Who: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and Kit & Kin Limited (Kit & Kin)
Where: United Kingdom
When: 4February 2026
Law stated as at: 5 March 2026
What happened
A website for a baby care company, Kit & Kin, featured a range of “Eco nappies & wipes” marketed for their environmental credentials. Kit & Kin described the range as “better for our world” and claimed that every pack consumers purchased would help protect “acres of rainforest”. The page and the individual listings for nappies and baby wipes included the claims “Protecting Your World, Naturally” and “Planet-conscious. Protecting our future”. Individual product images also carried the label “sustainable”. The “Eco nappies” listing stated “Made from sustainable, plant-based materials”. Another listing was for “biodegradable baby wipes” and stated “99% water, Biodegradable, 0% plastic”.
The ads were challenged on the basis that they gave a misleading impression of the environmental impact of Kit & Kin’s products, and that the claims “Sustainable”, “Made from sustainable […] materials” and “Biodegradable” were misleading. The ASA upheld all complaints.
The overall environmental impression
The ASA stated that consumers would likely understand the claim “eco” to mean that the advertised products were either positively good for the environment, or at least not harmful to it, across their entire life cycle. In the context of the ad, the term “eco” was an absolute claim that the nappies and baby wipes would cause no environmental harm throughout their life cycle.
Kit & Kin pointed to its B Corporation certification, which sets standards relating to businesses’ social and environmental impact, and referred to the composition of its products, which used Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper, their hypoallergenic credentials, carbon-neutral manufacturing, and a partnership with the World Land Trust aimed at protecting rainforests.
The ASA acknowledged the company’s response, but noted that none of this information appeared in the ad listings themselves and that, in any case, it would not have been sufficient to substantiate a claim of “protecting the environment”. The company also did not provide any evidence that the products would cause no environmental damage across their life cycle.
The ASA further stated that the claim “better for our world” was comparative. However, without any further information as to the basis of the comparison, it was unclear what Kit & Kin was comparing itself to – its previous products or competitors’ products.
The ASA, therefore, concluded that the ads gave a misleading impression of the advertised products’ environmental impact.
The ‘sustainable’ claim
Kit & Kin’s intended meaning of the word “sustainable” was relatively narrow – it referred to the use of viscose as a component of the nappies, the fact that the nappies were made in a carbon-neutral factory from FSC-approved supply materials, and their hypoallergenic credentials. However, none of that qualifying information was included in the ads.
Without qualification, the ASA treated “sustainable” and “sustainable plant-based materials” as absolute claims about both the nappies and the materials from which they were made, requiring evidence relating to the whole life-cycle of each.
While the company had taken steps to reduce the environmental impact of its products, the nappies contained plastic-based Velcro tabs and leg cuffs – components with a negative impact on the environment both in production and after disposal.
The ASA therefore found that these claims were also likely to mislead consumers.
The ‘biodegradable’ claim
The ASA found that consumers reading “biodegradable baby wipes” would reasonably expect the wipes as a whole to break down fully, without leaving harmful residues in the environment, and that they would biodegrade more quickly than their plastic equivalents, in all conditions in which they might responsibly be disposed of.
Kit & Kin’s evidence showed that the viscose component of the wipes would biodegrade under specific conditions (home composting at 28°C, in soil and marine environments). However, the evidence did not show that the wipes as a whole would biodegrade in real-world conditions, nor did it indicate where the wipes should be placed to biodegrade, how long the process would take, whether there would be any by-products, or whether the process might have any negative environmental impact. The claim was therefore likely to mislead.
The ASA directed Kit & Kin to ensure that the basis of any future environmental and comparative claims is clearly explained, properly substantiated, and does not give a misleading impression of the products’ overall environmental impact.
Why this matters
The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct and Promotional Marketing requires that the basis and meaning of environmental claims, including comparative environmental claims, be clear, and that absolute environmental claims be supported by a high level of substantiation. This ruling is important for advertisers in the baby products, personal care and consumer goods sectors as it reiterates that absolute terms such as “eco”, “sustainable” and “biodegradable” require a high level of substantiation and evidence relating to the products’ full life cycle. Vague comparisons like “better for our world” must identify a clear basis for comparison.
