Green claims: what a small fashion brand can safely say about recovered stock
A description of what you actually did to a garment is a claim you can evidence from your own records. Once the wording moves to what that means for the environment, you need substantiation you probably do not have. What follows is what the regulator has published, attributed to the document it came from. The Competition and Markets Authority says of its own guidance that it is not legal advice, and responsibility for complying with the law stays with the business.
The green claims rules that already apply at your size
There is no size threshold. The CMA’s Green Claims Code, first published on 20 September 2021, applies to all businesses making environmental claims, and its fashion guidance of 18 September 2024 covers claims about clothing, footwear, fashion accessories and related services, naming returns as one of them. Size affects what the CMA prioritises. It does not change whether the rules reach you.
The Code sets out six principles, in the CMA’s own wording:
- Claims must be truthful and accurate.
- Claims must be clear and unambiguous.
- Claims must not omit or hide important relevant information.
- Comparisons must be fair and meaningful.
- Claims must consider the full life cycle of the product or service.
- Claims must be substantiated.
The Code is guidance. The law underneath it changed on 6 April 2025, when the unfair commercial practices provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force, and the CMA can now decide for itself whether consumer protection law has been infringed, order redress and impose a fine, without going to court.
Section 182(6) sets that fine at a fixed amount not exceeding £300,000 or, if higher, 10 per cent of worldwide turnover. The short summaries quote the percentage on its own, and a founder who does that sum on their own revenue concludes the exposure is small. At this size the percentage is the lower of the two figures, so £300,000 is the ceiling that applies to you.
Section 195 sets the evidence burden. Where the CMA has issued a provisional notice and the business has responded, it may require evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim, and may treat that claim as inaccurate where the evidence is inadequate or never arrives.
When a claim you did not write becomes yours
The CMA published “Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain” on 22 January 2026. It deals with claims that started somewhere else, and its position on stocking is short. “A business may be deemed to be repeating an environmental claim where it stocks a product.”
Two lines in it matter more than the rest for a founder without counsel:
“The law is clear that intention of any wrongdoing is not relevant and an ‘innocent’ or unwitting breach is still a breach of the law.”
“It is not a defence in civil actions for a business to argue that it took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid making the misleading environmental claim.”
Being told something was true, and believing it, does not settle the question.
The regime is defined by reference to the consumer. The guidance describes the law on unfair commercial practices as concerning practices “relating to the promotion or supply of products to a consumer”, and says it covers claims made by retailers and brands as well as other businesses in the supply chain such as manufacturers. A business sitting further back can be answerable for what the consumer is told.
Your supplier’s number becomes your claim
Sooner or later a supplier will hand you a figure. It might be tonnes diverted from landfill or carbon saved. Publish it and it is your claim.
Neither CMA document names those metrics, so the general principles are what apply. It is a factual claim, which puts section 195 in play. Where it rests on a life cycle calculation the Code’s fifth principle applies, and the Code’s own illustration is a carbon figure that was arithmetically correct and still misleading, because it left out the stage where most of the impact sat. Where it compares you with something else, the basis has to be visible to the consumer.
A supplier’s tonnage also describes what that supplier did across all of its customers, and moving it to your own page changes what it says.
Ask what the number is based on. The January 2026 guidance is direct about the next step: “If you are unable to obtain the information needed to satisfy yourself of the accuracy of a claim, you should consider whether you should make the claim differently, in a way you can verify.” Where the other business will not or cannot verify it, the guidance says you may need to consider your trading relationship with that business for that product.
The same logic applies to any figure we hand a brand. A number describing what the network handled covers every brand on it, and says nothing about the stock of the brand repeating it.
Wording a recovered-stock claim you can evidence
Start with what happened to the piece. “This jacket was returned to us, professionally cleaned and pressed, and put back on sale.” “A button was replaced on this coat before it was relisted.” Each describes an action that happened to one garment, and the evidence for it sits in your own stock record.
The adjectives are the problem. The CMA’s fashion guidance tells businesses to avoid unclear terms such as green, sustainable and eco-friendly, because consumers read them as meaning the product has an overall positive or neutral environmental impact, and without substantiation that falls foul of the law.
Two worked rewrites in that guidance transfer straight to an independent brand:
- Example 2. A post calling a collection sustainable, made with better materials and less damaging production techniques, fails because the comparison has no stated basis. The CMA’s version names the range, what it is compared with and the saving as a measured figure.
- Example 5. A named edit fails where the name does the work and the criteria are not published. The compliant version states the minimum threshold a piece has to meet and links to the criteria.
The line brands cross without noticing runs between a garment and the business. A sentence saying what happened to the pieces you recovered this season is a claim about those pieces. Moved to the About page as a statement about what sort of company you are, it is read as covering the whole business, and the Code says general terms used that way suggest a positive environmental impact, or at least no adverse impact, which the business then has to prove.
Evidence for an action claim is within reach of a founder with a spreadsheet: the piece came back on this date, went out for cleaning and conditioning on this date, had this repair, was relisted at this price. That is a records question. No certification is involved. Our guide to what a small brand can actually do about returns waste covers the operational half of the same decision.
One thing to be plain about. The CMA has published nothing specific on resale, second-hand, pre-owned, repair or take-back claims. The general principles apply to a resale claim as they apply to any other, and anybody telling you the CMA has ruled on how to describe recovered stock is describing something the published record does not hold.
