Greenwashing
Communication that creates a misleading impression of environmental performance.
Example
A broad green claim may omit important impacts, weak evidence or the limits of a comparison.
The catch
A legal finding depends on the facts and applicable consumer or advertising rules.
Related terms
Audit trail, Calibration, Carbon neutral, Climate positive, Conflict of interest, Contribution claim
In more depth
Greenwashing, explained.
Greenwashing is judged by the impression a message leaves on an ordinary reader, so a company can greenwash without intending to. Under EU consumer law, regulators ask whether the overall presentation, including images, colours and omissions, is likely to mislead the average consumer into a decision they would not otherwise take. Accurate small print does not rescue a misleading headline.
The problem is documented. The European Commission found in 2020 that 53% of environmental claims examined were vague, misleading or unfounded, and 40% were unsubstantiated. Directive (EU) 2024/825, which Member States apply from 27 September 2026, responds by banning several common forms outright. They include a generic environmental claim without recognised excellent performance behind it, and claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on emissions because of carbon offsetting.
Familiar patterns recur. A brand spotlights one recycled component while its main impact sits elsewhere, or announces a distant target with no interim plan. To test a claim, check what it covers and what evidence stood behind it on the day it was made. Then look for the comparison it implies, because 'better' always needs a 'than'. Strong substantiation answers those points in plain view. Reserve the word for cases where you can show how a claim misleads, since calling every imperfect company a greenwasher blunts the term.