Stop specifying vibes! 15 green claims on spec sheets and what to ask instead

The 15-phrase translation list

1) “Eco-friendly”

Translation: A broad positive signal unless the benefit is defined.
What it does not prove: meaningful impact reduction across the full life cycle.
Ask this (3 questions):

• Eco-friendly how, specifically (materials, emissions, waste, toxicity)?

• Compared to what baseline product?

• What evidence supports it (EPD, test report, verified program)?

Spec note line: Claim qualified as ___; baseline ___; evidence ___; boundary ___.

2) “Sustainable”

Translation: A value statement unless the sustainability attribute is defined and scoped.
What it does not prove: low carbon, low toxicity, ethical sourcing, durability, circularity (all of them, at once, forever).
Ask this:

• Which sustainability attribute is being claimed?

• What is the scope (product, manufacturing, packaging, corporate)?

• What evidence supports it, and is it accessible

Spec note line: Sustainability claim defined as ___; scope ___; evidence ___.

3) “Green”

Translation: Shorthand for “good for the environment” with no detail.
What it does not prove: any particular environmental benefit.
Ask this:

• What specific environmental benefit is being claimed?

• What are the conditions or limitations?

• What data backs it up?

Spec note line: “Green” claim translated to ___; evidence ___; limitations ___.

4) “Natural”

Translation: Could mean bio-based content. Could mean marketing. Could mean “contains a tree somewhere in the supply chain.”
What it does not prove: safer for humans, lower VOCs, better environmental outcome.
Ask this:

• What ingredients and percentages are considered “natural”?

• Is there full ingredient disclosure (HPD/Declare or equivalent)?

• Any added binders, preservatives, antimicrobials, flame retardants?

Spec note line: Natural claim supported by disclosure ___; exclusions ___.

5) “Non-toxic”

Translation: Often means “meets a particular test” or “not acutely toxic in one context.”
What it does not prove: safe in all uses, for all occupants, for all exposures over time.
Ask this:

• Non-toxic under what definition or standard?

• What hazards have been screened and disclosed (HPD)?

• What about install exposure and maintenance products

Spec note line: Non-toxic defined by ___; disclosure level ___; scope ___.

6) “Low VOC”

Translation: Lower VOC under a specific test method or threshold.
What it does not prove: “healthy”, “non-toxic”, or low odour, and it says nothing about everything else in the formulation.
Ask this:

• Low VOC per which standard or test method, and what limit?

• VOC content or emissions testing, and under what conditions?

• Any full disclosure (HPD/Declare) for the rest of the chemistry

Spec note line: Low VOC per ___ (limit ___); test method ___; scope ___.

7) “Zero VOC”

Translation: Often means “below a defined threshold”, not literally zero.
What it does not prove: no emissions, no irritants, no additives, no maintenance impacts.
Ask this:

• What threshold defines “zero”, and what test method?

• Is it measured after tinting, or base only?

• Any ingredients disclosed that still matter for health?

Spec note line: “Zero VOC” threshold ___; method ___; tinting included Y/N.

8) “Carbon neutral”

Translation: Often “emissions + offsets” unless clearly defined.
What it does not prove: low embodied carbon, reduction-first approach, low impact overall.
Ask this:

• Carbon neutral for what boundary (product, project, company)?

• What is included and excluded (scopes or life cycle stages)?

• Is it reduction-first or offset-heavy, and is it verified?

Spec note line: Carbon neutral boundary ___; method ___; verification ___; reduction vs offsets ___.

9) “Net zero”

Translation: A target or status that depends on scope, timeline, and method.
What it does not prove: low impact today, or that the product itself is low carbon.
Ask this:

• Net zero by when, and for what boundary?

• What is the transition plan and interim milestones?

• Verified or self-declared

Spec note line: Net zero boundary ___; date ___; milestones ___; verification ___.

10) “Climate positive”

Translation: A stronger claim than neutral, often unclear.
What it does not prove: a net benefit after full life-cycle accounting.
Ask this:

• How is “positive” calculated (life cycle, use phase, offsets)?

• Compared to what baseline?

• Is the methodology transparent and verified

Spec note line: Climate positive method ___; baseline ___; verification ___.

11) “Made with recycled content”

Translation: Some portion contains recycled material.
What it does not prove: the whole product is low impact, recyclable, or non-toxic.
Ask this:

• What percentage is recycled content, pre-consumer or post-consumer?

• Where is it in the product (core, backing, coating)?

• Any trade-offs (durability, emissions, additives)?

Spec note line: Recycled content ___% (pre/post ___); location ___; trade-offs ___.

12) “Recyclable”

Translation: Could be recyclable in theory. Real-world depends on infrastructure and product design.
What it does not prove: it will be recycled in your project context.
Ask this:

• Recyclable where the project is located?

• Conditions (disassembly, contamination, take-back)?

• What end-of-life pathway exists in practice?

Spec note line: Recyclable in location ___; pathway ___; conditions ___.

13) “Biodegradable”

Translation: Breaks down under certain conditions, over a certain time.
What it does not prove: it will break down in landfill or typical disposal routes.
Ask this:

• Biodegradable under what conditions (industrial, home, marine, landfill)?

• Over what timeframe?

• Any residues or additives of concern?

Spec note line: Biodegradable conditions ___; timeframe ___; residue risks ___.

14) “Compostable”

Translation: Often industrial compostable unless stated otherwise.
What it does not prove: it is compostable in home compost or accessible programs.
Ask this:

• Home compostable or industrial compostable?

• Certified to which standard?

• Is there a local facility that will accept it?

Spec note line: Compostable type ___; certification ___; local pathway ___.

15) “Responsibly sourced”

Translation: A sourcing claim that needs specifics. “Responsible” to whom, and verified how?
What it does not prove: ethical labour, traceability, deforestation-free supply, low carbon.
Ask this:

• What standard or certification defines “responsible”?

• What is traceable, and to what level (forest, mill, factory)?

• Any chain-of-custody documentation?

Spec note line: Responsible sourcing standard ___; traceability ___; chain-of-custody ___.