Best practices
Greenwashing: 6 green claim mistakes to avoid
Key takeaways
The EU now bans generic eco terms and product climate neutrality claims based on offsets.
Regulators in the UK and US are cracking down on vague or exaggerated sustainability messages.
Common errors include generic labels, offset-based neutrality, and future targets presented as facts.
Devera, the AI-powered platform for measuring product footprints, helps brands back up their green claims with Life Cycle Assessment data.
Green claims are under the spotlight in 2025. New regulations in Europe, the UK and beyond are forcing companies to prove their sustainability statements with reliable data, not just creative marketing. Mistakes are costly, both in fines and lost consumer trust. To stay ahead, brands need to know which claims regulators now see as misleading and how to communicate responsibly.
What changed in the EU, UK and US
In Europe, the Empowering Consumers Directive entered into force in 2024. It bans vague environmental language such as “eco friendly” or “sustainable” unless it is backed by verifiable evidence. It also prohibits product-level claims like “climate neutral” when they rely on offsets rather than real reductions.
The UK has taken a similar route. From April 2025, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) can fine companies up to 10 % of their global turnover for misleading claims (CMA guidance). On top of this, the Financial Conduct Authority has applied its anti-greenwashing rule, requiring all sustainability claims in financial products to be fair, clear and not misleading.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is finalizing updates to its Green Guides, which already set expectations around recyclable, compostable and carbon neutral language. Enforcement actions have been increasing, so brands should not wait for the update to tighten their standards.
Read about the EU Green Claims Directive here.
Six common mistakes in green claims
1. Using generic terms without proof
Terms like eco friendly or sustainable have become red flags. Regulators now expect specificity, measurable evidence and references to recognized standards such as the EU Ecolabel. Instead of “eco friendly packaging,” a stronger claim is “this mailer reduces plastic use by 62 % compared to our 2022 design, verified with a Product Environmental Footprint study.”
2. Claiming carbon neutrality based on offsets
Carbon offsets no longer shield brands from scrutiny. In the EU, products cannot be marketed as climate neutral if neutrality comes from offset projects outside the supply chain. The focus must shift to measurable life cycle reductions. Devera supports this by automating product-level carbon footprint analysis across raw materials, packaging, manufacturing, transport and end of life.
3. Making whole-company claims based on partial actions
If only one region of operations runs on renewables, saying “our company is powered by renewable energy” is misleading. Claims should be scoped clearly. A compliant version would be “our European production sites are powered by 100 % renewable PPAs, audited under GHG Protocol Scope 2 dual reporting.”
4. Comparative claims without consistent data
Statements like “30 % greener than competitors” require consistent functional units and lifecycle boundaries. Comparisons must be cradle-to-cradle or cradle-to-gate, not cherry-picked. Using harmonized frameworks such as ISO 14040 or the EU’s Product Environmental Footprint gives credibility.
5. Using unverified or private eco labels
DIY green logos or seals without third-party verification are banned under EU rules. Companies must either use accredited ecolabels or provide transparent, auditable claims. With Devera’s sustainability score and seal, brands can show reliable data directly on e-commerce product pages.
6. Presenting future targets as achieved results
Ambitious targets matter, but regulators expect a clear distinction between current performance and future goals. Saying “we reduced Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36 percent since 2021 and target net zero by 2040” is compliant. Claiming “we are net zero” without disclosure is misleading.
How to get claims right
The safest way to build trust is to rely on measurable product data. That means adopting life cycle approaches, reporting both location and market-based emissions, and updating claims regularly. For instance, the GHG Protocol recommends dual reporting for electricity use, helping brands avoid overstating renewable impacts.
Platforms like Devera make this process easier. Devera automates carbon data collection, applies standards such as ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol, and generates transparent reports. What used to take consultants months can now be achieved in hours, allowing companies to both comply with regulation and strengthen consumer trust.
By integrating these insights into e-commerce through widgets and sustainability seals, brands can show transparency in real time, support their marketing with data, and grow conversion rates while avoiding greenwashing risks.
Quick compliance checklist for claim copy
Before publishing any sustainability statement, check that it meets these criteria:
☐ Be precise about what the claim covers, whether it is a product, packaging, facility or the whole company.
☐ Define the boundaries and unit of measurement, for example cradle-to-gate CO₂e per kilogram
☐ Cite the methodology used, such as ISO 14067, GHG Protocol Product Standard, or EU Product Environmental Footprint.
☐ Include the timeframe and baseline, so readers know which year’s data the claim refers to.
☐ Provide dual reporting for energy use, both location-based and market-based.
☐ Use only verified certifications or ecolabels, never create your own.
☐ Avoid neutrality claims based on offsets, focus instead on measured reductions.
