Green Marketing: Claims That Survive Being Checked

The FTC has published guidance on environmental marketing claims since 1992, yet for a long time "sustainable," "eco-friendly," "carbon neutral" and "planet-positive" felt, to my mind, cheap to say. The rules around them have since grown teeth. If you want to know how to avoid greenwashing now, start with claims specific enough that a regulator, a journalist or a buyer could check them, keep the evidence ready, and leave nothing material out.

Since April 2025 the UK's Competition and Markets Authority has been able to decide for itself that a company has broken certain consumer laws and impose a penalty of up to 10% of global turnover or £300,000, whichever is greater, without going to court first. EU rules that member states had to apply from September 27, 2026 added a set of environmental claims to the list of commercial practices treated as unfair in all circumstances. And the courts are busy: the Grantham Research Institute's 2026 review of climate litigation found that climate-washing cases have become by far the most common kind of climate case involving companies, and that claimants won more than 65% of those with a recorded outcome.

Consumers, meanwhile, have grown more skeptical of companies' environmental claims.

For many companies the response has been to stop making claims. That's an overcorrection, and it hands the category to whoever is still willing to talk. It doesn't buy much protection either. The same Grantham review concludes that honest, substantiated disclosure reduces litigation risk, and that "silence or pre-emptive retreat does not."

Key takeaways

• Since April 2025, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority can fine a business up to 10% of global turnover or £300,000, whichever is greater, for breaking certain consumer laws, without going to court first.
• From September 27, 2026, EU rules treat an unexplained generic claim such as "environmentally friendly," "green" or "ecological" as unfair unless the company can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim (Directive 2024/825).
• Buyers doubt vague claims: in Capgemini's 2025 survey of 6,566 consumers in 13 countries, 62% believed companies were engaging in greenwashing, up from 33% in 2023.

Which green marketing claims draw regulators' scrutiny?

The green marketing claims that draw scrutiny are unqualified absolutes: "sustainable" without a boundary, "green" without a definition, "carbon neutral" without saying whether it comes from reduction or offsetting, "recyclable" when many of the people buying the product have nowhere to recycle it.

The regulators' own texts name these words. The FTC's Green Guides, last revised in 2012, say marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims, because it is "highly unlikely" they can back up every reasonable reading of a word like "eco-friendly." The FTC opened a review of the guides in December 2022 and hasn't issued a revised version, so the 2012 text still stands. The UK's Green Claims Code says broad terms such as "green," "sustainable" and "eco-friendly" are more likely to mislead, especially without explanation. The EU's rules go furthest: an unexplained generic claim such as "environmentally friendly," "green" or "ecological" is now unfair unless the company can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. A second, stricter EU proposal, which would have required explicit claims to be checked by an independent verifier before use, stalled in the Council, and the Commission's November 4 work program lists it for withdrawal.

"Recyclable" has its own tests. The Green Guides say an unqualified recyclable claim needs recycling facilities available to at least 60% of the consumers or communities where the product is sold, and below that the claim should be qualified. California's recycling-label law bars the chasing-arrows symbol, or any statement that a product is recyclable, on products and packaging made after October 4, 2026 unless the material is regularly collected and processed for recycling in the state. In July, while an industry challenge proceeds, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state attorney general, and those acting with him, from enforcing the law until further order. It did not change the compliance date.

The common structure is a claim that sounds total and is actually partial. That gap is precisely what enforcement targets and what a journalist writing a debunk looks for. The EU has now written it down: making an environmental claim about an entire product or business when it concerns only one aspect of it is on the same list of unfair practices. When the CMA closed its investigation of ASOS, Boohoo and George at Asda in March 2024, the three retailers committed, without admitting wrongdoing, to stop using terms like "eco," "responsible" or "sustainable" without further explanation, and to use specific terms such as "organic" or "recycled," with the percentage of those fibers clearly displayed.

