7 min read
Avoiding Greenwashing and Driving True Sustainability: Strategies for Credible ESG Communication
By: Johannes Fiegenbaum on 5/24/25, 4:56 PM · Last updated September 4, 2026
Green claims in the EU are no longer judged by intent, but by the evidence on file when someone asks. From 27 September 2026 the empowering-consumers rules of Directive (EU) 2024/825 apply in the member states, and they turn vague environmental wording into an unfair commercial practice that competitors and consumer associations can act on. This guide sets out the legal test a claim has to pass, the evidence file behind it, and the wording that survives scrutiny.
When a green claim becomes illegal in the EU
Two regimes apply at once, and they are often confused. Advertising law governs what a company says to the market: Directive (EU) 2024/825 amends the unfair commercial practices rules and reaches Germany through the UWG. Reporting law governs what a company discloses in the management report under the ESRS. A claim can be perfectly compliant as a disclosure and still be unlawful as an advert, because the advert is read by an average consumer without the methodology page.
The separate Green Claims Directive, which would have added an ex-ante verification duty, is stalled. Waiting for it is the wrong reading of the situation: the substantiation duty is already in force through the amended consumer rules. Our overview of the Green Claims Directive tracks its status.
| Claim type | What must be on file | Legal anchor |
|---|---|---|
| Climate neutral product, based on carbon credits | Nothing cures it: offset-based neutrality claims for a product are barred, however good the credits are | Directive (EU) 2024/825, UWG |
| X% lower emissions than the previous generation | Base year, system boundary, calculation method, the comparator product, and a life cycle basis | Misleading comparative claim, UWG |
| Recyclable | A collection and recycling route actually available to the buyer, not a theoretical one | Directive (EU) 2024/825, UWG |
| Science-based or net zero target | Validated target with scope coverage, base year and an annual reduction pathway | ESRS E1 target disclosure, UWG |
| Eco-friendly, green, responsible | Generic praise without demonstrated excellence in the claimed respect is not defensible at all | Directive (EU) 2024/825, UWG |
My position: the risk has moved out of the marketing department. The people who can end a claim are the ones who own the data behind it, and in most companies they were never asked before publication.
The evidence file behind a defensible claim
A defensible claim is a file, not a sentence. Before the claim is published, someone has to be able to hand over the calculation, the boundary and the sign-off within a working day, because that is the pace at which a warning letter runs.
| Evidence item | Who signs it off | Where it is archived |
|---|---|---|
| Underlying figure and its calculation method | Data owner in operations or finance | Reporting system, with the raw source attached |
| System boundary and base year | Sustainability lead | Methodology note, versioned |
| Product-level study, where the claim is product-level | External practitioner | Life cycle assessment report, dated |
| Final wording as published | Legal and the data owner jointly | Claim register, kept for the life of the campaign |
The pre-publication review that works in practice is short. Name the exact figure behind every adjective. Check the boundary matches the claim, so a site-level saving is not sold as a company-level one. Confirm the comparator is still current. Have legal and the data owner sign the wording, not the concept. Archive the file with the publication date, so it can be reconstructed after the campaign is gone.
External assurance does not close this gap. Limited assurance covers the sustainability statement in the management report. It does not cover the advert, the packaging or the sales deck, even when they quote the same figure.
Wording claims that survive scrutiny
Most rejected claims fail on one of three things: a missing reference point, a boundary that is wider in the wording than in the data, or an adjective doing work that a number should do. The figures in the examples below are illustrative and stand for whatever your own file supports.
| Rejected wording | Defensible version | What made the difference |
|---|---|---|
| Our climate-neutral production | Scope 1 and 2 emissions at the main plant fell 41% against 2022; residual emissions are not offset | Named boundary, base year, no neutrality claim |
| Made from environmentally friendly materials | 72% recycled polyamide by weight, verified by supplier declaration | A share, a unit and a source instead of an adjective |
| We are committed to net zero | Target validated for 2040, covering scopes 1 to 3, with interim milestones for 2030 | Coverage and pathway make the commitment checkable |
The common reflex against this risk is to say nothing at all. Greenhushing is not a safe harbour. It removes the marketing exposure and leaves the reporting duty untouched, so the same figures still appear in the management report, now without a communication that explains them. It also concedes the ground to whoever is willing to claim more. The better answer is a narrower claim that is fully backed, which is also what our note on greenwashing in marketing comes down to.
What separates a substantiated target from puffery
Reading sustainability reports at scale, the practical line between a target and a slogan is short and mechanical. A target is substantiated when three things are stated together: a base year, the boundary it applies to, and a quantified pathway with at least one interim milestone. Take one away and the claim stops being checkable. A 2040 net zero commitment without a base year cannot be missed, because nothing was promised for any date before it.
It is also the fastest way to read someone else's report: look up the headline target, then look for those three elements in the same place. If the pathway appears only as a graph with no figures behind it, treat the target as ambition, not as a claim. It is the test I run first in ESG implementation work.
FAQ
Which green claims are banned outright rather than merely risky?
Claims that a product is climate neutral, carbon neutral or climate positive on the basis of purchased carbon credits, and generic environmental praise such as eco-friendly or green without demonstrated excellence. No amount of evidence makes these defensible, so they have to be replaced, not documented.
Who verifies a claim, and does sustainability assurance cover marketing?
Limited assurance covers the sustainability statement in the management report. Marketing claims sit outside that scope and are tested by competitors, consumer associations and courts, usually against a product-level study or a management system such as ISO 14001.
What happens if a claim is found misleading?
In Germany the usual route is not a regulator but a competitor or a consumer association: a warning letter with a cease-and-desist undertaking, followed by an injunction if it is refused. The commercial damage is normally the withdrawal of the campaign and the packaging, not the fine.
Is staying silent a safe alternative?
No. Greenhushing removes the advertising risk but not the reporting duty, and it leaves the figures in the management report without any explanation around them. A narrow, fully substantiated claim carries less risk than silence plus an unexplained disclosure.
Johannes Fiegenbaum
ESG and sustainability consultant based in Hamburg, specialised in VSME reporting and climate risk analysis. Has supported 300+ projects for companies and financial institutions, from mid-sized manufacturers to major banks and insurers.
More aboutYou may also like
How to avoid the trap of greenwashing marketing
Environmental claims are a legal exposure, not a tone-of-voice question. This guide covers the wording that draws a challenge, the evidence each claim type needs, and which ...
Read more →