Teaser: Greenwashing is the practice of making products, services or entire companies appear more environmentally friendly than they actually are by making unfounded or misleading environmental claims. From 27 September 2026, six new ‘blacklist’ categories will apply across the EU, expressly prohibiting typical greenwashing practices. We explain the term, its origins, the different types and the current legal situation.

Greenwashing: The definition

Greenwashing refers to misleading communication by a company aimed at portraying products, services, business practices or the entire organisation as more environmentally friendly, sustainable or climate-friendly in the eyes of customers and the public than they actually are.

The term is a combination of ‘green’ (meaning ‘green’, ‘ecological’) and ‘whitewashing’ (to gloss over, to cover up). Synonyms include: eco-fraud, greenwashing, and green make-up. Under German competition law, greenwashing is classified as a specific type of misleading commercial practice under Section 5 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) or as a breach of the ‘blacklist’ set out in the Annex to Section 3(3) of the UWG.

Three defining characteristics

For a communication to qualify as greenwashing in the legal sense, three elements must be present:

1. Environmental claim: The statement refers, either explicitly or implicitly, to the environmental impact, sustainability, climate relevance or ecological characteristics of a product or company.
2. Commercial act: The statement is made in the course of trade for the purpose of selling or promoting products or services (Section 2(1)(2) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG)).
3. Potential to mislead: The statement is capable of significantly influencing a consumer’s commercial decision, for example, through inaccurate, incomplete, unfounded or incomprehensible claims.

Where does the term come from?

The origin of the term can be traced back to the 1980s. The American environmentalist Jay Westerveld coined it in 1986 in an essay on hotel towels: Hotels urged guests to reuse towels, ostensibly to protect the environment, whilst at the same time operating energy-intensive laundry facilities and wasting resources elsewhere. The ‘ecological’ message served merely to cut costs.

Since then, the term has become established worldwide. In 1992, the environmental organisation Greenpeace published the report ‘The Greenpeace Book of Greenwashing’, which documented the systematic nature of the practice for the first time. In 2007, the Canadian researchers at TerraChoice added to this with the ‘Seven Sins of Greenwashing’, a catalogue of typical greenwashing patterns that still serves as a frame of reference today.

Greenwashing becomes a legal term

With EU Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo), greenwashing has, for the first time, been standardised under EU law as an umbrella term for specifically defined misleading practices. The blacklist under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) was expanded to include six new categories of conduct, which declare typical greenwashing practices to be unfair in all circumstances, and therefore always prohibited. The German implementation took place through the amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Act (UWG) of 19 February 2026 (Federal Law Gazette 2026 I No. 43).

The seven classic types of greenwashing

In 2007, TerraChoice classified seven typical patterns. These remain relevant in 2026, but can now be categorised under the new blacklist offences:

1. Hidden trade-offs

A product is advertised as ‘green’ even though only one aspect of it is environmentally friendly, for example, ‘paper from sustainably managed forests’, without mentioning energy consumption, the use of chemicals or transport emissions during production. Legal equivalent in 2026: Annex No. 4b (misleading scope).

2. No Proof (No evidence)

Environmental claims without verifiable evidence: “Manufactured in an environmentally friendly manner”, “produced in a climate-neutral way”, without certification, studies or measurement data. Legal equivalent 2026: Annex No. 4a (general environmental claim without recognised outstanding environmental performance).

3. Vagueness (Ambiguity)

Vague terms such as “green”, “natural”, “eco”, which are not legally defined and therefore allow for virtually any claim. Legal equivalent in 2026: Annex No. 4a.

4. Worshipping False Labels (False Labels)

Proprietary, in-house “environmental labels” without external accreditation suggest independence and verification. Legal equivalent in 2026: Annex No. 2a (sustainability labels without a certification system or state recognition).

5. Irrelevance

Environmental claims regarding characteristics that are already a matter of course or required by law: ‘CFC-free’, even though CFCs have been banned for decades. Legal equivalent in 2026: Annex No. 10a (statutory standards as a special feature).