This simple checklist helps ensure copywriters, sustainability teams and legal reviewers align on language that can withstand regulatory scrutiny.
For more information check the 12 best ways to avoid greenwashing.
Examples, weak claim to compliant claim
Sometimes the difference between a misleading claim and a compliant one is in the details. Here are some practical rewrites:
Packaging
Weak: “Eco friendly packaging.”
Better: “This mailer reduces plastic by 62 % compared to our 2022 design, verified using Product Environmental Footprint methodology.”
Energy use
Weak: “100 % green power.”
Better: “In 2024, our European plants purchased 100 % renewable electricity under bundled PPAs, market-based emissions were 0 tCO₂e and location-based emissions were 13,200 tCO₂e.”
Fashion
Weak: “Sustainable denim.”
Better: “This denim fabric contains 40 % mechanically recycled cotton, with dyeing processes that reduce water use by 31 % compared to 2023, verified by an independent auditor.”
Corporate climate claim
Weak: “We are carbon neutral.”
Better: “We have reduced Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36 % since 2021 and target net zero by 2040 under the Science Based Targets initiative. Any residual emissions will be neutralised with high-durability removals at that point.”
Discover the latest greenwashing lawsuits and what they mean for brands
Final thoughts
Greenwashing enforcement is no longer a distant threat. Regulators are empowered, consumers are informed, and brands that misuse sustainability language risk fines and reputational damage. The way forward is not to avoid green claims but to make them precise, data-driven and transparent.
Devera helps companies navigate this new era with confidence. By combining AI-powered Life Cycle Assessment, benchmark comparisons and e-commerce integrations, Devera enables brands to decode their product footprint, decide the right actions, and decarbonize effectively.
FAQ on green claims
Can I still say a product is recyclable?
Yes, but specify conditions, for example “100 % recyclable where facilities exist,” and document the supporting evidence.
What about carbon offsets?
Offsets can be communicated, but not as an intrinsic property of the product. A compliant claim would be “we invest in reforestation projects in addition to reducing our product emissions.”
How specific do comparative claims need to be?
Comparisons must use consistent functional units and lifecycle scope, for example CO₂e per kilogram, cradle-to-gate.
Can I talk about future targets?Yes, but make sure they are time bound and transparent. State the baseline, the target year, and the standard you follow, such as the Science Based Targets initiative.
Key takeaways
The EU now bans generic eco terms and product climate neutrality claims based on offsets.
Regulators in the UK and US are cracking down on vague or exaggerated sustainability messages.
Common errors include generic labels, offset-based neutrality, and future targets presented as facts.
Devera, the AI-powered platform for measuring product footprints, helps brands back up their green claims with Life Cycle Assessment data.
Green claims are under the spotlight in 2025. New regulations in Europe, the UK and beyond are forcing companies to prove their sustainability statements with reliable data, not just creative marketing. Mistakes are costly, both in fines and lost consumer trust. To stay ahead, brands need to know which claims regulators now see as misleading and how to communicate responsibly.
What changed in the EU, UK and US
In Europe, the Empowering Consumers Directive entered into force in 2024. It bans vague environmental language such as “eco friendly” or “sustainable” unless it is backed by verifiable evidence. It also prohibits product-level claims like “climate neutral” when they rely on offsets rather than real reductions.
The UK has taken a similar route. From April 2025, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) can fine companies up to 10 % of their global turnover for misleading claims (CMA guidance). On top of this, the Financial Conduct Authority has applied its anti-greenwashing rule, requiring all sustainability claims in financial products to be fair, clear and not misleading.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission is finalizing updates to its Green Guides, which already set expectations around recyclable, compostable and carbon neutral language. Enforcement actions have been increasing, so brands should not wait for the update to tighten their standards.
Read about the EU Green Claims Directive here.
Six common mistakes in green claims
1. Using generic terms without proof
Terms like eco friendly or sustainable have become red flags. Regulators now expect specificity, measurable evidence and references to recognized standards such as the EU Ecolabel. Instead of “eco friendly packaging,” a stronger claim is “this mailer reduces plastic use by 62 % compared to our 2022 design, verified with a Product Environmental Footprint study.”
2. Claiming carbon neutrality based on offsets
Carbon offsets no longer shield brands from scrutiny. In the EU, products cannot be marketed as climate neutral if neutrality comes from offset projects outside the supply chain. The focus must shift to measurable life cycle reductions. Devera supports this by automating product-level carbon footprint analysis across raw materials, packaging, manufacturing, transport and end of life.
