Key takeaways
- Greenwashing continues to be a focus for regulators and the Federal Government. Recent action is also a reminder that regulators are targeting a range of environmental claims, including ones about packaging, the characteristics of products, and production methods.
- Sustainability collaborations are also an ongoing focus for the ACCC, with the regulator highlighting that it is willing to provide authorisation to businesses seeking to collaborate to achieve sustainability objectives, if the collaboration delivers public benefits, including environmental benefits.
Greenwashing remains in the ACCC's sights
The ACCC has confirmed its focus on environmental claims and sustainability, with an emphasis on greenwashing, as part of its 2025–26 Compliance and Enforcement Priorities. In a February 2025 speech at the Centre for Economic Development Australia, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb stated:
In the year ahead, this priority will include a focus on greenwashing in recognition of the substantial impact of this conduct on consumer trust and engagement. We have several important investigations that are ongoing, and we will proactively target misleading green claims aimed at consumers in a range of sectors including energy, food, fashion, and homewares.1
These statements from the ACCC suggest that the food and beverage sector remains in its sights, following the regulator's 2022 internet sweep, which identified concerns with the environmental claims of 65% of the food and beverage businesses it examined.
Businesses in the food and beverage sector should also continue to be mindful of the ACCC's current focus on the supermarket and retail sector, unfair contract terms in consumer and small business contracts, and protections for small businesses and the agriculture sector.
Senate inquiry into greenwashing
Greenwashing also continues to be a focus of the Federal Government. Originally commenced in 2023, the Senate inquiry into greenwashing has now been readopted in the 48th Parliament. A final report is due to be delivered by 25 June 2026.
The inquiry is considering a range of topics, including:
- environmental and sustainability claims made by businesses in various industries, including food and drink packaging;
- advertising standards in relation to environmental and sustainability claims; and
- legislative options to protect consumers from greenwashing in Australia.2
ACCC enforcement activity regarding environmental claims is increasing
The ACCC has been active in taking enforcement action against businesses for alleged greenwashing.
In 2023, it had its first successful greenwashing outcome: against Moo Premium Foods, in relation to '100% ocean plastic' claims made on its yoghurt tubs. Since then, the ACCC has initiated several other proceedings against businesses for misleading environmental claims, including:
- (Clorox Australia): in April 2025, Clorox Australia was ordered to pay a penalty of $8.25 million in relation to claims that certain GLAD kitchen and garbage bags were partly made of recycled 'ocean plastic'. The ACCC was concerned that the headline 'ocean plastic' statements, wave imagery and use of blue coloured bags created the impression that the GLAD bags were made from plastic collected from the ocean when this was not the case. In reality, the bags were partly made from plastic that was collected from communities in Indonesia up to 50 kilometres from a shoreline.3
- (Edgewell Personal Care): in July 2025, the ACCC took enforcement action against Edgewell Personal Care Australia for alleged false or misleading claims that its Hawaiian Tropic- and Banana Boat-branded sunscreens were 'reef friendly'. Edgewell made these claims on the basis that they did not contain certain chemical ingredients that had been banned by the Hawaiian Government for causing damage to reefs. The ACCC alleges that these claims are false or misleading because they ignored the reality that other ingredients in the products could harm or pose risks to reefs.4
While these recent cases do not explicitly relate to the food and beverage sector, they highlight the need for businesses to carefully review all environmental claims and initiatives before making claims to the market. In particular, be mindful about any claims made regarding food and beverage packaging or the specific environmental benefits of a product, and consider whether further qualifications or explanations are needed for a claim to be accurate.
Sustainability benefits and collaborations
In addition to greenwashing, the ACCC has an ongoing focus on collaborations between businesses to achieve sustainability objectives. It published its final guide on sustainability collaborations on 18 December 2024. This sets out several examples of what the ACCC considers to be 'low-risk sustainability collaborations', eg:
- pooling information about the environmental sustainability credentials of suppliers, provided it does not involve any agreement to purchase (or refrain from purchasing) from particular suppliers, and does not involve the sharing of information about prices or quantities purchased;
- setting an industry-wide emissions reduction target, provided each participating business independently determines how it will meet that target; and
- independent decisions about using a sustainable input.
Where sustainability collaborations do raise potential competition concerns, the ACCC also highlighted that this collaboration may be authorised if it delivers public benefits. The regulator sets out several examples of what it considers to be a public benefit. These include:
- environmental benefits, such as biodiversity conservation, reduced plastic use or increased circularity, or reduced emissions; and
- human rights improvements, such as anti-slavery conduct, and Closing the Gap collaborations positively impacting First Nations Australians.
This guidance is an important reminder for businesses in the food and beverage sector to think carefully about whether any proposed sustainability collaborations may raise competition concerns; whether the proposed collaboration is likely to achieve a net public benefit; and, therefore, whether to seek authorisation from the ACCC before proceeding.