Workflows
Give every review a clear next step.
Connect legal, marketing and sustainability without losing the thread. A practical environmental-claim review workflow from ownership to publication.
Agree who owns the claim
Before asking for a decision, identify the person responsible for the proposed statement and its intended use. A campaign name is not a substitute for the words that will appear on pack, on a product page or in an agency brief. Record those words, the product, the audience, the channel and the markets.
Ownership is an operational responsibility. It gives the team someone to contact when a source needs explanation or the final creative changes. It does not mean the claim owner replaces a technical specialist or makes every legal decision.
In our fictional packaging example, marketing owns a statement about recycled polypropylene. The request identifies the Everyday collection, packaging use and EU / UK context. That makes the review question concrete enough for colleagues to contribute.
Separate the review questions
Sustainability explains what the supplier declaration establishes. In the example, 30% recycled polypropylene by mass relates to the packaging body; the closure and label are excluded. That evidence question is different from deciding how the statement should appear to its audience.
Legal considers the wording, market context and conditions for publication. Marketing keeps the actual creative and intended channels in view. A useful workflow makes each contribution visible instead of treating one function’s input as a substitute for the others.
When a reviewer asks for a clarification, record the question and the resulting change. The initial “Made with 30% recycled polypropylene” becomes “The packaging body is made with 30% recycled polypropylene.” The narrower subject addresses the example scope question. Further review remains necessary; the edit is not an automatic legal verdict.
A practical handover
- Marketing supplies the proposed wording, intended use and current artwork.
- Sustainability identifies the source, version, scope and outstanding limitations.
- Legal records its questions, rationale and any publication conditions.
- The claim owner brings those contributions together and maintains the current record.
Keep the published version connected
An approval belongs to the statement and context considered at the time. If someone broadens the wording later, the previous decision should remain distinguishable from the new draft. A record marked “approved” without an identifiable version leaves the next person guessing.
Our interactive example makes this relationship visible: the original version cannot receive the demonstration approval; restoring the original wording removes the approval attached to the clarified version. This is an explanation of the workflow, not a real publication decision.
Keep the final artwork or page version with the review record. Record who needs to be involved when the product specification, evidence, market or channel changes. Exported wording is more useful when its conditions travel with it.
Before the next handover
Can the next colleague identify the current wording, the source boundary, the unresolved question and the person responsible for answering it? Can they tell which version was reviewed? If those answers are visible, the next step becomes easier to understand.
See the CMA’s environmental claims guidance for consumer-marketing context. For the connected workflow, explore legal review, marketing language and the platform example.