---
title: "Sustainable Marketing vs CSR: What a Claim Needs as Proof"
description: "Sustainable marketing means saying what you can prove. See the UK CMA's six principles, the SHIFT framework and a made-up brand's three claims rated one by one."
url: "https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/marketing-ben-vung-khong-phai-csr"
lang: en-GB
author: "Lê Quốc Khôi"
date: 2026-11-02
updated: 2026-11-03
topics: ["Ethics & corporate governance"]
tags: ["Sustainable marketing", "Green claims", "Greenwashing", "Triple bottom line", "Consumer behaviour"]
---

# Sustainable marketing is not CSR: from promise to proof

## Key takeaways

- Sustainable marketing is what you say to customers; CSR is what the company does. A statement on packaging becomes a claim that needs proof. The UK CMA's 2021 guidance sets out six principles (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). It is UK guidance, not Vietnamese law.
- Broad words such as "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" need strong evidence (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). The dried-fruit brand in this article is invented, with made-up figures: one claim is supported, one partly supported, one unsupported.
- The SHIFT framework (White, Habib and Hardisty, 2019) names five factors that make consumers more inclined to act sustainably (White et al., 2019). It is about encouraging behaviour. It does not replace proof.
- In 2018 Elkington himself wrote that the triple bottom line was never meant to be just an accounting tool, and proposed a "recall" (Elkington, 2018).

You run marketing for a dried-fruit brand, a river-tour operator or a bottled-drink line. Next week the new packaging goes to print with "environmentally friendly" beside a green leaf. If a customer or a regulator asks, who in the company can hand over the file behind those words?

## How is marketing a sustainability claim different from CSR?

[Corporate social responsibility (CSR)](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#corporate-social-responsibility) is what the company does: a labour policy, a tree-planting programme. Sustainable marketing is the sentence you put in front of a customer so that they buy. That split is my own, not taken from a source.

The difference is testability. A CSR programme can run quietly and never be measured. A line on a pack gets read as a fact the reader can check. The CMA treats an environmental claim as one that suggests a product, service, brand or business is better for the environment, whether stated or implied, in advertising, on packaging or in a business name. Colours, images and logos count too (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). The green leaf beside "environmentally friendly" is part of the claim, not decoration.

## What evidence does a claim need?

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the UK's competition and consumer regulator, published the Green Claims Code on 20 September 2021. It covers businesses in the UK and businesses outside the UK that sell to UK consumers, and it says it is not legal advice (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). It is not Vietnamese law, and this article does not cover Vietnamese rules: check them yourself or ask a lawyer.

> **Figure:** (compare) The left column follows the CMA's six principles (2021). The right column is my reading, not a CMA list.

```json
{
  "type": "compare",
  "columns": ["Question to ask before printing", "File to keep"],
  "rows": [
    { "label": "Truthful and accurate", "cells": ["Is it correct, and will the customer understand it that way?", "Original measurements, date, scope"] },
    { "label": "Clear and unambiguous", "cells": ["What will the customer take this word to mean? Does it cover the product or only the pack?", "A definition of each term, printed next to the claim"] },
    { "label": "Nothing important omitted or hidden", "cells": ["Is there a downside the customer would need to know to choose?", "A list of the product's good and bad impacts"] },
    { "label": "Fair and meaningful comparisons", "cells": ["Compared with whom, measured how, under the same conditions?", "Source data for both sides, same period, same type"] },
    { "label": "Full life cycle considered", "cells": ["Does the claim hide the stage with the biggest impact?", "Impact estimate by stage, from raw material to waste"] },
    { "label": "Substantiated", "cells": ["If asked, which document do we hand over?", "Reports, invoices, test results, kept up to date"] }
  ]
}
```

Two details matter most when you write packaging copy:

- General terms such as "green", "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" are likely to be read as saying the whole product or business has a positive effect, or at least no harm. Unless you can prove that, the CMA says you risk falling short of your legal obligations (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021).
- Evidence should be solid, credible, relevant and up to date. A self-declared badge raises more concern than a third-party mark with public criteria (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021).

The guidance includes illustrative examples that name no business. One is a yoghurt pot with a large green leaf and the words "reduced plastic packaging", where plastic fell by only 5 per cent and production moved further away, so the overall effect was close to nil. The words were true. The CMA says the presentation was likely to suggest a bigger reduction than the real one (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021).

