Digital
ASCI proposes draft guidelines for environmental claims in advertising
Mumbai: The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) takes a pivotal stride towards enhancing transparency and accountability in environmental advertising through the unveiling of comprehensive draft guidelines on “Environmental/Green Claims.” The draft guidelines are open for public feedback until the 31st of December 2023, post which they will be finalised. Developed by a multi-stakeholder task force, including environmental experts, these guidelines aim to ensure that advertisements are free from greenwashing practices. The draft guidelines establish a clear framework for advertisers to present truthful and evidence-based environmental claims.
Environmental claims include claims that suggest or create an impression that a product or a service has a neutral or positive impact on the environment, is less damaging to the environment than a previous version of the same product or service or a competitive product, or has specific environmental benefits.
Environmental/Green claims can be explicit or implicit. They can appear in advertisements, marketing material, branding (including business and trading names), on packaging or in other information provided to consumers.
The draft guidelines target greenwashing – the deceptive practice of making misleading environmental claims. ASCI emphasizes the paramount importance of substantiated, comparable, and verifiable claims to combat misinformation. In its ad-surveillance ASCI has found that several terms are loosely used to communicate environmental benefits, giving an impression that the product is greener than it actually is.
PROPOSED GUIDELINES:
1 Absolute claims such as but not limited to “environment friendly”, “eco-friendly”, “sustainable”, “planet friendly” that imply that the product advertised has no impact or only a positive impact must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as “greener” or “friendlier” can be justified, for example, if the advertised product or service provides a total environmental benefit over that of the advertiser’s previous product or service or competitor products or services and the basis of such comparison is made clear.
2 Environmental claims must be based on the full life cycle of the advertised product or service, unless the advertisement states otherwise, and must make clear the limits of the life cycle. If a general claim cannot be justified, a more limited claim about specific aspects of a product or service might be justifiable. Claims that are based on only part of an advertised product or service’s life cycle must not mislead consumers about the product or service’s total environmental impact.
3 Unless it is clear from the context, an environmental claim should specify whether it refers to the product, the product’s packaging, a service, or just to a portion of the product, package, or service.
4 Advertisements must not mislead consumers about the environmental benefit that a product or service offers by highlighting the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if that ingredient is not usually found in competing products or services by highlighting an environmental benefit that results from a legal obligation if competing products are subject to the same requirements.
5 Certifications and Seals of Approval should make clear which attributes of the product or service have been evaluated by the certifier, and the basis of such certification provided. Certifications and Seals used in an advertisement should be from a Nationally/Internationally recognised certifying authority.
6 Visual elements in an ad should not give a false impression about the product/service being advertised. For example, logos representing a recycling process on packaging and/or in advertising material can significantly influence a consumer’s impression of the environmental impact of a product or service.
7 Advertisers should refrain from making aspirational claims about future environmental objectives unless they have developed clear and actionable plans detailing how those objectives will be achieved.
8 For carbon offset claims advertisers should clearly and prominently disclose if the carbon offset represents emission reductions that will not occur for two years or longer. Ads should not claim directly or by implication that a carbon offset represents an emission reduction if the reduction, or the activity that caused the reduction, was required by law.
9 For claims pertaining to the product being compostable, biodegradable, recyclable, non-toxic, free-of etc. advertisers should qualify the aspects to which such claims are being attributed, and the extent of the same. All such claims should have competent and reliable scientific evidence to show that:
a The product or the qualified component where applicable will break down within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal.
b The product is free of elements that can lead to environmental hazards.
ASCI CEO & secretary general Manisha Kapoor said, “ASCI’s draft guidelines on Environmental/Green Claims are a crucial step to ensure that consumers who wish to support green brands have the correct information to make an informed decision. These guidelines set a standard for advertisers, and aim to foster a culture of transparency and authenticity in advertising in the best interest of the consumers. We encourage all stakeholders, including consumers, industry, civil society members, and experts, to provide their feedback on the draft guidelines to enable us to sharpen and strengthen them.”
Link to the proposed guidelines
Digital
Authbridge finds 5.61 per cent discrepancy rate in on-demand hiring
White-collar roles show 4.33 per cent overall as employment history leads at 11.15 per cent in H1 FY26.
MUMBAI: India’s hiring scene is pulling a classic bait-and-switch, candidates promise the world on paper, but the background check reveals the plot twist nobody saw coming. Authbridge, the country’s top trust and authentication tech firm, released its Workforce Fraud Files – H1 FY26 report (covering July–December 2025) around 16–17 February 2026, crunching data from millions of verifications across identity, address, employment history, education, criminal records, and CV validation.
The headline numbers paint a sobering picture: white-collar hires clocked an overall discrepancy rate of 4.33 per cent, while the on-demand ecosystem (gig and flexible roles) fared worse at 5.61 per cent showing that the faster, looser world of app-based work comes with extra red flags.
For white-collar folks, employment verification topped the trouble list at 11.15 per cent, followed by address checks at 7.68 per cent, education at 4.49 per cent, and references at 4.17 per cent. Drug screening (1.87 per cent) and criminal records (0.50 per cent) stayed relatively tame, but still popped up enough to matter.
The gig side showed even sharper vulnerabilities, address discrepancies hit 9.70 per cent, identity (NID) issues 2.53 per cent, and criminal record mismatches 2.23 per cent particularly worrying for roles with direct customer contact or field duties.
Industry breakdowns add colour, address problems plagued Telecom (15.42 per cent), IT (12.02 per cent), Pharma (11.21 per cent), Retail (10.64 per cent), and Banking & BFSI (10.23 per cent). Employment verification headaches were biggest in Retail (16.37 per cent), Telecom (14.32 per cent), Banking & BFSI (13.00 per cent), and Pharma (12.10 per cent). Education slips stood out in Retail (9.16 per cent) and Telecom (7.80 per cent), while CV validation mismatches appeared in IT (12.80 per cent) and Banking & BFSI (2.91 per cent).
Authbridge CEO and founder Ajay Trehan didn’t mince words, “The H1 FY26 Workforce Fraud Files clearly show that hiring-related discrepancies remain a persistent and structural challenge. Despite faster and more digitised hiring workflows, we continue to see gaps in fundamental checks such as employment history, address, and education. These are not minor inconsistencies; they have direct implications for organisational risk, compliance, and trust.”
The report stresses ditching one-and-done checks, start screening pre-offer to avoid nasty surprises post-joining, and layer in periodic reviews like drug tests, court records, and lifestyle assessments for ongoing risk management. Tools like Authbridge’s Authnumber (consent-based digital credentials) and Authlead (deep-dive leadership vetting) get a nod for cutting friction and blind spots.
Bottom line? In a job market racing for speed and scale, skimping on trust verification is like building a house on sand, one solid background check away from watching the whole thing crumble.
