Carpet maker Godfrey Hirst says it has dropped a damages claim against local rival Bremworth, but will still pursue court action over what it calls greenwashing.
US-owned Godfrey Hirst, which is a large producer of synthetic carpets, is challenging Bremworth's marketing claims thatits wool carpets are better for people and the environment.
Bremworth, formerly known as Cavalier Corporation, announced in 2020 that it was moving to 100 per cent wool fibre production.
The new strategy was followed with an advertising campaign that talked up the environmental benefits of wool carpets versus their synthetic counterparts.
Godfrey Hirst responded with a number of allegations about the accuracy of Bremworth's claims.
Among them, it said the claim that a nylon carpet in an averaged sized home was similar to the weight of 20,000 plastic bags was misleading and was in breach of the Fair Trading Act because it could confuse consumers into thinking a synthetic carpet had the same environmental impact as thousands of plastic bags.
In a statement released this morning, Godfrey Hirst said it was no longer seeking damages from Bremworth for its "misleading conduct and greenwashing" in relation to synthetic carpets.
"Godfrey Hirst is aware of Bremworth's constrained financial circumstances and, in the public interest, wanted to do all it could to make it financially viable for Bremworth to correct any misleading and/or greenwashing marketing without the risk of Bremworth also having to pay damages."
Godfrey Hirst also criticised Bremworth's contention that it failed to provide relevant documents to the court.
"Godfrey Hirst is not in breach of any such orders and the suggestion that it has not provided relevant material is false.
"This continues the misleading narrative from Bremworth and reinforces the importance of Godfrey Hirst's efforts to protect New Zealand consumers and investors."
Bremworth chief executive Greg Smith told RNZ Business that Godfrey Hirst's decision to drop the damages claim was "very thoughtful", adding that the US-owned company had not been so considerate in the past.
"But despite that being dropped, I wouldn't have thought it should have been presented in the first place.
"It's an enormous cost to defend these types of things and really it's a waste of time and money."
Smith said he stood by the company's advertising campaign, saying its statements were true.
"But we know that the makeup of their business is so heavily weighted to synthetic that, you know, they've got a problem with us saying that wool's better - that's their choice … but we look forward to challenging them next year when this goes to the High Court."
Smith said Bremworth and its lawyers stood by its view that Godfrey Hirst had failed to provide relevant materials to the courts.