6. Lesser of Two Evils

A product is advertised as environmentally friendly, even though the product category itself is harmful to the environment, for example, ‘eco-friendly cigarettes’. Legal equivalent in 2026: Partial coverage under Section 5(3)(3) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) (irrelevant advantages).

7. Fibbing (Lying)

Completely fabricated environmental claims, such as fictitious certificates or made-up figures. Legal basis in 2026: Section 5(1) of the UWG (general misleading advertising), alongside possible criminal liability under Section 16 of the UWG.

Typical greenwashing practices in practice

Beyond the academic classification, recurring patterns emerge in practice:

Climate-neutral claims

The most common greenwashing practice in recent years. Companies advertise products as ‘climate-neutral’ or ‘certified CO₂-neutral’, citing offsetting, that is, funding climate protection projects somewhere in the world, rather than reducing their own emissions. From 27 September 2026, this practice will be expressly prohibited (Annex 4c).

Vague “eco” and “green” wording

Words such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘natural’, ‘green’, ‘eco’, ‘climate-friendly’ and ‘biodegradable’ are used without any specific details. EmpCo classifies these as general environmental claims, which are only permissible if the product can demonstrate recognised outstanding environmental performance (Annex 4a).

Self-designed sustainability labels

Companies are creating their own labels such as ‘Green Pro’, ‘Eco Choice’ and ‘Sustainable Verified’, without any independent body verifying what these claims actually entail. Annex 2a expressly prohibits such labels from 27 September 2026.

Misleading imagery

Green leaves, unspoilt natural landscapes, happy animals, visual elements can also constitute greenwashing if they suggest environmental sustainability that does not exist. Visual imagery falls under the general assessment of misleading advertising under Section 5 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

Withholding essential information

A product is advertised as ‘free from [substance]’, even though that substance is banned anyway. Or a manufacturer may state the proportion of recycled material in the packaging, but fail to mention that the product itself is not recyclable. Relevant: Annex No. 10a and Annex No. 23d a–g (obsolescence).

Legal situation in 2026: What applies now?

The legal situation has changed fundamentally as of 19 February 2026 (promulgation of the amendment to the Unfair Commercial Practices Act) and 27 September 2026 (date of application). A distinction must be made between three levels:

1. EU law: the EmpCo Directive

Directive (EU) 2024/825 obliges all EU Member States to prohibit typical greenwashing practices via the UCPD’s blacklist. The Directive has been in force since 26 March 2024; the date of application is 27 September 2026.

2. National law: the 2026 amendment to the UWG

Germany has implemented the EmpCo through the Act amending the UWG, the Act on Injunctions and the Consumer Protection Act of 19 February 2026. The new offences are set out in the Annex to Section 3(3) of the UWG and are directly applicable by German courts.

3. Sanctions: Fines of up to 4% of EU turnover

Violations of a ‘blacklist’ offence are subject to substantial sanctions (Section 19 of the UWG, as amended):

Some other EU countries have stricter rules: France stipulates up to 10 per cent of global annual turnover.

What does this mean for businesses?

The question “What is greenwashing?” can be answered precisely for the first time in 2026: any environmental claim that meets one of the six blacklist criteria is, by definition, greenwashing, regardless of intent and regardless of the individual case.

In practical terms, this means:

• Remove general claims: ‘Environmentally friendly’, ‘green’ and ‘eco’ without a recognised certification mark are out, replace them with specific statements backed by evidence.
• Revise climate-neutral claims: Either substantiate them on a life-cycle basis or remove them. “Through offsetting” will be prohibited from 27 September 2026.
• Replace your own labels: Use ISO 17065-certified systems or government-issued labels.
• Check scope: Clarify that claims are limited to specific aspects if they do not apply to the entire product.
• Establish documentation: File evidence for each claim centrally and in an audit-proof manner.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is greenwashing a criminal offence?

Greenwashing may result in civil law consequences (injunctions, damages), administrative law consequences (fines of up to 4 per cent of annual EU turnover) and, in cases of outright deception, also criminal law consequences (Section 16 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG)). However, the offences defined under the EmpCo are classified as administrative offences, not criminal offences.