EmpCo makes clear statements in support of green causes

When the green promise becomes too big 

Greenwashing begins when the green promise exceeds the actual environmental performance. This does not require a deliberately fabricated story. Even imprecise wording or a single benefit that makes the entire product appear better can create a misleading impression.

A study by the European Consumer Protection Network (CPC) shows just
how widespread problematic claims are. Of 344 environmental claims selected as dubious, more than half lacked sufficient information to assess their accuracy. 37 per cent contained vague terms such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘sustainable’. The European Commission published the findings in 2020. They were one of the reasons for addressing the issue of ‘green’ communication. 

EmpCo sets out guidelines for sustainability communication 

EmpCo stands for ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition’. In Germany, the guidelines on environmental advertising are enshrined in the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). The guidelines are intended to enable consumers to make more informed purchasing decisions. Among other things, they cover claims regarding environmental and climate benefits (‘resource-efficient’, ‘environmentally friendly’) as well as sustainability labels. In addition, there are requirements concerning, for example, the durability and reparability of products.

Communication with customers and consumers is
crucial. It is the overall impression that counts. Images, symbols, product names and logos can also convey an environmental message. A green leaf next to a product name therefore deserves just as much attention as the text below it. 

What exactly is regulated 

These five points are particularly relevant to communication practice. 

1. General environmental claims require a sound basis. Terms such as ‘green’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ are not permitted without verifiable, recognised outstanding environmental performance. The EU Ecolabel or the Blue Angel, for example, may be used for this purpose, provided their criteria cover the relevant claim. A clear, highlighted specification on the same medium can turn a general statement into a specific one. This must still be accurate and verifiable. 
    
2. Sustainability labels require reliable monitoring. Labels based on a certification system that meets legal requirements, or those established by government bodies, are permissible. A self-designed sustainability label, the criteria for which are controlled solely by the company, is not sufficient.  
    
3. A partial benefit must not be taken to represent the whole. If, for example, only the packaging is made from recycled material, this must also be made clear. ‘Packaging made from 80 per cent recycled plastic’ describes the benefit much more precisely than an unqualified ‘80 per cent recycled’ on the product. 
    
4. Offsetting does not make a product ‘climate-neutral’. Product-related claims regarding neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse gas impacts are prohibited if they are based on the offsetting of emissions. This applies, for example, to a product advertised as ‘climate-neutral’ whose emissions are offset through the purchase of certificates. 
    
5. Legal obligations do not constitute a special feature. Requirements that apply to all products in a category on the EU market must not be highlighted as a distinctive feature of one’s own offering. 
    

Promises for the future also warrant attention. Anyone advertising a future climate target, for instance, must have clear and verifiable commitments as well as a detailed, realistic implementation plan. This also includes regular review by independent experts. 

What businesses should be doing now 

The first step is to take stock. What environmental and sustainability claims can be found on the website, in campaigns, on packaging or on social media? Reports and any advertising claims taken from them should also be included on the checklist. Sustainability-related advertising claims take priority.

The next step is to cross-check each relevant statement against its supporting evidence. What exactly does it refer to? What data or evidence is available? Does this actually cover the full scope of the claim? Depending on the outcome, a statement can be made more specific, supplemented with appropriate information, or it may need to be removed.

To avoid having to go through the same questions all over again with every publication, clear responsibilities and approval processes are helpful. Marketing and sustainability management should document the supporting evidence alongside the texts and seek legal expertise in cases of doubt. Training sessions and a communication guide facilitate day-to-day implementation. 

The potential consequences of infringements 

Competitors and eligible trade associations may take action against unauthorised statements. This may result in warning letters and injunctions, which entail costs and the need for changes at short notice. Anyone who subsequently breaches a declaration of discontinuance subject to a penalty clause also risks contractual penalties.

Under certain circumstances, substantial fines may also be imposed. In the case of certain widespread cross-border infringements, these fines may amount to up to four per cent of the relevant annual turnover as part of coordinated regulatory action. This refers to turnover in the EU Member States concerned. This upper limit therefore does not automatically apply to every inaccurate environmental claim.  

Furthermore, claims suspected of being greenwashing can lead to reputational damage.