Sustainability claim substantiation checklist
Check the exact sustainability statement that the intended audience will see, using evidence that matches its subject, comparison and conditions. This checklist helps a communications reviewer preserve the connection between the claim, its supporting records and each proposed presentation. It records a review, not permission to publish.
The seven-page pack contains instructions, four reusable blank sheets and two fictional worked pages. Use the editable DOCX or print the matching PDF. There are no formulas, scores, automated validation, reminders or digital signatures. A completed checklist does not establish legal compliance, product certification or independent assurance.
Download the editable sustainability claim substantiation checklist (DOCX).
Download the print sustainability claim substantiation checklist (PDF).
Capture the claim as a reader encounters it
Give the claim a stable ID and a version. Save the exact headline, supporting sentence, image text, chart label and surrounding explanation. Identify the intended audience, market, channel and item version. A sentence in a technical note and the same sentence on a cropped image are different presentations to review.
Write the proposition the words ask the reader to accept. Does “less energy” mean a specific test result, a typical-use estimate or a saving in every operating mode? Record the product version, activity, period, comparator and denominator. If the intended meaning is unclear, resolve the wording before collecting unrelated evidence.
Separate a present result from a future intention and a limited observation from a general statement. Avoid treating a target approval, purchase order or supplier promise as proof of an achieved outcome. The checklist has space for the claim owner to explain the proposed meaning; the reviewer should still examine what the whole presentation communicates.
Test each proposition against the retained records
For every supporting item, keep its exact version, custodian, controlled location and relevant page or row. Describe the examination performed and the limits found. A reference to “the test report” is not enough when the report includes different modes, product configurations or dates.
Current UK CMA guidance stresses credible, relevant and current evidence for environmental claims. This is narrow context for the evidence check, not an Indian-law assessment or the source of this original checklist.
Use the evidence sheet to record both support and contradiction. Reproduce any calculation in a controlled working file and retain the inputs and method. The Word and PDF forms do not perform that calculation. A correct percentage can still answer a narrower question than the headline asks.
Keep evidence access separate from public explanation. A restricted laboratory file may be available to an authorised reviewer without being shareable with customers. Record which explanation or supporting material is proposed for the audience and who can approve its disclosure. Do not publish a private link merely because it appears in the checklist.
Follow one fictional claim through two modes
All products, records, figures and decisions in this example are invented. Cedar Lighting proposes “Model L2 uses 30% less electricity in every mode” for a product page. The evidence packet compares L1 and L2 under two defined eight-hour test conditions. It supplies no field-use study or lifecycle assessment.
Test T1 v1 records 0.120 kWh for L1 and 0.084 kWh for L2 in setting A. Test conditions specify the same eight-hour duration and target light output at the stated measurement position. The relative difference is (0.120 − 0.084) ÷ 0.120 = 30%. That result belongs to this test condition and these product versions.
In setting B, the same packet records 0.160 kWh for each model over eight hours at its separately specified common target output. The recorded electricity difference is zero. The packet therefore does not support “30% less in every mode”. The checklist retains the setting-B result rather than dropping it from the evidence index.
Reviewer R opens issue Q1 against the general claim. Candidate wording C2 describes only the setting-A test result and identifies the comparator, duration and test reference. It is a proposed evidence-bounded statement for further review, not an approved advertisement. The packet cannot establish typical annual savings, lower bills, avoided emissions or a smaller whole-product footprint.
Review every presentation as its own item
Layout P2 contains C2 with its test conditions next to the result. A separately prepared square image S2 keeps “30% less electricity” but omits the setting, duration and comparator. These are two different candidate items. The fact that P2 contains the missing information does not repair S2 when it is viewed on its own.
The presentation sheet records that P2’s evidence wording matches the supplied test within its stated limits, while S2 remains on hold. Overall release of both items remains blocked. The reviewer asks the designer either to retain an adequate bounded statement in S2 or omit the numerical claim from that item; a revised export requires a fresh check.
Examine the actual exported file at the intended viewing size, including any shortened caption or automatic preview. Check whether the relevant wording survived cropping, line wrapping and conversion. Record what was examined and what remains untested. This pack does not render a web page, test a phone or verify that an online update reached its audience.
Make the disposition specific enough to reopen
For each question, record a finding, an owner, the required evidence or edit and the observable repeat check. Use explicit states such as unresolved, revise, supported for the stated scope or withdrawn. These are manual working conventions. A row marked supported does not mean every claim about the product is supported.
The worked decision D1 keeps the original every-mode statement withdrawn from the candidate set, records P2’s bounded evidence match and leaves S2 unresolved. No release approval is supplied. The example separates technical evidence review, presentation review and the organisation’s authorised release decision instead of using one green box for all three.
When a product configuration, test result, comparator or intended presentation changes, create a new dated review event. Retain the earlier version and identify every affected item. An old approval should not silently travel to a new model or a shorter claim. Use the location inventory to find the outputs that need rechecking.
Try the example’s failure tests: ignore setting B and the general claim appears stronger than the packet permits; substitute a different model for L1 and the calculation loses its comparator; reuse P2’s finding for S2 and the missing conditions disappear from the review record. Each failure identifies a different correction, not a single overall score.
Hand over a bounded review record
Before the checklist leaves the review team, make sure another person can locate the evidence, reproduce the selected calculation and identify the exact presentation covered by each finding. Keep unanswered questions visible. Route legal interpretation, technical validity and permission to release to the people authorised for those decisions.
Use the management sign-off checklist for the separate release inventory and approval. Use the source document register to control evidence versions and access. For conditional climate statements, the climate assumptions guide helps retain the assumptions behind the proposed claim. None of those records can replace a claim-specific evidence check.
Source: CMA (2026), Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Checked 15 October 2026.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory checklist, diagram and fictional case. The source’s UK environmental-claims context is not a complete rulebook for all sustainability statements or markets. No source organisation endorses this pack. Do not use a checklist result as a legal clearance or a substitute for specialist review.
Comments