Honasa Consumer Limited - Mamaearth

Recommendation: Upheld | Medium: General Public

The ASCI had approached the advertiser for its response in addressing the grievances of the complainant and forwarded the details of the complaint, verbatim, to the advertiser with a request to respond to the same. The advertiser was offered an option to seek an Informal Resolution (IR) of the complaint by modifying or withdrawing the claims in the advertisement, or alternately to substantiate the claims with supporting data. The advertiser was also offered an opportunity for a telecon with the ASCI Secretariat, which they did not avail and submitted their response. For the recycling claim, the advertiser explained that their recycling quantity over the last three financial years is higher than the plastic they introduced into the market, supported by third-party recycling arrangements and certification. For the tree plantation claim, they stated that they have partnered with an NGO since 2020 under their plantation initiative and provided evidence of the total number of trees planted during the stated period, supported by certifications. As claim support data, the advertiser provided the following documents – (1) Screenshot of the waste management company’s “About Us” page showing the advertiser as a client, (2) Detailed records of plastic packaging procurement, (3) Certificate from the waste management company confirming quantity of plastic recycled, (4) News article about the recycling initiative in collaboration with the waste management company, (5) NGO website information, (6) Certificate issued by the NGO confirming tree plantation figures, (7) Screenshot of the company’s website page on the plantation initiative. The advertiser’s response with the support data provided for the claim, "We always recycle more plastic than we use”, was referred to an independent technical expert of ASCI for their opinion. The expert opinion was then shared with the advertiser to allow them to make additional submissions. The advertiser addressed the queries raised by the expert. They stated that they have now obtained an independent Chartered Accountant (CA) certificate to validate the data on plastic procured and used. They also explained that the company does not directly manufacture products but sources finished goods from third-party manufacturers, with plastic usage limited to packaging. The advertiser provided a CA certificate verifying the company’s data on plastic procurement and usage. The additional submissions made by the advertiser were shared with the technical expert for final opinion. The Consumer Complaints Council (CCC) viewed the advertisement Website, (https://mamaearth.in/product/vitamin-c-face-wash-with-vitamin-c-and-turmeric-for-skin-illumination-250ml) considered the complaint, the advertiser’s response along with the claim support data, and the expert’s final opinion presented at the meeting. Claim – “We always recycle more plastic than we use” The CCC observed that the advertiser initially provided internal records showing the quantity of plastic packaging material used along with a declaration from a waste management agency engaged for plastic collection and recycling. It was observed that the data was presented in internal spreadsheet form and was not supported by a comprehensive independent audit. The CCC further noted that the information provided related only to packaging material, whereas the claim refers broadly to plastic used, which may reasonably be understood to include all forms of plastic consumption within the organization. Subsequently, the advertiser submitted a certificate from a chartered accountant firm and clarified that the organization’s plastic usage is limited to packaging, as product manufacturing is outsourced. While the certificate provided additional support, it was based on information furnished by the advertiser and did not constitute a full audit of records. Further, the clarification regarding limitation to packaging was not reflected in the claim itself. The CCC discussed that, for a claim of this nature, a more comprehensive evaluation of total plastic inputs and outputs is required, including clear information on sourcing, usage, and recycling volumes. The supporting documents did not provide independently verifiable data comparing plastic usage and recycling. Based on this assessment, the CCC concluded that the claim, “We always recycle more plastic than we use”, was inadequately substantiated. The claim is misleading by exaggeration. The said claim in the advertisement contravened Chapter I, Clauses 1.1, and 1.4 of the ASCI Code, and ASCI Guidelines For Advertisements Making Environmental/Green claims. This complaint was UPHELD. Claim - “We’ve planted 90,00,000+ trees and counting” The CCC reviewed the claim based on the documents submitted by the advertiser. The advertiser stated that it has partnered with an external organization since 2020 for undertaking tree plantation activities under its initiative and submitted a certificate issued by this organization confirming the number of trees planted between October 2020 till December 2025. During the discussion, the CCC noted that the certifying organization is a recognized implementing body and that similar certifications from the same organization have been accepted in earlier instances. The plantation activities of this nature are generally carried out as part of broader responsibility initiatives and are separate from product related claims. Based on these observations, the CCC concluded that the claim, “We’ve planted 90,00,000+ trees and counting”, was substantiated. The said claim is not in contravention of Chapter I of the ASCI Code. This complaint was NOT UPHELD.