3. Making whole-company claims based on partial actions
If only one region of operations runs on renewables, saying “our company is powered by renewable energy” is misleading. Claims should be scoped clearly. A compliant version would be “our European production sites are powered by 100 % renewable PPAs, audited under GHG Protocol Scope 2 dual reporting.”
4. Comparative claims without consistent data
Statements like “30 % greener than competitors” require consistent functional units and lifecycle boundaries. Comparisons must be cradle-to-cradle or cradle-to-gate, not cherry-picked. Using harmonized frameworks such as ISO 14040 or the EU’s Product Environmental Footprint gives credibility.
5. Using unverified or private eco labels
DIY green logos or seals without third-party verification are banned under EU rules. Companies must either use accredited ecolabels or provide transparent, auditable claims. With Devera’s sustainability score and seal, brands can show reliable data directly on e-commerce product pages.
6. Presenting future targets as achieved results
Ambitious targets matter, but regulators expect a clear distinction between current performance and future goals. Saying “we reduced Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36 percent since 2021 and target net zero by 2040” is compliant. Claiming “we are net zero” without disclosure is misleading.
How to get claims right
The safest way to build trust is to rely on measurable product data. That means adopting life cycle approaches, reporting both location and market-based emissions, and updating claims regularly. For instance, the GHG Protocol recommends dual reporting for electricity use, helping brands avoid overstating renewable impacts.
Platforms like Devera make this process easier. Devera automates carbon data collection, applies standards such as ISO 14067 and the GHG Protocol, and generates transparent reports. What used to take consultants months can now be achieved in hours, allowing companies to both comply with regulation and strengthen consumer trust.
By integrating these insights into e-commerce through widgets and sustainability seals, brands can show transparency in real time, support their marketing with data, and grow conversion rates while avoiding greenwashing risks.
Quick compliance checklist for claim copy
Before publishing any sustainability statement, check that it meets these criteria:
☐ Be precise about what the claim covers, whether it is a product, packaging, facility or the whole company.
☐ Define the boundaries and unit of measurement, for example cradle-to-gate CO₂e per kilogram
☐ Cite the methodology used, such as ISO 14067, GHG Protocol Product Standard, or EU Product Environmental Footprint.
☐ Include the timeframe and baseline, so readers know which year’s data the claim refers to.
☐ Provide dual reporting for energy use, both location-based and market-based.
☐ Use only verified certifications or ecolabels, never create your own.
☐ Avoid neutrality claims based on offsets, focus instead on measured reductions.
This simple checklist helps ensure copywriters, sustainability teams and legal reviewers align on language that can withstand regulatory scrutiny.
For more information check the 12 best ways to avoid greenwashing.
Examples, weak claim to compliant claim
Sometimes the difference between a misleading claim and a compliant one is in the details. Here are some practical rewrites:
Packaging
Weak: “Eco friendly packaging.”
Better: “This mailer reduces plastic by 62 % compared to our 2022 design, verified using Product Environmental Footprint methodology.”
Energy use
Weak: “100 % green power.”
Better: “In 2024, our European plants purchased 100 % renewable electricity under bundled PPAs, market-based emissions were 0 tCO₂e and location-based emissions were 13,200 tCO₂e.”
Fashion
Weak: “Sustainable denim.”
Better: “This denim fabric contains 40 % mechanically recycled cotton, with dyeing processes that reduce water use by 31 % compared to 2023, verified by an independent auditor.”
Corporate climate claim
Weak: “We are carbon neutral.”
Better: “We have reduced Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 36 % since 2021 and target net zero by 2040 under the Science Based Targets initiative. Any residual emissions will be neutralised with high-durability removals at that point.”
Discover the latest greenwashing lawsuits and what they mean for brands
Final thoughts
Greenwashing enforcement is no longer a distant threat. Regulators are empowered, consumers are informed, and brands that misuse sustainability language risk fines and reputational damage. The way forward is not to avoid green claims but to make them precise, data-driven and transparent.
Devera helps companies navigate this new era with confidence. By combining AI-powered Life Cycle Assessment, benchmark comparisons and e-commerce integrations, Devera enables brands to decode their product footprint, decide the right actions, and decarbonize effectively.
FAQ on green claims
Can I still say a product is recyclable?
Yes, but specify conditions, for example “100 % recyclable where facilities exist,” and document the supporting evidence.
What about carbon offsets?
Offsets can be communicated, but not as an intrinsic property of the product. A compliant claim would be “we invest in reforestation projects in addition to reducing our product emissions.”
How specific do comparative claims need to be?
Comparisons must use consistent functional units and lifecycle scope, for example CO₂e per kilogram, cradle-to-gate.
Can I talk about future targets?Yes, but make sure they are time bound and transparent. State the baseline, the target year, and the standard you follow, such as the Science Based Targets initiative.