If you sell into the EU
Directive (EU) 2024/825 applies from 27 September 2026 and tightens both points for anyone selling into the EU, on generic claims and on self-designed sustainability labels alike.
The UK position on a self-designed badge is separate. Schedule 20 of the DMCC Act 2024 makes displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without the necessary authorisation unfair in all circumstances, and a badge a brand designed for itself is assessed under the misleading action and misleading omission tests at sections 226 and 227.
What the buyer has to be told about a recovered garment
This part is more reassuring than founders expect. In the UK, under section 9(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, satisfactory quality is judged by what a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price and the other relevant circumstances. A garment described as a second and priced as a second is judged as a second.
Section 11(1) makes the description a term of the contract, so the condition note on your product page carries that weight. Section 9(4)(a) takes a fault outside the satisfactory quality term where it is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made, and the word doing the work is “specifically”. A blanket “sold as seen” line at the foot of a listing does not do what a sentence naming the small mark on the left cuff does, with a photograph of it. Section 31 provides that these rights cannot be excluded or restricted by a contract term, so a disclaimer buys a brand nothing.
Section 226 of the DMCC Act 2024 catches the subtler version: information which is true can still be misleading in the way it is presented. Photographing the clean sleeve of a garment that is marked on the other one falls squarely into it. Naming a condition accurately takes a vocabulary, and why good stock fails its second sale sets out what to look for before you write it.
The claim that sits inside your own records
“Returned, professionally cleaned, back on sale” is true of one garment, and the proof of it is a line in your own stock record. The claims needing a substantiation file behind them are the ones reaching for something bigger than the garment.
Getting stock into a condition worth describing is usually the harder half. Opera Garment Solutions is a single point of access to a network of professional garment care experts, and brands generally start with a test box, then a 90-day pilot, then a conversation once you have seen the results. If you would sooner talk first, get in touch.
Questions founders ask about what they can say
Do green claims rules apply to a business as small as mine?
Yes. The CMA’s Green Claims Code, first published on 20 September 2021, applies to all businesses making environmental claims, with no size threshold. The CMA’s fashion guidance of 18 September 2024 covers all businesses making environmental claims about clothing, footwear, fashion accessories and related services including returns. Size affects what the CMA is likely to prioritise, and not whether the rules apply.
How large can a fine be for a brand my size?
Section 182(6) of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 sets the ceiling at a fixed amount not exceeding £300,000 or, if higher, 10 per cent of worldwide turnover. For a small brand the percentage figure is the lower of the two, so £300,000 is the ceiling that applies. The unfair commercial practices provisions came into force on 6 April 2025, and the CMA can impose a penalty without taking a business to court.
Can I call recovered stock sustainable?
The CMA’s fashion guidance of 18 September 2024 tells businesses to avoid unclear terms such as green, sustainable and eco-friendly, because consumers read them as meaning the product has an overall positive or neutral environmental impact, and without substantiation that falls foul of the law. The Green Claims Code makes the same point: broader, more general or absolute claims are much more likely to be inaccurate and to mislead. Describing what was done to the garment is the claim you can evidence.
My supplier gave me a figure for waste diverted or carbon saved. Can I use it?
Only where you can satisfy yourself it is accurate. The CMA’s guidance “Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain”, published on 22 January 2026, says intention is irrelevant and an innocent breach is still a breach, and that arguing you took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence is not a defence in civil actions. The same guidance says that where you cannot obtain the information needed to satisfy yourself a claim is accurate, you should consider making the claim differently, in a way you can verify. A supplier’s aggregate figure also describes what that supplier did across all of its customers.
Do I have to say a garment has been returned or has a small fault?
Under section 11(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which governs UK consumer sales, a contract to supply goods by description includes a term that the goods will match the description, so what you write about condition becomes a term of the contract. Section 9(2) says the satisfactory quality standard takes account of the description and the price, so a garment described and priced as a second is judged as a second. Section 9(4)(a) takes a fault outside the satisfactory quality term where it is specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the contract is made, and “specifically” means naming the fault. Section 31 means these rights cannot be excluded by a term of the contract.
What changes in the EU on 27 September 2026?
Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition, adopted on 28 February 2024, was to be transposed by member states by 27 March 2026 and applies from 27 September 2026. Under it, generic environmental claims are prohibited unless substantiated, and sustainability labels are only permitted where they are based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities and verified by an independent authorised third party. The dates and the substance are as published by the European Commission.
References
- Competition and Markets Authority, “Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain”, 22 January 2026.
- Competition and Markets Authority, “Green claims code: making environmental claims”, first published 20 September 2021, and the guidance document “Making environmental claims on goods and services”.
- Competition and Markets Authority, “Fashion retail: consumer law when making green claims”, first published 18 September 2024, and the guidance document “Complying with consumer law when making environmental claims in the fashion retail sector”.
- Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, c. 13, sections 182, 195, 204, 226, 227 and Schedule 20. Unfair commercial practices provisions in force 6 April 2025.
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, c. 15, sections 9, 11 and 31.
- Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 on empowering consumers for the green transition. Adopted 28 February 2024, transposition by 27 March 2026, application from 27 September 2026. Dates and substance as published by the European Commission.
( About the author )
Joanna Lambert
CEO & Co-Founder, Opera Garment Solutions
Joanna Lambert is CEO and co-founder of Opera Garment Solutions, which recovers returned, damaged and unsold clothing for fashion brands across the EU and the UK from hubs in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Spain. She writes on the EU destruction ban and on what returned stock is worth when it goes back to sale.