Make 2026 the year that you get to grip with the risks of greenwashing.
Even if you’re not seeking to mislead, vague claims about your sustainability credentials can damage your reputation and your finances. You need to be clear and accurate in everything you say.
The term “greenwashing” isn’t new. It was coined in the 1980s to describe misleading claims about the environmental worth of some product, service or business practice.
Originally, that usually meant a heavily polluting corporation trying to hide behind some token green initiative or touchy-feely imagery. Today, it often means companies over-egging the ecological benefits of whatever it is that they’re selling.
There’s no legal definition of greenwashing, but for marketing communications it essentially means claims about environmental sustainability which aren’t themselves sustainable – as in, they can’t stand up to scrutiny.
That might be something that’s well intended but isn’t backed up by reliable data. If you’re using terms like “sustainable”, “green” or “eco-friendly” without the facts to back them up, you’re asking for trouble.
If you’re claiming your product is less environmentally harmful than previous products or your competitors’ alternatives, you need to spell out exactly what you mean.
In the UK, greenwashing has been pushed up the agenda by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Act. That became law in April 2025 alongside new enforcement powers for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
Under DMCC, companies which break consumer protection laws through misleading commercial practice can be fined up to 10 per cent of their global turnover. Offending practices include making misleading environmental claims.
While the maximum penalty may be applied only in the worst cases, reducing the risk means understanding what good practice looks like.
Don’t just do it
As ever, it’s better to learn from other people’s mistakes than your own.
There haven’t yet been any greenwashing prosecutions announced under DMCC, but the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has integrated the new law into its rules. Some of its recent rulings give an indication of the kind of thing annoys the regulators.
In December 2025, ASA rulings on three big clothing brands earned those labels some unwelcome headlines. For example: Nike, Superdry and Lacoste ads banned in UK over ‘misleading’ green claims.
The offending claims were Google Ads which included the word “sustainable” in a way that the ASA judged was ambiguous.
As Google Ads are extremely limited on wordcount, the companies reasonably argued that they couldn’t include all the relevant information. Good practice would be to make sure that the relevant information is easily accessible on your website. The ASA ruled that wasn’t the case for these three companies.
In its ruling on Nike, the ASA did acknowledge that some of their shirts contained recycled material which meant they caused less emissions than a non-recycled equivalent. However, it judged that “Nike had not provided evidence to demonstrate that their tennis polo shirts had no detrimental effect on the environment, taking into account their entire life cycle”.
The rulings on Superdry and Lacoste followed a similar logic. Sweeping claims about sustainability need to be backed up by information about the product’s full life cycle.
All three of these investigations were the result of an AI-powered sweep by the regulators. ASA’s Active Ad Monitoring system automatically reviews ads in selected sectors to identify potential breaches. The ASA has said that companies operating in high-emission industries (as identified by the Climate Change Committee) will be a priority.
Loose claims and bad vibes
Other greenwashing cases have followed third-party complaints from consumers, competitors or campaign groups.
For example, environmental pressure groups have made multiple complaints against French energy group TotalEnergies in various territories. In April 2025, the ASA ruled that a TotalEnergies campaign which promoted green-sounding projects but didn’t acknowledge the impact of the group’s core fossil fuel activities was misleading. Later in the year, a French court made a similar widely-reported ruling and imposed costs.
The Stove Industry Association, a UK trade organisation, fell foul of a complaint about text on its website. The ASA ruled that a claim about lower emissions from modern domestic wood-burning stoves “as consumers were likely to understand it” had not been substantiated.
The ASA can look at all your marketing content, including web copy and social media – not just paid-for advertising. And it’s interpretation that counts. Ambiguity can be fatal to your defence.
The general vibe of content can also cause problems. The Red Tractor Scheme for food certification fell foul of the regulators over a TV advert which combined various nice-sounding claims with pastoral visual imagery.
As well as dissecting the claims in a detailed 5,000-word ruling, the ASA criticised the implications of the imagery as implying that all certified foods met all environmental standards. That investigation was spurred by a complaint from the River Action campaign, which made the most of the ruling.
Material issues
Another ruling from an investigation into domestic energy products illustrates another risk. You need to prove financial claims as well as environmental benefits.
The utility group Good Energy was slapped over a social media advert which referenced potential savings on bills from solar panels and other hardware. The ad was again identified by automated monitoring.
The ASA ruled that the claims “omitted material information and had the potential to mislead”. If you’re making any “up to” claims on financial savings, you meed to make sure they’re fully substantiated.
You also need to take care with any claims about the material make-up of your products. In 2025, the ASA targeted companies making claims about the compostability of their packaging.
The ruling on Lavazza Coffee was typical. Even though the capsules were certified for industrial composting, references in a search ad to “compostable capsules for your home” were judged to be misleading. Customers would reasonably expect those words to mean the capsules could be disposed of in a domestic compost heap.
Minimising the risk
Many of these greenwashing cases could have been avoided if the companies concerned had taken a little more care over their content.
The CMA’s Green Claims Code is a good starting point for anyone making environmental claims about their products or services. It includes six golden rules:
- Be truthful and accurate.
- Be clear and unambiguous.
- Don’t omit important information.
- Only make fair and meaningful comparisons.
- Consider the full life cycle of your product.
- Back up your claims.
Much of that is standard advice for good ethical marketing – don’t bullshit, in short. But it’s the need to consider life-cycle impacts that sets sustainability claims apart.
If you’re working with low-carbon technologies or selling products on their sustainability credentials, you can go that extra mile to really demonstrate your commitment.
If you have an ISO 14001 environmental management system, it’s worth looking at the supplementary standards for environmental statements. Ideally, get your quality and comms teams to work through them together.
ISO 14020:2022 describes principles and general requirements for product-related environmental statements. Related standards covering third-party certification and self-declared claims are currently under review.
Clear communications, clean conscience
Organisations can also sign up to voluntary schemes to benchmark and promote their commitment to responsible sustainability communications.
The Anti-Greenwash Charter is a growing not-for-profit initiative which offers content review, training and support on green claims. Companies can be awarded signatory status, with ongoing monitoring and support. Initial signatories come mostly from construction and related trades, but the charter can be used across other sectors.
Formal quality standards and paid-for certification schemes aren’t for all companies, especially smaller businesses. But whatever your size and sector, it’s vital that you don’t slip up in any of your external communications and marketing collateral.
Your communications and marketing team – whether in-house or outsourced – need to understand the risks and regulations around greenwashing. They also need to be familiar with all the different issues that need to be considered for your market.
In many cases, that means digging into the details and data on exactly what your product does or doesn’t do.
You need to look at all your content, including your website, press releases, marketing material, adverts and social posts. You need to think about text and visuals, and even colour choice.
If you’re unsure, reach out for expert assistance, even if it’s just a quick review and sense-check. There are a growing variety of agencies and consultants offering specialist help on sustainability claims.
At Othersfield, we don’t greenwash and we don’t bullshit. We do have a good broad understanding of sustainability issues, and we’re not afraid to dig into the data. Get in touch to find out how we could help you.