Substantiating environmental cleaning claims at a Rosebery premises

The chain usually runs like this: a supplier describes a product as environmentally preferable, a cleaning contractor repeats it, a client includes it in a sustainability statement, and nobody along that chain has looked at the underlying basis. Each step is made in good faith and the result is a public claim supported by nothing more than a phrase that was passed along.

The exposure sits with the party making the public claim, which is usually the client rather than the contractor. That is a good reason for a client to ask specific questions rather than accept a general assurance, and a good reason for a contractor to answer precisely. Neither party benefits from a claim that cannot be supported if someone examines it.

Which specific products are used, and what recognised certification or standard does each hold. What happens to waste generated by the cleaning, including packaging and used consumables. What is the dilution and dosing arrangement, since concentrate used correctly has a very different footprint from ready-to-use product. What equipment is used and what does it consume. And what, if anything, is measured and reported.

Those questions produce answers that can be checked or cannot, and either outcome is useful. A contractor able to name products and certifications is describing something real. One who answers with general language about environmental responsibility has told you that the claim is a positioning statement rather than a practice, which is worth knowing before it appears in a report. It also gives a business something it can repeat with confidence, which is the practical test of whether a claim is worth making at all.

Realistic contributions include product selection with recognised certification, concentrate and dosing systems that reduce packaging and transport, equipment with lower water and energy consumption, waste separation supported properly, and consumable choices with substantiated content. These are modest, specific and defensible, which is exactly what a claim should be. Recording what changed, and when, also allows a business to describe improvement over time rather than asserting a fixed position it can never demonstrate.

Overstating is the risk. Cleaning is a small part of most organisations' environmental footprint, and presenting it as a major contribution invites scrutiny it will not withstand. Clean Best describes what it does without extending the claim, because a client repeating an accurate modest statement is in a far better position than one repeating an ambitious vague one. A short, accurate paragraph about cleaning sits comfortably in a wider report; an inflated one draws attention to the part of the supply chain least able to withstand it.