Formulating green claims legally: permitted vs. banned statements

Banned are generic, unsubstantiated environmental claims such as “climate-neutral”, “green”, “sustainable”, “eco-friendly”, “eco” or “biodegradable” where no recognised, verifiable proof exists. Also prohibited: climate-neutrality claims based on carbon offsetting, sustainability labels without independent certification, and promises about future environmental performance without verifiable, public interim targets.

Inverted, this yields the formula for legally sound green claims: name a concrete, clearly delimited property, secure the evidence beforehand, and explain the claim in the advertising itself. For “climate-neutral”, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has already ruled that the term may only be used if it is clearly explained in the advertising itself – from 2026 this line becomes the rule for all environmental communication.

Important for the workflow: evidence must be in place before the claim goes online – not only once a competitor sends a warning letter.

The comparison below shows the pattern: on the left, the generic formulation that is impermissible without proof from 27 Sep 2026 – on the right, the specific, provable alternative. The right-hand examples are formulation patterns; whether they are permissible in an individual case depends on the respective evidence actually existing.

These six questions catch the most common violations before they go live:

• •Is the term generic? “Sustainable”, “green”, “eco”, “eco-friendly” without a concrete reference are the first attack surface from 2026 – the full list of terms shows which words are affected.
• •Does the evidence exist – now, not later? Proof must be in place before publication.
• •Does the claim refer to the whole product or only one aspect? What applies only to the packaging must not sound like a product property.
• •Is a climate claim based on reduction or on offsetting? From 2026, offsetting no longer suffices as the sole basis of environmental advertising.
• •Is every label used independently certified or officially established? Own labels without third-party verification must be removed.
• •Is the central term explained in the advertising itself? For “climate-neutral” the BGH explicitly requires this.

Regardless of the legal situation, generic green claims have an effectiveness problem: the audience no longer believes them. In r/ZeroWaste, over 530 commenters discuss why the sustainability community fundamentally distrusts manufacturer claims. In r/BeautyGuruChatter, the top comment on “Do you trust the claims beauty brands make?” puts it plainly: “‘Clean’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ are not regulated terms.” And in r/sustainability, the thread “Brands who claim to be special because they’re sustainable” (40+ comments) dissects exactly the arbitrariness that EmpCo now bans.

For marketing teams the regulation is therefore also an opportunity: from 2026, a specific, substantiated claim differs from the competitor’s generic one not only legally – it is the only format the sceptical audience still listens to.

Two points deserve particular attention in the formulation workflow. First, labels: from 2026, sustainability labels are only permissible if they are based on a recognised certification scheme or were established by a public authority – self-designed “trust” or “eco” labels without independent third-party verification must be removed from advertising, packaging and websites.

Second, the time factor for physical materials: there is no transition period for existing products. Packaging, catalogues and POS materials produced today with a generic claim will most likely still be in circulation on 27 September 2026 – they must therefore be formulated under the new rules already now.

This Reddit question describes the daily reality of many agencies: the client wants the strong claim, the agency shares the formulation risk. Three arguments help in the client conversation:

• •The legal situation has a date: from 27 September 2026, offsetting-based “climate-neutral” advertising is banned – with no transition period for existing materials. Packaging designed now will still be on the market at the cut-off date.
• •The risk is quantified: fines of up to 4% of annual turnover and the Shein and Apple cases make the argument concrete – banned advertising ultimately hits both the client and the agency.
• •There is a better alternative: a specific, substantiated claim is not weaker but more credible – especially with an audience that distrusts generic claims anyway.

The checklist works for the new claim – but not retroactively for hundreds of accumulated product texts, landing pages and shop descriptions. Yet from the cut-off date the rules apply to all public claims, including legacy content.

The existing content therefore needs a systematic check of the entire website for green claims. The automated EmpCo Audit identifies critical claims with their exact location and rule reference and gives marketing, sustainability and legal a prioritised list – the weeks of manual groundwork disappear, and the final legal review starts exactly where it matters.

Which advertising terms are specifically banned from 2026?

Banned are generic, unsubstantiated environmental claims such as “climate-neutral”, “green”, “sustainable”, “eco-friendly”, “eco” or “biodegradable” where no recognised, verifiable proof exists. Also banned: self-invented sustainability labels without independent certification and misleading claims about durability (planned obsolescence).

Is “climate-neutral” still allowed from 2026?

Yes, but only under strict conditions. From 27 September 2026, the generic product claim “climate-neutral” is banned if it rests solely on carbon offsetting. Claims based on actual emission reductions in the value chain that are verifiably substantiated remain permitted. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has already ruled that “climate-neutral” may only be used in advertising if the term is clearly explained in the advertising itself.

What happens to sustainability labels and own labels?

From 2026, sustainability labels are only permissible if they are based on a recognised certification scheme or were established by a public authority. Self-designed “trust” or “eco” labels without independent third-party verification are no longer allowed.

Are carbon offsets a scam?

Not per se, but they are under heavy criticism because their actual climate impact is often hard to measure and sometimes overstated. That is exactly why the EmpCo Directive bans advertising a product as “climate-neutral” from 2026 based solely on offsetting. For companies this means: offsetting can be part of a strategy, but it is no longer sufficient as the sole basis for an environmental claim.

Do I also have to review old website pages and legacy content?

Yes. The rules apply to all claims that are public from the cut-off date – including legacy pages, product copy and landing pages that have grown over years. This is exactly the core problem: most companies do not know what is written on hundreds of their own pages. An automated audit provides a complete overview within hours.