Green Advertising In Brazil: Between Ethical Boundaries And Greenwashing Risks

Advertising has long been a powerful tool to shape consumer behavior, but in recent years a new challenge has emerged: how to responsibly communicate sustainability. In Brazil, "green advertising" occupies a sensitive space at the intersection of consumer protection, self-regulation, and the global demand for ESG practices.

Although often used as synonyms in everyday speech, "advertising" and "propaganda" are not the same. Advertising is inherently commercial—its aim is to promote products, services, or brands and stimulate consumption. Propaganda, by contrast, has a broader scope and is not necessarily commercial. It seeks to influence opinions, beliefs, or behavior and often relates to political, ideological, or institutional campaigns.

This distinction is crucial when analyzing sustainability claims: while propaganda may appeal to values and ideologies, advertising must adhere to strict rules of accuracy and fairness, especially when touching on environmental benefits.

Green advertising in Brazil is governed by a combination of statutes and self-regulatory codes:

• Brazilian Advertising Self-Regulation Code (CBARP, or CONAR Code): Establishes ethical rules applicable to both advertising and propaganda.
• Consumer Defense Code (CDC): Protects consumer rights and places the burden of proof on advertisers to demonstrate the truthfulness of their claims.
• Marco Civil da Internet (Internet Civil Rights Framework): Provides general principles and duties applicable to online communications.
• Influencer Advertising Guide: Ensures transparency and proper identification of sponsored content, particularly relevant in the era of social media.

The National Council for Advertising Self-Regulation (CONAR) plays a decisive role in ensuring ethical compliance. Although its decisions do not carry the force of law, they are widely respected and often voluntarily observed by advertisers to avoid reputational damage. Moreover, Brazilian courts frequently reinforce CONAR's standards, turning them into a powerful benchmark for lawful and ethical advertising practices.

Under the CBARP and its Annex U, sustainability claims must observe specific principles:

• Truthfulness: Claims must be true and verifiable.
• Accuracy: Claims must be exact and precise and cannot be vague or generic such as "100% green" or "zero impact," unless these can be proven
• Pertinence: The information must be related to the production and marketing processes of the advertised products and services
• Relevance: The highlighted environmental benefit must be significant in terms of the total impact of the product and service on the environment, throughout its life cycle, that is, in its production, use and disposal.
• Concrete Practices: Environmental claims must reflect actual measures adopted by the company, not aspirational promises.

Several cases from CONAR illustrate the boundaries of acceptable green claims:

• GLP Advertising (2024–2025): Multiple cases involving liquefied petroleum gas (GLP) highlighted the risk of presenting fossil fuels as "clean energy."
• Heineken (2022): Required clarification that "100% green energy" referred specifically to renewable sources, avoiding a vague claim so that 'Green Energy' stops being an advertising pun and becomes a concept.
• Química Amparo (Tixan Ypê) vs. Unilever (2022): Sustainability claims "+ Sustainable - *reduces CO2 emissions equivalent to more than two thousand complete truck trips around the Earth" and "+ Sustainable - reduces the impact on the environment" were modified to ensure consumers could understand the actual environmental impact generated by the product and under what circumstances. The decision also suspended the claim "1st Laundry Powder Produced with renewable energy".
• Suzano (2021): The expression "carbon negative" was partially restricted, as it could mislead consumers into assuming overall sustainability superiority.
• Vale and Samarco (2016–2020): Campaigns following environmental disasters were scrutinized to ensure that communications did not exaggerate remediation efforts.
• Michelin (2017): the claim "green tire" had to be modified to clarify that the environmental benefit was a result of the use of tire and not from it production or discard.

These precedents demonstrate that while sustainability communication is encouraged, it cannot be detached from factual evidence and proportionality.

Greenwashing—the practice of overstating or fabricating environmental benefits—remains a pressing concern. Recent studies reveal that although a majority of Brazilian companies report ESG practices, only a minority undergo independent external audits. For investors and consumers alike, this raises credibility issues and increases litigation risks.

To avoid greenwashing, companies must go beyond marketing slogans and adopt verifiable measures:

• Conduct independent external audits of sustainability reports.
• Ensure transparent disclosure of data and methodologies.
• Provide accessible, consumer-friendly information in advertising pieces.
• Align corporate ESG strategies with concrete and measurable results.

By doing so, businesses not only comply with Brazilian law and self-regulation but also build long-term consumer trust.

Green advertising represents both an opportunity and a risk. When well-grounded, it reinforces corporate commitment to sustainability and resonates positively with stakeholders. When vague or misleading, it exposes companies to reputational damage, regulatory scrutiny, and litigation.

The path forward is clear: transparency, authenticity, and concrete actions must guide all sustainability claims in advertising.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.