Paint industry faces greenwashing crackdown

Regulators are tightening their grip on misleading environmental claims within the coatings industry. The spotlight is turning on chemicals like PFAS, forcing a reckoning with what 'green' truly means for paints marketed as natural or eco-friendly.

Analysis from the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found that 40% of environmental claims made online could be misleading. This makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish meaningful sustainability information from marketing language.

The problem with "eco" claims

Paint is an industry fundamentally built on chemicals. No paint can claim to have no environmental impact. The British Coatings Federation has repeatedly warned that terms such as “eco-friendly” can be misleading when used without clear evidence.

Industry guidance notes that many common sustainability claims have no legal definition. They can mean very different things depending on who is making them. Research found that while 78% of consumers consider sustainability when purchasing, only 20% trust brand sustainability claims.

Products marketed as eco-friendly are extremely likely to still rely on carbon-intensive raw materials. Others may have lower emissions but contain ingredients that create different environmental challenges. Without transparency, it is difficult to distinguish meaningful improvements from clever branding.

Regulatory pressure mounts

The regulatory environment is changing rapidly in both the UK and the EU. The EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition legislation is designed to crack down on generic environmental claims. The UK’s Green Claims Code states that environmental claims must be truthful, accurate and backed by evidence.

Effective regulation should create a level playing field. Businesses investing in transparency and product improvement should be judged against the same standards as everyone else.

PFAS forces a technical reckoning

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are often called “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment. For paint manufacturers, the PFAS debate raises difficult questions about formulation transparency and chemical disclosure.

The European Chemicals Agency’s scientific committees recently backed proposals for an EU-wide restriction on PFAS. They concluded stronger action is needed to reduce risks to people and the environment.

Paint formulations are complex systems sourced through global supply chains. Determining whether PFAS have entered that system requires a level of scrutiny that goes far beyond marketing language. It requires manufacturers to understand their chemistry in detail.

The need for evidence, not buzzwords

As awareness grows, there is a risk that “PFAS-free” becomes the next environmental buzzword. A credible PFAS claim should explain what products have been assessed, whether testing has been conducted, and what methodology has been used.

The paint industry has spent years debating the limitations of words like “green” and “sustainable”. It must avoid creating a new generation of claims that suffer from the same problem.

Gareth Hayfield, head of research and development at Farrow & Ball, stated his company does not intentionally add PFAS to any finishes. They have had all finishes independently tested, with no PFAS detected. He argues trust is built through transparency and evidence, not through increasingly ambitious claims.