The European Commission has published a detailed Q&A guidance document (the “Guidance”) on the interpretation and application of the Greenwashing Directive’s environmental claims and circular economy rules, which EU Member States will have to enforce from September 27, 2026.
The Greenwashing Directive updates the EU’s consumer protection rules to tackle greenwashing and promote products that are durable and sustainable. The Guidance clarifies key aspects of the new rules, including the types of business communications that are in scope of the greenwashing rules; the impact of the rules on brand names and trademarks; and the application of the new rules to existing products and claims. The Guidance is not legally binding, and it is possible that some Member States will diverge from the Guidance on limited points. Nevertheless, we expect that most Member State authorities will keep the Guidance in mind when enforcing their greenwashing rules against companies.
In this post, we set out a list of “Dos and Don’ts” for green claims, drawing on some of the key points of the Guidance and the Greenwashing Directive. Businesses should take the time now to carefully review their environmental claims and product packaging to avoid enforcement action, fines and business disruption next year.
Do: Update existing marketing materials and product packaging
The Guidance makes clear that there will be no further transition period for existing claims and packaging after September 27, 2026 that are already in the distribution chain, flagging that:
“From [27 September 2026], traders will need to ensure that their environmental claims and sustainability labels … comply with the new provisions, including for existing products [and] products already in the distribution chain…” (emphasis added)
Nevertheless, the Guidance advises that traders will have “practical options to ensure compliance” for existing product packaging already in the supply chain, such as “covering or correcting claims by stickers or adding supplementary information at the point of sale.” The Guidance also notes that national authorities will “normally investigate, prioritise and sequence enforcement actions according to the gravity of infringements and the specific circumstances of each case.”
Companies should therefore review any environmental claims on existing product packaging and marketing campaigns now, and — prioritizing as necessary — take steps to bring them into compliance.
Don’t: Use trademarks and brand names to make misleading environmental claims
The Guidance flags that company names, brand names, trading names and product names can each constitute environmental claims if they convey an environmental message. Depending on the context, brand names and trademarks may convey an environmental message either explicitly — using terms like “green,” “eco,” “natural,” etc. — or implicitly — considering the other visual elements, product packaging, other marketing elements, etc.
The Guidance advises that each name or trademark must be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, companies should note that intellectual property law does not create a safe haven for misleading environmental claims. The Guidance also warns that Member States may refuse to register a trade name or trademark, and could even invalidate an existing trademark if it conveys a misleading environmental claim.
Do: Consider carefully which communications are in scope
Not all corporate communications are in scope of the green claims rules, but businesses should nevertheless consider carefully which communications may be subject to scrutiny from national authorities.
The Greenwashing Directive’s rules cover two types of commercial practices:
- “Blacklisted” Practices: The Greenwashing Directive prohibits a specific list of commercial practices in all circumstances. For example, the Greenwashing Directive prohibits “carbon neutral” claims about products based on carbon offsets rather than actual reductions of emissions in the value chain. There is no need for an enforcement authority to demonstrate that the claim had any negative impact on a consumer’s decision-making.
- Case-by-Case Assessments: The Greenwashing Directive also provides that other commercial practices and communications can be misleading, depending on the context. Enforcement authorities must carry out a case-by-case assessment — a “transactional decision test” — to determine whether the claim or practice caused, or is likely to cause, average consumers to take transactional decisions that they would not have taken otherwise.
The Guidance emphasizes that the application of the Greenwashing Directive’s new green claims rules “is strictly limited” to business-to-consumer (“B2C”) practices, and that business-to-business (“B2B”) commercial practices fall outside of their scope. The Guidance explains that a B2C commercial practice is any “act, omission, or communication directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to consumers.”
Crucially, the Guidance explains that claims, communications and disclosures made in “corporate sustainability reporting,” including sustainability reports made under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (“CSRD”), are not typically in scope of the green claims rules. The logic behind the exclusion is that these sustainability disclosures “are often mandatory and addressed to investors,” rather than to consumers. However, companies should note that presenting corporate sustainability reporting information in contexts outside of a report can bring the information into scope of the green claims rules. For example, the Guidance flags that “if a company uses information from its sustainability report in voluntary advertising or marketing directed at consumers,” that communication is subject to the green claims rules.
