comparison language to a baseline
When using words such as less, lower or improved, state what is being compared and under which conditions. A narrower result about one component or stage should remain narrow. Keep supplier declarations, editorial checks and independent review distinguishable in both the record and the published wording.
Make correction practical
Save the proposed wording, supporting version, responsible reviewer and publication locations. If evidence changes, identify the affected claims and update present-tense statements while preserving historical records. Remove a claim that cannot be supported until the missing detail is resolved; replace it with a precise account of what is known.
Worked example — illustrative
A marketing draft calls an entire campaign green based on one supplier statement about fibre content. The reviewer narrows the draft to the named component and supported content statement, requests the missing scope details and checks the overall impression of the page. The team records supporting evidence and publication locations, so a later correction can reach the actual places where the claim appears.
- Identify the exact factual core.
- Keep qualifications visible.
- Check comparison baselines.
- Record evidence and publication versions.
