The "Greenwashing" Lawsuit Against P&G's Charmin
Imagine choosing a toilet paper brand marketed as "sustainable," only to discover you may be contributing to the disappearance of ancient forests. This is not hyperbole but the core allegation in a class-action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble (P&G), the maker of Charmin toilet paper. The suit, filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, accuses P&G of "greenwashing" — misleading consumers about Charmin’s environmental impact while its production allegedly fuels deforestation.
The "Keep Forests as Forests" Campaign Under Scrutiny
Hagens Berman, a firm with a history of environmental litigation against corporations like ExxonMobil and Rio Tinto, now targets P&G’s "Protect-Grow-Restore" initiative. The lawsuit dissects four key claims in Charmin’s sustainability messaging:
1. The FSC Certification Illusion
Charmin asserts its pulp comes exclusively from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified forests.
Reality:
Court documents allege only a minimal fraction of Charmin’s pulp meets FSC’s strict "100%" standard. Most originates from industrial clearcutting in Canada’s boreal forest — a vital carbon sink storing 30–40% of Earth’s terrestrial carbon, according to Canada’s Natural Resources Defense Council.
2. The "Grow-Restore" Deception
P&G promises to plant one to two trees for each harvested, accompanied by imagery of lush wilderness.
Reality:
Suppliers reportedly replace biodiverse old-growth forests with monoculture plantations, sprayed with glyphosate herbicides to eliminate competing vegetation. These ecologically sterile tree farms have significantly reduced carbon sequestration capacity.
3. The 100% Certification Shell Game
While P&G maintains all wood pulp is FSC-certified, the suit alleges the company downgraded to less rigorous "FSC Mix" certification and quietly incorporated standards from the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) — both criticized by Greenpeace for lax enforcement.
4. Rainforest Alliance or "Forest Allies" Misdirection?
Charmin packaging displays a "Forest Allies" seal resembling the Rainforest Alliance’s certification mark.
Reality:
The lawsuit claims P&G paid $250,000 annually to use this lookalike logo after losing actual certification rights. The "Forest Allies" program supports tropical forest communities but certifies no boreal forest operations where Charmin sources its pulp.
P&G’s 2023 Forest Commodities Policy cites the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s definition of deforestation, pledging to avoid "permanent forest loss." Yet the complaint argues Charmin’s supply chain practices — including clearcutting and glyphosate use — constitute deforestation under any credible ecological standard.
The case highlights growing legal risks for corporations making vague environmental claims. As consumers increasingly prioritize sustainability, courts are being asked to determine where marketing ends and deception begins.
Your message must be between 20-3,000 characters!