To the Point
Dear reader, “Turbo for your hair” works. “Up to 70% fewer wrinkles” works. “... gives you wings” somehow works too. But “eco-friendly”? That quickly gets complicated. Anyone communicating about climate, the environment or sustainability today is moving within a much narrower corridor than many other advertising claims. Preventing greenwashing is, of course, important. But the interesting question is: why does vagueness become a risk so much faster when it comes to green claims? And what does that mean for companies that do not want to exaggerate, but simply want to talk honestly about progress?
Strict, but fair?
Turbo for your hair
Big words work. Green words need proof.
Anyone communicating about climate, the environment or sustainability quickly notices: language is no longer a side issue here.
One term can be enough.
One label.
One symbol.
Sometimes even a visual impression.
Terms such as “climate-neutral”, “eco-friendly”, “sustainable”, “green” or “resource-saving” are not only under communicative pressure. They are also under legal pressure.
With EmpCo and its implementation into German unfair competition law, environmental and climate claims are being tightened once again.
General environmental claims will need a clear justification. Sustainability labels must be based on a recognised certification scheme or established by public authorities. And product-related climate claims based on offsetting outside the value chain will be heavily restricted.
Gives you wings
Exaggeration is allowed to fly.
The impulse behind the new rules is right. Greenwashing is not an invented problem. Consumers should be able to see whether a product is actually better from an environmental perspective, whether a company is genuinely reducing emissions, or whether, in the end, only a good story is being told.
So more clarity is necessary.
And yet the question is worth asking: why does linguistic vagueness become a risk so quickly when it comes to green claims, while in many other fields of advertising it is part of the usual toolkit?
Up to 250 Mbit/s
Big number. Small word. Big difference.
Vague advertising exists everywhere.
What does “up to” mean in everyday life?
Who does a peak value actually apply to?
Under what conditions is a performance promise really achieved?
And how much of it actually reaches the customer?
Many advertising claims work precisely because they create a good feeling without fully committing themselves. They are emotional, shortened and relevant to buying decisions. Of course, the prohibition of misleading advertising applies here too. But many claims operate in a space where exaggeration, emphasis and expectation management are still permitted.
9 out of 10 experts
Majority sounds like truth.
Even seemingly factual statements can create more of an impression than they actually explain. “9 out of 10 experts” sounds like a robust assessment.
But who were these experts?
How many people were asked?
What exactly was the question?
And what did the tenth person say?
Claims like this appear objective, but often remain highly dependent on context. That is exactly where their power lies: they create a sense of certainty without always making the full basis visible.
Clinically tested
Tested does not mean proven.
The same applies to phrases such as “clinically tested”. It sounds scientific, but at first it only means one thing: something was tested. It does not automatically tell us how large the test group was, what exactly was examined, whether there was a comparison, or whether the result is actually relevant.
With green claims, the standard shifts significantly. A positive impression is less and less enough. The claim has to be explained, put into context and substantiated.
Reduces wrinkles by up to 70%
“Up to” does not mean: for everyone.
Numbers, too, can promise more than they say at first glance. A peak value sounds strong.
But does it apply to everyone?
To the average result?
To one individual test person?
To a specific measurement method?
This is why courts look particularly closely at environmental and climate claims.
At the same time, recognised labels work differently. A Blue Angel, a Green Button or an EU Ecolabel does not have to spell out every single criterion directly in the advertisement. Trust is organised through an established system: criteria, assessment, responsibility, control.
Not everything needs a label.
Transparent climate and environmental information does not necessarily need a certification scheme.
Especially for smaller providers and many medium-sized companies, that would hardly be proportionate. Not every reliable piece of information is automatically a label. And not every good documentation process needs to be turned into an artificial certification process.
This is exactly where the distinction becomes important: is a sign being used like a sustainability label, as a condensed symbol of trust with its own evaluative meaning? Or is concrete product information being provided, showing what was calculated, what the claim refers to, which methodology was used and where the limits of the statement lie?
For companies, this second route can make a lot of sense. Less big claim. More transparent context. Not: “This product is climate-neutral.” But rather: “CO₂ data is available for this product. System boundaries, reference year, calculation methodology and additional climate contributions are transparently documented.”
That sounds less polished than a claim. But that is exactly its strength. It does not promise more than it can explain. And it makes progress visible without selling it as a final state.
Climate-friendly? Please be very specific.
One big word. Many conditions.
But the debate does not end there. Because if the real risk lies in vague, suggestive and purchase-relevant statements, one follow-up question arises:
Why is this logic not applied with the same strictness to other areas of advertising?
Why is greenwashing being fought with particular regulatory force, while many other big advertising promises continue to operate with considerably more linguistic freedom?
There are good reasons to defend this focus. Environmental and climate issues affect not only individual purchasing decisions, but also societal transformation. False green promises distort competition, weaken honest companies and can leave consumers believing that their purchase decision has already done enough.
But one can also say: an asymmetry is emerging.
What this means for companies
Do not become quieter. Simply become clearer.
Companies that want to talk about their climate and environmental performance will increasingly move within a very narrow linguistic corridor. They not only have to avoid being wrong. They also have to avoid being misunderstood.
Communication quickly becomes documentation.
A claim quickly becomes a proof project.
This affects not only those who overdo green advertising. It also affects companies that are actually measuring, reducing, investing and trying to become more transparent. The stricter the rules become, the greater the concern that it may be safer not to talk about progress at all.
That is exactly why the discussion should not split into two camps.
This is not about downplaying greenwashing. And it is not about retrospectively celebrating vague advertising language in other sectors.
The more interesting question is: where is the line between necessary consumer protection and selective overregulation?
The legislator has identified a real problem in the environmental and climate field. But the answer raises new questions: about proportionality, regulatory consistency and fair communication conditions for companies that are serious about their efforts.
Because regulating green claims does not only regulate language.
It regulates visibility. Trust. Market opportunities. And ultimately also the question of which companies still dare to talk about their climate and environmental performance at all.
The debate has only just begun.