## How well do three claims from an invented brand stand up?

**Hypothetical example.** The brand "Trái Sấy Rạch Xanh" (roughly "Green Creek Dried Fruit"), its three claims and every figure below are invented by me for illustration. They belong to no real company. The brand dries mango and jackfruit in the Mekong Delta and sells 200 g bags. The rating scale is mine, not the CMA's.

| Claim on pack | Rating | Evidence the brand is assumed to hold | What to add or rewrite |
|:--|:--|:--|:--|
| "200 g bag uses 40% less plastic than our 2023 bag" | Supported | Weighing sheets for 30 bags per batch: film down from 10 g to 6 g; film purchase invoices | Keep the sheets. Say "than our old bag". Check the new film is no harder to recycle |
| "Eco-friendly", with a green leaf | Unsupported | Film figures only. No data on drying energy or transport | Drop the phrase, or assess the whole life cycle. Replace with a specific claim like the row above |
| "We pay farmers 10% above market price" | Partly supported | Purchase ledger for 12 orchards: average VND 28,000 per kg of grade-1 mango. No market price kept for the same period | Keep a price source for the same grade and week. Write "10% above the average price at wholesale market X, quarter Y", and say 12 orchards |

The first row works because the brand holds the original measurements and compares itself with itself. It still needs the check from the yoghurt example: does cutting plastic push the impact elsewhere? The second row is the broadest of the three claims, so it needs strong evidence (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). The third row lacks half of the comparison. The CMA asks for like-for-like comparisons on a clear basis (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). It suits you if you can show both sides' prices, and it does not if you hold only your own.

## Once a claim holds up, how do you help customers act on it?

When customers say they back green products and still buy from habit, the gap is known as the [intention-behaviour gap](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/glossary#intention-behaviour-gap). White, Habib and Hardisty (2019) reviewed the marketing and behavioural-science literature on how to move consumption in a more sustainable direction. According to the abstract, consumers are more inclined to act pro-environmentally when a message or context draws on five psychological factors: social influence, habit formation, individual self, feelings and cognition, and tangibility. The initials spell [SHIFT](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/shift-sustainable-behaviour) (White et al., 2019).

> **Figure:** [SHIFT framework for sustainable consumer behaviour](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/shift-sustainable-behaviour) The SHIFT framework (redrawn from White, Habib and Hardisty, 2019).

I read only the abstract. The questions below are my own reading for the invented brand, not the authors' recommendations.

| Factor | Question for the marketing team |
|:--|:--|
| Social influence | Do we hold a real figure on what other customers did? If so, print exactly that |
| Habit | Is the sustainable option the default at the point of purchase? |
| Individual self | What does this action say about the person who takes it, and do they want that image? |
| Feelings and cognition | Does the message point to one concrete thing the customer can do? |
| Tangibility | "6 g of plastic per bag" is more concrete than "less plastic" |

The CMA answers "what may you say". SHIFT answers "how do customers follow through". My judgement: applying SHIFT to a claim with no proof only helps it spread faster.

## What does a public claim look like, and where does the proof sit?

The [Mekong Smile](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/case/mekong-smile-sustainable-tourism) case, a Cần Thơ tour operator, shows a claim in the wild. I am not assessing this business.

On its About page, Mekong Smile says it has operated since 2017, commits to ESG principles and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and says a trip "directly supports environmental conservation and community prosperity" across the Mekong Delta. The page also shows Travelife registration and a 2025 certificate of merit from the Cần Thơ Department of Culture, Sports and Tourism for promoting sustainable tourism (Mekong Smile, n.d.).

The regional context sits beyond any one operator. Viet Nam News reported on 24 November 2024 that about 200 boats now trade regularly at Cái Răng Floating Market, against 500 in 2016, according to the Cái Răng District People's Committee. The causes it lists include road-traffic growth, the river embankment, overlapping state management and shortcomings in environmental protection (Viet Nam News, 2024). The article does not mention Mekong Smile.

That yields a test, not a verdict. A line saying a trip directly supports environmental conservation across the delta can be read as a result at delta scale, where many parties create the causes, so one firm's data can hardly prove it. A firm-sized claim, such as the number of households paid or the waste collected after each tour, can be proved. I did not examine audit data, the Travelife record or the certificate, so I draw no conclusion on whether the About-page lines are fully evidenced.

