Greenwashing law: why "climate neutral" will soon no longer be enough

The days of vague environmental promises are numbered. While many companies are already working professionally with climate accounting and documenting their sustainability measures transparently, there are still players who advertise with superficial green terms without substantiating them. Germany is currently implementing the so-called ECGT Directive - a rather unwieldy name for a rather important issue. "Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition" means that consumers and business partners should be given the power to distinguish between genuine environmental friendliness and superficial promises.

Cleaning up now

On Monday, the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection published a draft bill that packs a punch. Associations have until July 25 to submit their comments, after which the Bundestag must give its approval. The new rules will apply until September 27, 2026 at the latest. The message is clear: anyone who advertises with environmental claims must be able to deliver in future - and with solid evidence. This creates a level playing field for all those who already work seriously today.

What is changing (and why it is important): Concrete evidence instead of wishy-washy terms

Anyone who writes "climate-neutral", "environmentally friendly" or "sustainable" on their product in future must be able to prove it. And this must be concrete, scientifically sound and cover the entire product life cycle. This means: no more blanket statements without appropriate documentation. Companies must clearly explain what measures they have taken and how they arrived at their environmental claims. This is not a hurdle for companies that already work professionally with climate experts - they already have this data.

Transparency becomes mandatory

The new regulations reverse the burden of proof: in future, companies must clearly disclose how they arrive at their environmental claims. This also means that the calculation methods used must be clearly documented. This is where well-founded carbon accounting pays off, as it creates precisely this transparency. Those who systematically record and evaluate their emissions can also communicate their environmental performance in a legally compliant manner.

Own seals need independent certification

Self-developed eco-labels without independent certification are classified as unfair business practice. This does not mean the end of eco-labels, but rather their professionalization. In future, labels must be established by the state or be based on a certification system that is verified by third parties. This strengthens the credibility of all environmental claims.

CO₂ compensation: now it's getting concrete

Things get particularly interesting with CO₂ offsetting. This is where the new law really comes into its own: If a product is advertised as "climate neutral", this statement must cover the entire product life cycle and may not be justified solely by the purchase of offsetting measures without prior avoidance and reduction efforts. In addition, it must be clearly communicated that offsetting has been used and to what extent. Incidentally, this corresponds to a landmark ruling by the Federal Court of Justice in the case of Katjes fruit gums.

However, this does not mean that offsetting is bad - on the contrary. Serious offsetting is an important component of a well-thought-out climate strategy. But it must be communicated transparently. Companies must disclose whether emissions have actually been avoided, reduced or offset. This is where the importance of professional carbon accounting comes into play: Only those who know their emissions precisely can reduce them sensibly and offset the remaining emissions responsibly. A sound climate strategy always starts with avoiding and reducing emissions - offsetting is the last but important step for unavoidable emissions.

The new "blacklist"

The law expands the "black list" of the UWG to include certain environmental promises that are explicitly defined as unfair practices: Environmental advertising without proof, advertising with own seals without certification, claims about future environmental performance without a verifiable plan and advertising with mere compliance with minimum legal standards. The latter is particularly noteworthy: anyone who advertises that they comply with the law will be liable to prosecution in future.

What this means for companies

The new rules bring both challenges and opportunities. On the one hand, they mean stricter requirements for marketing and product labeling, an increased risk of warnings in the event of insufficiently substantiated environmental claims and greater scrutiny by consumer associations and NGOs. Collective actions are made easier, which increases the risk for companies that cannot substantiate their environmental claims.

On the other hand, the new rules also create clarity and a level playing field. Companies that already work professionally with climate accounting and document their sustainability measures transparently have a clear advantage. They can continue to advertise their environmental performance - but now with the confidence that their competitors must also comply with the same standards. This rewards those who are already acting responsibly today.

How a professional climate strategy can help

This shows the value of a systematic approach to climate protection. Companies that are already working with experts such as natureOffice are well prepared. A well-founded carbon footprint provides precisely the data that will be needed in the future for legally compliant environmental statements. It shows where the biggest sources of emissions are, which reduction measures are most effective and which emissions can be sensibly offset.

The triad of avoidance, reduction and compensation remains the gold standard. Offsetting is an important component - but it must be transparent and comprehensible. Reputable providers can document exactly which projects they support, how the emission reductions are calculated and which standards are adhered to. This is the difference between superficial offsetting and a well thought-out climate strategy that meets the new legal requirements.

And what about the Green Claims Directive?

The Green Claims Directive, which is intended to supplement and flesh out the whole thing, is still running in parallel at EU level. However, this is currently stuck in trilogue - the Commission has canceled the negotiations at short notice. The Danish Council Presidency is currently exploring how to proceed. It will probably only become more concrete after the summer break. Just like the EU: take a break when it's important.

Our conclusion

The implementation of the ECGT Directive will make misleading environmental advertising much more difficult. This is a good development for all those who are serious about climate protection. Consumers and business partners will get the clarity they deserve. And the market will be fairer for all those who already work professionally today.

We think so: It is time that environmental protection is no longer just a marketing gimmick, but has real substance. Even if that means that everyone has to work a little harder. But hey - nobody said saving the world was easy. And for those who are already working professionally today, the new rules mean one thing above all: fair competition in which quality and transparency are rewarded.