How do you avoid greenwashing in your marketing?

A useful starting point is a specific, substantiated claim with a disclosed method and comparison baseline. How it is presented matters too. The FTC's guides say a specific, substantiated claim can still mislead through its context, and that a marketer implying an overall benefit should analyze the trade-offs. The CMA's code says a claim must not omit or hide important relevant information.

Specifics over commitments. "We're committed to sustainability" gives a reader nothing to check. An illustrative claim like "emissions per unit shipped fell 34% between 2021 and 2025" gives them something, as long as it also names the emission scopes covered, the measurement method and the verifier. It should also say whether total emissions fell, because a lower figure per unit can sit alongside higher total emissions when output grows.

In my experience, specificity reads as confidence, and vagueness now reads as evasion.

Comparatives over absolutes. "Uses 40% less water than the conventional process," with the process, baseline and test conditions disclosed, gives the buyer far more to examine than an undefined "water-positive." It only holds up if the comparison does. The CMA's code expects like-for-like products, the same measurement method on both sides, and a basis the reader can verify.

Once a client's water program had real results behind it, my advice was to lead with the volume and translate it into something people can picture, like a thousand or ten thousand Olympic swimming pools. That's where you can really get media excited. A number on its own is abstract, but a picture like that gets people to stop and say, wow, that's a lot.

Methodology in public. I think publishing how you measured is one of the most effective ways to make a claim durable. Many companies hold back because they expect it to invite argument. In my experience it does the opposite: it answers in advance most of the questions a critic would ask, and gives journalists and buyers something specific to examine. The CMA's code makes the same point from the other direction: a claim must not omit or hide important relevant information.

Third-party verification where it exists. An external auditor or standard gives a claim evidence that doesn't rest on your word alone, as long as what was verified matches what you say. The FTC's guides are explicit that third-party certification doesn't remove a marketer's own obligation to substantiate the claim. Verification costs money, and I think it's worth it for the claims you intend to lead with. Labels are where the EU drew the hardest line: a sustainability label that isn't based on a certification scheme or established by a public authority is now an unfair practice in itself.

Are buyers more skeptical of green claims?

Buyers have become more demanding about green claims in two ways: procurement teams now ask suppliers for environmental data, and consumers have grown more skeptical.

Procurement got formal. Enterprise buyers now ask suppliers for environmental data directly. In 2025 more than 270 major buyers requested it from about 45,000 suppliers through CDP's supply chain program alone. Those suppliers are being asked for environmental data, not a marketing statement.

And consumers got more skeptical while still expecting companies to act. In Capgemini's 2025 survey of 6,566 consumers across 13 countries, 62% believed companies were engaging in greenwashing, up from 33% in 2023, while 77% said corporations should do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My read is that the interest is still there and the patience for claims nobody can check isn't.

Both shifts favor the same behavior: fewer claims, better evidenced.

Where climate technology companies differ

If your product is the environmental benefit, a technology whose entire value proposition is a measurable reduction in something, the stakes are higher. Which rules apply depends on the market and the audience: the FTC's guides also cover business-to-business sales, while the EU rules above govern practices aimed at consumers.

Your claim is your product, so an overstated number isn't a marketing problem. It's a product credibility problem. The strongest position is a customer deployment with a verified before-and-after, disclosed conditions, and an honest statement of where the result doesn't transfer.

That last part matters more in climate technology than almost anywhere else, because performance is so context-dependent. A result achieved in one climate, one soil type, one building type or one grid mix may not hold elsewhere. In my experience, vendors who say so are trusted more, and a single favorable number presented as universal tends to come apart once a customer in different conditions tries it. The same goes for the part of the problem you haven't solved: naming it makes the rest of what you say easier to believe, though it's no substitute for evidence.

Claims you'd enjoy being asked about

Stop making claims you'd have to defend and start making claims you'd enjoy being asked about.