## Going deeper: where does the triple bottom line come from, and why did its author want it recalled?

The library records the origin of the [triple bottom line](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/triple-bottom-line) as Elkington's book *Cannibals with forks* (1997) (Elkington, 1997). I have not read the book. In his 2018 article Elkington says he coined the term in 1994 (Elkington, 2018). The framework splits results into profit, people and planet; an HBS Online blog says firms should measure social and environmental impact as well as financial results (Miller, 2020).

> **Figure:** [Triple bottom line](https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/framework/triple-bottom-line) The triple bottom line (redrawn from Elkington, 1997).

One critique worth reading comes from Elkington himself. In *Harvard Business Review* in 2018 he proposed a "recall" of the concept, as a carmaker recalls a faulty model. He wrote that it was never meant to be only an accounting system, yet many early adopters read it as a balancing act with a trade-off mentality. CEOs, CFOs and other corporate leaders, he added, strain to hit profit targets, while the same is very rarely true of their people and planet targets (Elkington, 2018).

He cites a better use, from Covestro's former chief executive Patrick Thomas: progress on at least two dimensions while the third is unaffected (Elkington, 2018). I have turned that into a test of my own for marketers, not Elkington's or Thomas's words, in the spirit of the CMA's "nothing omitted" principle: if a claim says the brand improved on one dimension, it should say the others did not get worse.

Two limits remain. The library notes that the three Ps are a communication device and the framework does not by itself show that sustainability raises returns. An HBS Online blog says firms with strong ESG metrics tend to earn higher returns, but cites no specific study in that passage (Miller, 2020). Do not copy that line into an advert. And SHIFT is a literature review (White et al., 2019); the abstract does not say whether it has been tested on Vietnamese consumers.

## Frequently asked questions

### How does sustainable marketing differ from CSR?

CSR is what a company does. Sustainable marketing is what you tell customers so that they buy. That split is my own framing, not a definition from a source. The consequence is practical: once a statement reaches packaging or an advert, it becomes a claim that customers and regulators can test. The CMA treats logos, colours and brand names as part of the claim (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021).

### Does the CMA's Green Claims Code apply to Vietnamese businesses?

Not as Vietnamese law. It is guidance from a UK authority, covering businesses in the UK and businesses outside it that sell to UK consumers, and it says itself that it is not legal advice (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). This article does not cover Vietnamese rules. Use the principles as a question list, and ask a lawyer about the rules that apply at home.

### Can I print "sustainable" or "eco-friendly" on packaging?

The CMA warns that broad terms are likely to be read as saying the whole product or business has a positive impact, or at least no harm, and that a business needs strong evidence to match (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). Specific claims with a measure and a scope tend to mislead less, though they still need evidence (Competition and Markets Authority, 2021). If you have not assessed the full life cycle, say which stage you did measure.

### Does the triple bottom line prove that sustainability raises profit?

No. The framework does not show that by itself. Elkington wrote in 2018 that he had meant it to change the system, while many adopters used it as a balancing act of trade-offs (Elkington, 2018). An HBS Online blog says firms with strong ESG metrics tend to earn higher returns, but gives no specific study in that passage (Miller, 2020).

## References

- Competition and Markets Authority (2021) *Green Claims Code: making environmental claims*. GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims.
- Elkington, J. (1997) *Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business*. Oxford: Capstone.
- Elkington, J. (2018) *25 years ago I coined the phrase ‘triple bottom line’. Here's why it's time to rethink it*. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it.
- Mekong Smile (n.d.) *About Mekong Smile*. mekongsmile.com. Available at: https://mekongsmile.com/about-us.
- Miller, K. (2020) *The triple bottom line: what it is & why it's important*. Harvard Business School Online, Business Insights blog, 8 December 2020 (updated 16 August 2023). Available at: https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-is-the-triple-bottom-line.
- Viet Nam News (2024) *Cái Răng Floating Market eyes preservation, tourism development*. Viet Nam News. Available at: https://vietnamnews.vn/sunday-features/1687532/cai-rang-floating-market-eyes-preservation-tourism-development.html.
- White, K., Habib, R. and Hardisty, D.J. (2019) ‘How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: a literature review and guiding framework’, *Journal of Marketing*, 83(3), pp. 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919825649

---

Canonical HTML version: https://staging.khoi.co.uk/en/blog/marketing-ben-vung-khong-phai-csr