Boosting hair growth is possible. Doing it in an "environmentally friendly" way is difficult.

Why green words have to prove more than many other advertising promises.

Thoughts of

natureOffice Editorial Team

Portrait of a woman making a shh gesture next to advertising claims such as “Turbo for your hair”, illustrating the contrast between classic advertising promises and green claims.

Advertising promises can sound familiar. Green claims need a reliable basis.

In this post

Strict, but fair?

Great words pass away. Green words must prove themselves.

What this means for businesses

Strict, but fair?

Dear reader: 'Turbo for your hair' is fine. 'Up to 70% fewer wrinkles' is fine. '...gives you wings' is also somehow fine. But 'environmentally friendly'? That quickly becomes complicated.

Anyone who talks about the climate, environment or sustainability today is operating within a much narrower framework than many other advertising promises. Preventing greenwashing is, of course, the goal. But why does vagueness become a risk so quickly, especially with green claims?

What green claims must substantiate

Great words pass away. Green words must prove themselves.

Anyone communicating about the climate, environment or sustainability today quickly realises that language is no longer a side issue here. A single term can be enough. A label. A symbol. Sometimes even a design impression.

"Climate-neutral", "environmentally friendly", "sustainable", "green" or "resource-conserving" are not only under pressure in terms of communication, but also legally. With EmpCo and the German implementation in the UWG (Unfair Competition Act), environmental and climate claims are being framed even more strictly.

In future, general environmental claims will need a clear justification. Sustainability labels must be based on an approved certification scheme or established by public authorities. And product-related climate claims based on offsetting outside the value chain will be heavily restricted.

Green claims must not only sound good. They must explain what they refer to – and what they do not.

Portrait of a woman with white wings and a questioning look, illustrating classic advertising exaggeration in contrast to stricter green claims.

Contextualise rather than promise

Exaggeration is allowed to fly.

The impulse behind the new rules is right. Greenwashing is not an invented problem. Consumers should be able to recognise whether a product is actually better for the environment, whether a company is genuinely reducing its footprint, or whether, in the end, it is just a good story being told.

So more clarity is necessary. And yet, it is worth asking the question: why does linguistic ambiguity become a risk so quickly when it comes to green claims, whereas it is part of the normal trade in many other advertising fields?

A quick question in the meantime

What must a statement show so that it does not just sound good?

What exactly was measured – and what does the statement refer to?

Is the basis document in a comprehensible manner?

What boundaries or prerequisites are involved in this?

What can a company say honestly and concretely today?

In practice

What this means for businesses

Even figures can promise more than they reveal at first glance. A peak value sounds impressive. But does it apply to everyone? To the average? To a single test subject? To a specific measurement method?

In the case of environmental and climate claims, case law takes a particularly close look. At the same time, recognised seals of approval work differently: there, trust is established via an established process - criteria, testing, responsibility and control.

Split portrait of a woman with a blue angel and green buttons, symbolising recognised labels and the question of when environmental information needs more context.

The next question

Not getting quieter. Simply clearer.

Companies that want to talk about climate and environmental performance must not only avoid being wrong. They must also avoid being misunderstood.

Do not become quieter, but simply clearer: communication quickly becomes documentation. A claim becomes a proof project.

Arrange orientation