What is Greenwashing?
Greenwashing is the practice of creating a false or misleading impression about how environmentally friendly a product, service, or process really is. Companies use this marketing tactic to capitalise on the rising demand for sustainability, often exaggerating their eco-friendly claims without making meaningful changes.
In the subsidence industry, greenwashing can occur when repair methods, materials or processes are marketing as sustainable or environmentally beneficial, but in reality, they provide little to no genuine environmental advantage.
But how does this apply to the subsidence industry? Below is a real-world example:
Balancing Tree Preservation and Subsidence Claims
The Challenge: Tree Removal vs Sustainable Subsidence Solutions
In recent years, insurers have faced increasing accusations of greenwashing over the removal of mature, often protected trees to mitigate subsidence risks. Subsidence occurs when the soil beneath a building’s foundation shifts or contracts, commonly due to tree roots extracting moisture from clay-based soils.
While insurers emphasise the need for effective and cost-efficient solutions, environmental campaigners argue that widespread tree removal undermines broader sustainability commitments. The debate has sparked national attention, with protests erupting in Fareham, Cowfold, and Wivenhoe, where campaigners have fought to save mature oak trees from felling.
Protesters claim that insurers are prioritising cost savings over environmental responsibility, while insurers argue that alternative engineered stabilisation methods, such as underpinning or soil moisture management, are often prohibitively expensive and not always viable. The controversy highlights the delicate balance between environmental preservation and the practicality of subsidence claims management - a challenge that continues to shape the industry’s approach to sustainability.
The Debate: Weighing Both Sides
A recent case in Fareham highlights the complexity of balancing subsidence management and tree preservation. The local council approved the removal of a row of protected oak trees, each subject to Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), citing concerns that rejecting the application could leave them exposed to claims exceeding £225,000.
Insurers defend their approach, stating that while they recognise the amenity value of trees and consider alternatives such as pruning, relying solely on engineered stabilisation would lead to significantly higher premiums for homeowners. They argue that tree removal remains the most cost-effective and practical solution in many cases.
However, the decision has faced strong political and public backlash. Local MP Suella Braverman criticised insurers, stating:
“Insurance companies have pressured local authorities into felling perfectly healthy trees with TPOs at the first point of contact.”
Braverman also pointed to ongoing discussions between the Association of British Insurers (ABI), Defra, and Forestry England, aimed at improving industry protocols for addressing subsidence linked to protected trees.
This case underscores the ongoing tension between insurers, policymakers, and environmental advocates.
Current Initiatives: The JMP and ABI Efforts
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) is currently reviewing the Joint Mitigation Protocol (JMP), a framework designed to standardise evidence requirements and procedures for Loss Adjusters and Local Authorities when dealing with subsidence caused by council-owned trees. While the updated JMP will establish clear evidential standards, it will not alter the legal liability of Councils, which remains rooted in their duty to abate legal nuisances caused by vegetation.
At the heart of this challenge lies a long-standing legal principle: property owners are responsible for ensuring their trees do not cause damage to neighbouring properties. If tree roots are proven to be the primary cause of subsidence, the property owner - whether a private homeowner or a local council - is legally obligated to remediate the issue, which often results in tree removal.
Balancing Environmental and Cost Considerations
Insurers argue that removing trees to stabilise a property has several advantages:
- Targets the Root Cause – Eliminating tree-root interference preserves existing foundations that have otherwise performed effectively
- Avoids Costly and Disruptive Alternatives – Solutions like underpinning are not only expensive and invasive for homeowners but also carry significant environmental drawbacks
- Reduces Carbon Impact – Underpinning and other engineered solutions often generate high embedded carbon emissions, sometimes outweighing the environmental benefits of retaining a tree
However, critics push for a more balanced approach, particularly when dealing with high-amenity trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). They argue that insurers should explore alternative solutions before resorting to tree removal, ensuring that sustainability considerations are genuinely factored into decision-making.
Possible Solutions and the Role of Legislation
Some insurers have already adopted policies against removing ancient or veteran trees, acknowledging their environmental, ecological, and cultural significance. However, to further address greenwashing concerns while maintaining fairness and practicality, the ABI could explore the following initiatives:
Voluntary Codes of Practice - Insurers could commit to a formal industry standing that prioritises tree preservation wherever possible, particularly for protected and high-amenity trees. This would reinforce sustainable claims practices whiles ensuring insurers consider alternative mitigation methods before resorting to removal.
Legislative Change: Article 5 Certificates – A potential reform could introduce Article 5 certificates, which would provide councils with financial protection when refusing tree removal for exceptional cases. Under this system, councils could preserve significant trees without facing liability for subsequent property damage, creating a more balanced approach between subsidence risk management and environmental preservation.
Conclusion: Striking the Right Balance
The debate surrounding tree removal and subsidence highlights the complex intersection of environmental, financial, and legal considerations. A balanced approach is essential – one that safeguards both property integrity and environmental preservation.
While voluntary industry codes could provide an immediate step toward more responsible practices, long-term solutions may require legislative reform, such as the reintroduction of Article 5 certificates. This would offer councils a sustainable and equitable framework to protect significant trees without bearing the financial burden of potential property damage claims.
Ultimately, collaboration is key. Insurers, councils, and policymakers must work together to align competing priorities, ensuring that subsidence management evolves in a way that protects both homeowners and the natural environment.
