Reviewing green claims: Environmental advertising needs reliable evidence

Section 2 UWG is the decisive rule. It covers misleading commercial practices caused by incorrect statements and by the overall impression. It also covers cases where material information is omitted, made unclear or communicated too late. An average informed and attentive addressee must not be caused to make a transactional decision that would not otherwise have been made.

Section 1 paragraph 5 UWG is relevant to evidence. In court proceedings on an injunction or damages, the court may require the business to prove the correctness of factual statements connected with a commercial practice. This requires the order to appear appropriate in the individual case after the legitimate interests of the business and the other party have been taken into account.

For environmental claims this means: whoever asserts a factual basis should be able to explain that basis even outside a dispute. Statements that remain recognisable as opinion or general disposition are subject to different requirements than concrete figures, comparative statements or conclusive assessments.

Every environmental claim has a reference point. Before release it should be recorded in writing whether the claim refers to a single product, a product line, a business, a site or a group of companies. Without such attribution, an audience may easily perceive a general statement that only covers a small part of the business.

The lifecycle stage is equally important. Raw material sourcing, manufacture, transport, use and disposal may be measured differently. A statement about the production process is not the same as a statement about the entire product life. If only individual stages are considered, that boundary should be visible to the addressee.

Metric, baseline, period and geography belong to every reference point. Only once it is clear whether an absolute or a relative reduction is meant, which base year is used and for which region the calculation applies, can a wording be sensibly assessed.

An environmental claim must not communicate more than the evidence supports. Testing a single production step does not create a general claim about the whole product. A reduction at one site is not a claim about the entire business. A result for one year is not a statement about the current position.

Fictional or unclear comparisons are especially sensitive. Phrases such as “much less” or “significantly reduced” lose their factual core when baseline and period are missing. Where a comparison is drawn, the reference object, base year and comparison method should be immediately recognisable for the addressee.

Generalising a single metric is equally delicate. A carbon footprint is not a full life cycle assessment. Low water consumption is not automatically a low overall environmental impact. The advertising claims self-check helps organise the type of claim, evidence and visible qualifications.

Reduction and compensation are factually different. Reduction describes emissions decreased within the business responsibility. Compensation describes emissions balanced by certificates or external projects. The advertising should make that difference visible. Blending both easily creates the incorrect impression of an internal achievement.

The point in time of attribution matters. It is different whether emissions are accounted for a completed year, offset on a continuous basis or planned for the future. Statements about a future state should not appear linguistically as an already achieved state.

Claims such as “net zero” or “climate neutral” require a particularly clear explanation. Reference point, scope, share of reduction and offset and the underlying accounting system should be immediately recognisable. A remote footnote cannot reliably qualify a broad main claim.

A self-made environmental claim is not an external endorsement. As long as there is no independent testing procedure by a seal owner, the advertising should not create the impression that an external body has verified or approved the product.

Conversely, a genuine seal should not be used as evidence for further statements. A mark with a limited testing scope does not automatically support a general environmental claim about the entire product or the business. The limits of a certification remain exactly what the seal owner actually verified.

A separate article addresses the precise distinction between a free claim and an external endorsement. For the present article it is sufficient to note that any wording suggesting an external test immediately requires factual proof.

The basis of every environmental claim belongs in a dedicated file. It should contain the life cycle assessment or calculation, site data, testing reports, supplier declarations and every assumption that feeds into the metric. Where values are taken from third parties, source, period and basis must remain traceable.

A release process should allocate responsibilities clearly. Subject matter experts, legal review and marketing should record a shared understanding of the claim in writing before publication. A short release protocol with reference point, metric, baseline, period and underlying evidence is useful.

Storing the published versions in an orderly manner is equally helpful. When advertisements, packaging or landing pages change, every version should be kept with date and channel. For any later defence it is decisive that claim and evidence match in time.

After a challenge, preserve the complete letter, service date and every advertising version identified. Then collect the release protocol, calculation, site data and supplier correspondence. A requested undertaking should not be signed without reviewing the actual evidence and the binding effect.

For possible interim relief, the topic on injunctions and interim relief covers risk of repetition, protective objective and documentation. For financial consequences, the topic on damages for competition violations provides an overview of attribution and proof.

When reviewing a competitor claim, a screenshot and personal impression are not enough. The complete source, any qualifier and a separate evidence layer about the actual basis are needed. Public accusations such as “greenwashing” should not be made without a secure factual basis, because they may trigger a separate competition dispute.