The first climate lawsuit in Denmark was filed in May 2021, against Danish crown, the largest European pork producer. The case had been filed by the Climate Movement and Dansk Vegetarisk Forening, two Danish non-governmental organisations. The two applicants accused Danish Crown of engaging in false marketing activities in violation of Section 5 of the Marketing Practices Act .
Greenwashing Claims Against Danish Crown
As per the summons submitted by the applicants, they had calculated that the production of a kilogram of pork would emit around 4.6 kilograms of CO2, excluding even the impact on the land. Compared to plant-based foods, which emit about 0.2 to 1 kilogram of CO2 per kilogram of food produced, pork production is thus very carbon-intensive. Moreover, Denmark’s climate target for 2030 is to have a maximum of 22 million tons of CO2. According to the applicants, emissions from pork production in 2018 alone emitted 21.28 tons of CO2.
Therefore, the following statements by Danish Crown about its pork products: “Danish pork is more climate-friendly than you think” is claimed to be misleading under Section 5 of the Marketing Practices Act. Under Section 5, “[a] trader’s commercial practice must not contain false information or in any other way, including overall presentation, deceive or be likely to deceive the average consumer”. A statement about the climate-friendliness of pork is likely to give a consumer the impression that it is a more climate-friendly option over other alternatives.
Second, Danish Crown also labelled its pork products as “climate-controlled pork”, which applicants argued gave the impression that the pork had undergone some sort of check to imbue it with that status. However, applicants argued, there is no connection between the climate impact of pork and it being “climate-controlled”. Following the accusations by the applicants and a wider activism campaign, Danish Crown ceased the use of the “climate-controlled” label in 2021.
The Ruling in Vegetarian Society et al. of Denmark v Danish Crown
Court proceedings took place in November 2023, in the Western High Court. On 1 March 2024, the Court issued its decision. The Court held that the claim “Danish pork is more climate-friendly than you think” was not misleading. In coming to this conclusion, the Court reviewed two reports which had provided that consumers “find it difficult to assess the environmental impacts of pork manufacturing” and that consumers generally think pork and cow meat are equally impactful. Based on these findings, the Court ruled that this statement did not violate Section 5 of the Marketing Practices Act. Interestingly, the Court found also that the use of the term “climate-friendly” is fine without documenting the accuracy of the assertion.
However, regarding the use of “climate-controlled” pork, the Court agreed that the term would suggest to the consumer that the pork had undergone some sort of control by an authorised labelling scheme. Use of the term would therefore affect consumers’ ability to make an informed decision. The statement is thus misleading. Hence, Danish Crown engaged in greenwashing.
Danish Crown Admits to Greenwashing
Following the ruling of the Western High Court, the applicants appealed the case to the Danish Supreme Court. The applicants wanted to review the Court’s decision on whether “Danish pork is more climate-friendly than you think” was or wasn’t misleading.
However, on 12 April 2024, Danish Crown contacted the Danish Supreme Court to acknowledge they had indeed engaged in greenwashing. This admission was not just regarding the “climate-controlled” label, but also the statement that “Danish pork is more climate-friendly than you think”.
According to Danish Crown, the use of these statements “did not comply with the requirements of the marketing law”. The company states that the court proceedings and ensuing debates have taught it a lot about the boundaries of sustainability communications. Danish Crown is therefore opting to redirect its resources from the case towards the transition towards engaging in less impactful practices.
Comments