A document attached. Or evidence connected?

An attachment is the beginning

A document in a folder tells a reviewer that a source exists. It does not, on its own, explain which part of a statement the document supports. That connection needs to be made explicit: the product or component covered, the relevant period, the method used and any limitations.

Consider the fictional packaging declaration used in our platform example. It records 30% recycled polypropylene by mass in the packaging body. The closure and label are excluded. Those boundaries are useful information, not footnotes to lose when the document is handed to another team.

A composition report can identify the material. Artwork can show where the statement will appear. Each record contributes something different. Attaching all three does not mean they answer every review question; the reviewer needs to understand what each establishes.

Be precise about the statement

“Made with 30% recycled polypropylene” leaves the subject unclear. “The packaging body is made with 30% recycled polypropylene” identifies the component covered by the example declaration. The percentage has not changed. The relationship between the source and the words has become clearer.

Keep the original and proposed wording together during review. A colleague should be able to see what changed and why. The source scope should remain unchanged: editing the statement does not expand the declaration to cover a cap, label or whole product.

The qualification is one part of the review. It does not automatically make the statement legally acceptable. Reviewers still need to consider the intended market, the actual artwork, the surrounding message and whether the evidence is suitable for the assertion being made.

Plan for change

A source can be replaced, a supplier can change or a product can gain another component. Keep the source version identifiable and record which statements depend on it. When a source changes, that relationship gives the team a starting point for deciding what needs another review.

Do not silently transfer a conclusion from the old source to the replacement. Compare their boundaries and identify the affected wording. Marketing needs to know which version it can use; sustainability needs to explain the evidence; legal needs the current context for its decision.

Questions for the next review

• What exact words will the audience see, and where?
• Which product, component and period does the source cover?
• What is excluded, qualified or still unknown?
• Which source version and artwork did the reviewer consider?
• Who will revisit the record if the evidence or wording changes?

Keep these answers with the claim. A clear source relationship helps the next reviewer follow the reasoning without rebuilding it from correspondence.

Further reading

The CMA Green Claims Code sets out the UK consumer-marketing context. The FTC Green Guides provide US environmental-marketing guidance. Their applicability depends on the statement and market; neither is a certificate for this fictional example.

Explore the connected record, follow a sustainability source or review a packaging example.