Why this issue is important now

Communicating green credentials is easy, communicating them without legal risk is considerably more difficult. Since the introduction of EU Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo) and the announced amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Act (UWG) in 2026, marketing teams have been under increased scrutiny. Regulatory bodies, competitors and trade associations are scrutinising sustainability claims with increasing rigour. Potential penalties have a significant impact on the budget: up to 4 per cent of annual turnover at EU level, and in Germany an additional fine of up to 500,000 euros under Section 13 of the UWG.

The good news is that greenwashing follows patterns. Those who recognise these patterns can identify risks at an early stage. This article outlines the seven most common strategies, complete with examples, the legal framework and practical guidance for your own communications.

1. The hidden trade-off

What lies behind it

A product is advertised on the basis of a specific environmental attribute, whilst other, potentially more serious, environmental aspects are concealed. The selection is one-sided: the benefits are highlighted; the drawbacks go unmentioned.

Example

‘Paper from sustainable sources’ sounds positive, but often fails to mention the high energy and water consumption involved in production or the long transport distances. A similar case is a ‘climate-friendly’ car that merely has a fuel-efficient engine, but remains problematic in terms of its manufacture and recycling.

Legal situation

EmpCo Art. 5(1)(a) covers claims relating to a product’s overall environmental performance where only individual aspects are taken into account. The 2026 amendment to the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) incorporates this requirement in Section 5a(6) of the draft amendment to the UWG.

How to spot the pattern

Ask yourself: Which environmental aspects are not mentioned? A one-sided selection is a warning sign. Fill in the missing context or clarify the statement.

2. Lack of evidence (No Proof)

What lies behind this

Environmental claims are made without any evidence being made available. Authorities and consumers are expected to take the claim at face value, verification is not provided for, or is only possible at disproportionate cost.

Example

‘Climate-neutral’ as a label without any reference to certificates, methodology or the basis for calculation. ‘Recyclable packaging’ without specifying what proportion is actually recyclable and under what conditions.

Legal framework

Article 5(1)(b) of the Environmental Claims Regulation (EmpCo) requires that environmental claims be based on scientifically sound and accessible data. Upon request, evidence must be provided within 30 days. Section 5a of the Unfair Commercial Practices Act (UWG) further stipulates that material information must not be withheld.

How to spot this pattern

Check: Can we substantiate the claim with specific data within 30 days? If not: omit it or provide further details.

3. Vague claims

What lies behind them

Terms such as ‘natural’, ‘green’, ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘eco’ without a clear definition. These words sound positive, but have no generally accepted meaning and are difficult to define in legal terms.

Example

“Natural ingredients” without specifying a percentage or defining what “natural” means in this context. “Green production” without specific criteria. “For the environment” as a marketing claim without reference to a measurable characteristic.

Legal situation

Article 5(1)(d) of the EmpCo covers non-specific environmental claims that do not refer to specific environmental performance. The amendment to the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) incorporates this prohibition. General terms are only permissible if the context clearly indicates what they refer to.

How to spot the pattern

Test: Can the statement be replaced by a specific figure, certification or date? If not, it is probably too vague.

4. Irrelevant claims

What lies behind this

Statements that are true but meaningless because they merely comply with legal requirements or do not provide any competitive advantage. The impression of exceptional environmental performance is created without there actually being any.

Example

“CFC-free”, CFCs have been banned for decades. “BPA-free” for products in which BPA is not authorised in the first place. “Phosphate-free” for washing powders that have long been prohibited from containing phosphates.

Legal situation

Article 5(1)(e) of the EmpCo covers claims relating to characteristics that are already required by law. The claim is not false, but it is misleading within the meaning of Section 5a of the UWG, because it suggests a level of performance that goes beyond legal requirements.

How to spot the pattern

Comparison: Is the characteristic a legal standard? If so, it is not an environmental benefit worth communicating.

Interim question: Where does your company stand on this?

After examining four of the seven strategies, it becomes clear: greenwashing rarely happens intentionally; it is usually the result of unintentional patterns in communication. Check now whether your website contains these patterns.

On to Strategy 5:

5. The lesser of two evils

What’s behind it

Comparisons within an already problematic product category. The sustainability claim may be technically correct, but the question of whether the product makes sense is left aside.

Example

“Organic cigarettes” are still cigarettes. “Sustainable” flight tickets offset emissions, but do nothing to address the fundamental CO₂ problem associated with flying. A “green” SUV remains a heavy vehicle with high fuel consumption.

Legal framework

Article 5(1)(g) of the EmpCo covers claims that give the impression a product has a more favourable environmental impact than comparable products, where this is based on a partial assessment. Section 5a of the UWG requires transparency regarding the basis for comparison.

How to spot the pattern

Question: Are we comparing within a category that is already problematic? If so: make the context clear or omit the comparison.

6. Misleading labels

What lies behind this

Self-created quality labels that give the impression of independent certification without any genuine third-party verification having taken place. The label looks official, but it is simply a marketing ploy.

Example

A “Green Company Award” awarded by the company itself. An in-house “Certified Sustainable” logo with no disclosed criteria. A seal with a design similar to established labels (Blue Angel, EU Ecolabel), but without the same level of scrutiny.

Legal situation

Article 5(1)(f) of the EmpCo covers certification schemes that are not carried out by independent third parties. The amendment to the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) tightens this up: self-awarded seals must be recognisable as such.

How to spot the pattern

Check: Who awards the seal? What criteria underpin it? Is the assessment independent? If not: label it as ‘in-house’ or omit it.

7. Imagery

What lies behind it

Green colours, images of nature and ecological symbols suggest sustainability without making a specific claim. Images often have a stronger impact than words, and are therefore particularly risky.

Example

Product photos set against a backdrop of unspoilt nature, even though the product has no environmental connection. Green leaf icons on packaging with no basis in the product’s actual content. Forests and rivers featured in a promotional video for a service with no environmental connection.

Legal situation

Section 5(1)(d) of the German Unfair Competition Act (EmpCo) also covers visual representations that suggest environmental claims. Section 5a of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG) focuses on the overall impression, marketing using green imagery can be misleading, even if every individual statement is correct in its own right.

How to spot the pattern

Image test: What impression does the image convey without text? If the impression is ‘environmentally friendly’ but the text makes no specific statement to that effect: replace the image or add a statement.

Conclusion: Systematic checks rather than gut feeling

Detecting greenwashing does not rely on intuition, but on a systematic review of the terms, evidence and images used. The seven patterns described here cover the most common pitfalls, however, they are no substitute for a case-by-case assessment by subject matter experts.

Anyone wishing to minimise communication risks should regularly check: What claims are we making? Can they be substantiated? Are the images and text consistent? Are the comparisons fair? Are the certification marks independent?

Frequently asked questions

How much does a cease-and-desist notice for greenwashing cost?

In Germany, the costs vary considerably. A formal warning from a solicitor typically costs between 500 and 2,500 euros, but can be significantly higher in complex cases. Added to this are potential injunctions and contractual penalties in the event of a repeat offence.

Who can be served with a warning under the EmpCo?

Under the current Unfair Competition Act (UWG): competitors, trade associations and consumer organisations. With the 2026 amendment to the UWG, the range of entities entitled to take action will be expanded. Public authorities will also be able to intervene directly.

How quickly must I respond?

When you receive a warning letter, every day counts. Claims for an injunction arise from the moment you become aware of the issue. Interim injunctions can be granted within a matter of days.

Is it worth taking out insurance for such cases?

Media liability insurance or specialist cyber insurance can cover communication risks. Before taking out a policy, check whether greenwashing risks are included in the scope of cover, not all policies cover this automatically.