Twelve examples from advertising, packaging and business communications. Explore common risks, more specific wording and the evidence businesses should review before publishing.
A statement such as “eco-friendly” leaves its scope open. Clear details about material, boundaries, period and methodology can make a claim easier to understand. Even accurate percentages and labels, however, can mislead when important qualifications are omitted.
Which environmental characteristic is claimed?
Product, packaging, site or whole business?
Do current and relevant data support the wording?
Filter by topic or browse every example. Each card identifies a potential issue, possible more specific wording and what would need to be verified.
Examples shown: 12 / 12
“Our packaging is environmentally friendly.”
“Our outer packaging contains 80% recycled paper by weight, excluding the label.”
Define the material, calculation boundary, percentage, batch information and supplier records.
Use the specific wording only if the data actually support it. A single fact is not a complete assessment of environmental impacts.
“This bottle is made from 100% recycled plastic.”
“The bottle body is made from 100% recycled PET; cap and label are excluded.”
Component boundaries, recycled content for the bottle body and material provenance documents.
Do not imply that the entire bottle is recycled if the claim applies to one component.
“Our packaging is fully recyclable.”
“The cardboard sleeve is suitable for the paper recycling stream; the coating and closure require separate guidance.”
Material composition, collection and sorting pathways, technical recycling feasibility and relevant markets.
Recyclability and recycled content are different properties. Consider actual local disposal options.
“This product is climate neutral because we offset its emissions.”
“We finance an external climate project. We do not describe the product itself as climate neutral on that basis.”
Claim wording and overall impression, project records and the distinction between product impacts and voluntary investments.
Offset-based product climate-neutrality claims fall within a specific EmpCo prohibition. A footnote does not fix the prohibited product claim.
“30% less carbon than before.”
“Our site A direct (Scope 1) emissions fell by 30% in 2025 compared with 2022, using a consistent accounting boundary.”
Emission categories, site, base year, methodology changes, inventory boundaries and calculations.
A reduction at one site does not prove that the entire product footprint has fallen.
“Our business runs on 100% green electricity.”
“For site A, certificates matching the full annual electricity consumption were procured for 2025.”
Site and period, energy consumption, certificate coverage and the distinction between physical and market-based electricity claims.
Certificates do not automatically demonstrate continuous physical renewable supply at every site.
“This packaging is biodegradable.”
“Under the specified industrial composting test conditions, this film met the criteria documented in test report X.”
Test standard, conditions, time frame, packaging components and available processing infrastructure.
Industrial compostability does not mean the material breaks down in nature or in a home compost bin.
“100% plastic-free!”
“The external cardboard package contains no plastic according to its material specification; the product and inner pouch are excluded.”
Whether the claim concerns packaging or product, full material bill and applicable definitions.
Avoid an overall plastic-free impression if other components contain plastic.
“Officially certified sustainable.”
“This product meets the published criteria of scheme X for property Y; the certification scope is linked.”
Scheme owner, independence, public criteria, validity period and which products or features are covered.
A business-created marketing badge is not automatically a permissible sustainability label under EmpCo.
“We will be fully climate neutral by 2030.”
“We aim to cut absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by X% by 2030 against 2023; our implementation plan and progress are published.”
Publicly accessible implementation plan, measurable targets, resources, monitoring and appropriate independent review.
Future-performance claims face specific requirements. Do not present an ambition as an achieved outcome.
“This product saves 40% of your water.”
“In a standardised test, model B used 40% less water per cycle than model A under the stated conditions.”
Test method, reference model, operating conditions, measurement uncertainty and update date.
Laboratory results do not automatically describe actual usage in every household.
“We are a green company.”
“Our site B reduced energy consumption per unit of output by 15% between 2022 and 2025.”
Site boundary, production volumes, consumption data and changes in business activity.
One environmental improvement does not automatically support a positive claim about the entire company.
An effective approval process works back from the wording to the evidence. For consumer-facing environmental claims, these five questions help structure the review.
Does the claim concern the product, one packaging component, a site or the whole company?
What is actually claimed: recycled content, emissions, recyclability, electricity sourcing or future targets?
Which data, standards, calculations or reports substantiate it? Are they recent and relevant?
Are baseline dates, exclusions, conditions of use, geographical limits or component details missing?
Do text, images, colours, labels, footnotes and placement align – or imply more than the facts support?
Since 27 September 2026 the new rules on consumer information and misleading environmental communications apply. They address, among other things, certain generic claims, product climate neutrality claims based on offsetting, and sustainability labels that do not meet the prescribed conditions.
The separate proposal on substantiating and communicating explicit environmental claims is still pending. It does not currently impose a general new statutory pre-certification requirement for every green claim.
National implementation, product-specific law, the intended audience and the overall presentation can affect how a claim must be assessed. Specific language alone is no substitute for evidence.
No. Even a mathematically correct percentage can mislead if the baseline, time frame, product scope or important exclusions are concealed.
EmpCo specifically prohibits certain claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact on the basis of emissions offsetting. More credits do not cure that type of product claim.
No. EmpCo does not impose a blanket external certification rule for every environmental claim. Sustainability labels are subject to specific requirements, and sector-specific rules may apply.
Not necessarily. The overall message must not mislead. Material qualifications should be clear and understandable rather than hidden away.
Keep the wording and layout, the product or business scope, source data, method, calculation, review date, approvals and scheduled rechecks.
Yes. Environmental claims may also be conveyed through graphics or symbols. The impression made by the communication as a whole matters.
Information last reviewed: 14 October 2026. General guidance only; not legal advice or approval of any specific marketing campaign.
Use the checklist and assemble supporting evidence before publishing your next environmental marketing message.