The challenge

As expectations around sustainability reporting continue to increase, from regulators, customers, and wider stakeholders, Karndean Designflooring recognised the importance of ensuring its communications were not only accurate, but also clear, balanced, and credible.

With a public commitment to responsible communication through The Anti Greenwash Charter, the organisation wanted an independent, objective view of how its sustainability reporting performed in practice. The aim was to understand where its approach was strong, where greater clarity or context was needed, and how future reporting could better meet stakeholder needs.

Why truMRK

Karndean engaged truMRK to independently review its sustainability communications and issue a Transparency Report. The purpose was not endorsement or certification, but benchmarking: providing a clear, evidence-led assessment of claims, language, and supporting information.

truMRK’s role was to assess how sustainability statements were framed, how well they were substantiated, and where there was a risk of misinterpretation. This included reviewing alignment with recognised standards, the balance between ambition and evidence, and the clarity of performance disclosures.

The approach

Karndean used the independent Transparency Report as a benchmarking exercise after the publication of its 2024 Evolve Sustainability Report. The assessment provided an unfiltered external perspective, enabling the team to step outside internal assumptions and view their reporting as stakeholders would.

The review highlighted both strengths and gaps, offering practical insight into:

• The clarity and precision of sustainability language

• Where additional context would improve understanding

• How data and performance information could be more specific

• How effectively the report addressed different stakeholder audiences

Rather than focusing solely on compliance, the process supported learning and improvement, helping the team understand what good and better transparency looks like in practice.

The outcome

The assessment confirmed that Karndean’s reporting already demonstrated strong foundations, particularly in clear language and commitment to recognised standards. It also identified areas where deeper explanation, clearer data presentation, and more detailed performance information would strengthen credibility.

Importantly, the process challenged the organisation to think more critically about audience needs and how future reports could communicate sustainability information more clearly and confidently. The insights gained have already shaped internal thinking and planning for subsequent reporting cycles.

What Karndean said

“Working with truMRK has been a highly valuable step in strengthening the way we communicate our sustainability work and to build on our commitment through the Anti Greenwash Charter. We used their independent Transparency Report as a benchmarking exercise for our 2024 Evolve Sustainability Report. This gave us a clear, unfiltered view of the strengths in our approach, such as the clarity of our language and our commitment to recognised standards, as well as where we need to provide deeper context, clearer data, and more specific performance information for our stakeholder. And it has challenged us to think about our audience for future reports.

Jamie Shaw, Global Head of Sustainability

Looking ahead

Following the initial Transparency Report, Karndean is now developing its next sustainability report in partnership with truMRK, embedding independent review earlier in the process. This reflects a longer-term, risk-aware approach to sustainability communication, supporting confidence at the point of publication and helping ensure claims are clear, substantiated, and credible.

Labelling a brand as “greenwashing” because it failed to explain the nuance of its sustainability work in a 30-character Google Ad is, frankly, wild.

Yet that is effectively the precedent being set by recent advertising rulings. Not because brands were inventing claims or misleading consumers, but because the evidence did not sit inside the ad itself.

This matters. Not just for marketing teams, but for sustainability leaders, legal teams, and anyone responsible for publishing claims in 2026 and beyond.

The problem is not false claims. It is the format.

In recent rulings involving Nike, Lacoste, and Superdry, the core issue was not a lack of evidence.

These brands had the receipts. They had the data. They could substantiate their claims.

The problem was where that substantiation lived.

Under current enforcement logic, particularly as applied by the Advertising Standards Authority, if proof is not presented within the ad itself, the claim may still be treated as misleading. This is true even when ads are delivered dynamically, character limits prevent meaningful explanation, and advertisers do not control placement or surrounding context.

In short, context does not count unless it fits inside the ad unit.

Why this standard breaks down in digital advertising

Digital advertising was never designed for nuance.

Search ads, social placements, and programmatic formats prioritise brevity, automation, and speed. They do not prioritise layered explanation. Sustainability claims, by contrast, require scope, boundaries, definitions, and acknowledgement of trade-offs.

Trying to compress that into a headline or short line of copy is not just unrealistic. It actively discourages responsible communication.

This problem intensifies when AI-driven monitoring systems flag terms such as “green”, “eco”, or “sustainable” without understanding intent, qualification, or evidence.

The chilling effect on sustainability communication

The result is a growing fear across organisations.

Say too little, and progress goes unrecognised. Say too much, and invite scrutiny. Say anything at all, and risk being accused of greenwashing.

This does not improve accountability. It suppresses transparency.

Increasingly, sustainability teams advise marketing colleagues to avoid sustainability language altogether. Not because the work is not real, but because the rules reward silence over clarity.

That is a failure of the system.

Accountability should not depend on ad character limits

Holding brands to account matters. Consumers deserve clarity, honesty, and evidence. But accountability should be based on whether a claim can be substantiated, not whether it was fully explained inside a format never designed for depth.

A more credible standard would ask:

• Is the claim supported by verifiable evidence?

• Is that evidence publicly accessible?

• Is the language proportionate, specific, and not overstated?

• Is additional context clearly signposted?

This is where current enforcement falls short.

Transparency Reports as the missing layer

Rather than forcing every claim to stand alone, Transparency Reports offer a practical countermeasure.

They provide a public, claim-specific explanation of evidence, scope, and limitations. They define what terms such as “sustainable” actually mean in practice. They disclose what the claim does not cover. They remain available long after an ad campaign ends.

Most importantly, they allow brands to link from constrained formats, such as ads, to fuller context without diluting creative or resorting to vague language.

Liberating creative without lowering standards

When brands have a credible, independent way to show their working, they gain permission to communicate responsibly.

They can use sustainability language without fear. They can explain progress without oversimplification.

They can reduce legal and reputational risk. They can give regulators and consumers what they actually need, which is context.

This is not about finding loopholes. It is about aligning accountability with how digital communication actually works.

What this signals for 2026 and beyond

As scrutiny increases and automated monitoring becomes more aggressive, the brands that succeed will not be the quietest. They will be the clearest.

That means moving beyond ad-level compliance towards publication-level transparency.

If the goal is to reduce greenwashing, the answer is not fewer claims. It is better-supported ones.

At truMRK, this is the gap we exist to address. We review draft sustainability communications, assess evidence and language risk, and issue public Transparency Reports that give claims the context ads never can.

Because credibility should not depend on how many characters you are allowed to use.