One practical check before a claim goes out: read it as the person who has to say no, whether a reporter, a procurement team or a regulator, look for what they would find vague, misleading or missing, and rewrite it.

My view is that the pressure that made green marketing risky is also making bluffing harder. For a company that can actually substantiate what it says, that's a good position to be in.

Common questions

What is green marketing? Marketing that promotes the environmental attributes of a product or company. Under the FTC's guides that includes labels, advertising and promotional material in any medium, for business-to-business sales as well as consumer ones.

What do regulators say about words like "sustainable" and "eco-friendly"? The FTC's Green Guides say marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims. The UK's Green Claims Code says broad terms such as "green," "sustainable" and "eco-friendly" are more likely to mislead, especially without explanation. EU rules that apply from September 27, 2026 treat an unexplained generic environmental claim as unfair unless the company can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to it.

Is greenwashing illegal? Misleading environmental claims can be. In the UK, the CMA treats them as a consumer protection matter and, since April 2025, can fine a business directly. EU rules that apply from September 27, 2026 make several kinds of environmental claim unfair in all circumstances. In the US, the FTC's Green Guides aren't binding, but the FTC says it can act under the FTC Act against a claim inconsistent with them.

What do the green claims rules have in common? They look for specifics. The UK code's six principles say claims must be truthful and accurate, clear and unambiguous, must not omit or hide important relevant information, must make fair and meaningful comparisons, must consider the full life cycle of the product or service, and must be substantiated. The FTC and EU rules point the same way: broad claims need qualifying, and claims need evidence behind them.

Do buyers still want sustainability information? The evidence points that way, along with doubt about vague claims. In 2025 more than 270 major buyers requested environmental data from about 45,000 suppliers through CDP, and in Capgemini's 2025 survey 62% of consumers believed companies were engaging in greenwashing. Neither figure directly measures how messaging affects purchasing decisions.

What's different for climate tech companies? For climate tech companies selling a measurable environmental improvement, an overstated result can damage product credibility as well as marketing credibility. Verified customer deployments with disclosed conditions help buyers judge whether a result applies to their own operations.

Sources

• Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, Global trends in climate change litigation: 2026 snapshot, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, LSE, June 2026
• Competition and Markets Authority, How the CMA uses its direct consumer enforcement powers, GOV.UK, August 28, 2025
• Competition and Markets Authority, Green Claims Code: making environmental claims on goods and services, GOV.UK, September 20, 2021
• Competition and Markets Authority, Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain, GOV.UK, January 22, 2026
• Competition and Markets Authority, Green claims: CMA secures landmark changes from ASOS, Boohoo and Asda, GOV.UK, March 27, 2024
• European Parliament and Council, Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition, Official Journal of the EU, March 2024, Annex points 2a, 4a and 4b
• European Commission, Proposal for a Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive), COM(2023) 166, March 22, 2023, Article 10
• European Commission, 2027 Commission work programme, Annex III (withdrawals), November 4, 2026
• Federal Trade Commission, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR 260.4 (General environmental benefit claims) and 260.12 (Recyclable claims), with 260.1 (Scope) and 260.6 (Certifications and seals of approval); issue history on the FTC Green Guides page
• Federal Trade Commission, FTC Seeks Public Comment on Potential Updates to its 'Green Guides' for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, December 14, 2022
• CalRecycle, SB 343: Accurate Recycling Labels
• Wiley Rein, CA's "Truth in Recycling" Law Compliance Deadline Remains, Despite Federal Court's Pause on Enforcement, September 14, 2026
• Keller and Heckman, Court Halts Enforcement of California's Truth in Recycling Law, July 21, 2026
• CDP, CDP A List 2025: Global Momentum for Environmental Transparency Remains Strong as Markets Demand Actionable Data, January 8, 2026
• Capgemini Research Institute, A world in balance 2025, September 18, 2025

Salient PR works with climate technology and sustainability-focused companies on claims-safe communications and earned media.