A recent decision of a Spanish court in Iberdrola v. Repsol demonstrates that it may not always be easy to define the precise boundary of the rules. In that case, Repsol argued that some of its environment-related statements were not in scope of the consumer protection and anti-greenwashing rules because it had published them on a corporate, investor-focused website, not on a website or advertisement directed at consumers. Although the Spanish court did not apply the Greenwashing Directive’s new greenwashing rules, it noted, referring to a European Commission’s guidance on the UCPD, that these apparently investor-focussed communications could ultimately influence the economic decisions of consumers by, for example, improving the overall image of the company. Therefore, the Spanish court found that each communication needed to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and did not dismiss any greenwashing allegation based only on the location or apparent category of the communication.
Moreover, green claims made in a B2B context outside of sustainability reporting may also be subject to the scrutiny of national enforcement authorities. First, Member States may extend the scope of the Greenwashing Directive’s new requirements to B2B practices. Second, B2B practices are subject to the national rules transposing the Misleading Advertising Directive, and therefore to the general prohibition on misleading environmental claims. Traders are not free to make any environmental claim in a B2B context.
Don’t: Make a future-focussed claim without independent, expert verification
Many companies make claims about their environmental goals and ambition. For example, a company might claim that it will be “net zero by 2050” or will use “100% recyclable packaging” by 2030. The Greenwashing Directive prohibits environmental claims about the future environmental performance of a product, service or business unless the claim is “supported by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments and targets given by the trader and set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that shows how those commitments and targets will be achieved and that allocates resources to that end.”
The Guidance emphasizes that future-focussed claims must be assessed by a third-party expert, who must be “independent from the trader, free from conflicts of interest, and [must] possess experience and competence in environmental issues.”
Companies should review their future‑focused claims and ambitions and ensure that they have a public plan to reach those ambitions that is verified by a third-party expert, such as a consultant or auditor.
Do: Consider all aspects of your branding to ensure that there are no misleading environmental claims
The Guidance warns that, while many environmental claims are explicit (i.e., set out clearly in text or speech), others are implicit. A company will make an implicit environmental claim if the combination of visual elements (e.g., pictures, symbols, colours), wording (e.g., text or speech) and overall presentation in the commercial context conveys the impression that the product or business has a positive or neutral impact on the environment. These implicit claims are also subject to regulatory scrutiny.
Furthermore, in specific contexts, pictures or symbols may trigger more specific green claims rules. For example, the Guidance warns that displaying “a green leaf or a water drop when combined with logos or positioned next to statements about sustainability or natural ingredients” may be seen by the average consumers as a voluntary sustainability label, which is prohibited unless it is established by public authority or based on a certification scheme.
Whether an implicit environmental claim exists or is misleading must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and every part of the context is relevant. The key question for companies will be whether the overall impression of the marketing campaign or product packaging misleads or is likely to mislead the average consumer about the environmental benefits or characteristics of the product, service or business, and to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise.
Don’t: Use a sustainability label unless it is based on a certification scheme or is established by public authorities
The Greenwashing Directive establishes new requirements for “sustainability labels” i.e., any voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent, not already established by EU law, that aims to set apart and promote a product, a process or a business by reference to its environmental or social characteristics, or both. Companies may only use sustainability labels if they are based on a “certification scheme” or established by public authorities.
The Guidance explains the requirements for a certification scheme in more detail. Among other things, the Guidance makes clear that companies may establish private certification schemes and act as the “scheme owner” as long as an independent and competent third-party verifies and monitors compliance with the scheme, and the scheme and label are open to other traders willing and able to comply on the basis of fair and non-discriminatory terms.
Pol Revert Loosveldt contributed to this post. If you have any questions, please contact the authors.