Navigating Green Claims in an Era of Increasing Scrutiny
Sustainability communications are facing greater scrutiny than ever before. From regulators and advocacy groups to customers and the media, stakeholders are paying closer attention to what companies say, how they say it and whether they can back it up.
Greenwashing Allegations Carry Risk, Regardless of the Outcome
No company or industry is immune to greenwashing allegations. High-profile cases involving companies such as Apple, Nike, Delta Air Lines and Keurig have put sustainability claims in the spotlight.
But fines and legal outcomes are only part of the risk. Even when companies successfully defend against greenwashing claims, the allegations themselves can create negative headlines, invite further scrutiny and erode stakeholder trust. In today’s environment, a claim doesn’t have to be found unlawful to create reputational damage.
The Regulatory Landscape is Raising the Bar
For organizations communicating environmental progress, the stakes are rising on multiple fronts. That shift is especially visible in the European Union, where new anti-greenwashing requirements under the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo) take effect next Monday, September 27th, giving us a preview of how far global standards are moving toward requiring specific, substantiated claims.
While requirements vary by jurisdiction, the underlying principles are largely consistent: claims should be accurate, specific, appropriately substantiated, and not misleading.
Key regulatory and legal developments beyond the EU requirements above include:
- Canada’s strengthened anti-greenwashing provisions under the Competition Act
- UK Competition and Markets Authority’s Green Claims Code
- Guidance and enforcement across Australia and several Asia-Pacific markets
- California’s SB 343 and AB 2253, tightening state-level rules on recyclability and recycled-content claims
- Colorado’s compostable-labeling law, in effect since January 2026, restricting misleading compostability claims
- Minnesota’s restrictions on misleading “biodegradable” and “decomposable” claims for plastic bags
- Pending bills in New York, Washington and several other states targeting deceptive recyclability claims, following California’s model
EmpCo is a useful illustration of where global standards are heading. It bars generic claims such as “eco-friendly,” “green” or “carbon friendly” unless a company can point to recognized third-party validation, such as the EU Ecolabel or an equivalent ISO-recognized ecolabeling scheme. It prohibits “carbon neutral” and similar claims based on offsets rather than actual emissions reductions, bars applying a claim to an entire product or company when it reflects only one feature or activity and requires that voluntary sustainability labels be backed by a genuine certification scheme rather than a company’s own design. Forward-looking claims, such as 2030 net-zero targets, must be supported by clear, time-bound, publicly available commitments that are independently verified.
In the U.S., federal guidance has stalled, but states are stepping in to fill the gap. California, Colorado and Minnesota have already moved on recyclability and biodegradability claims, and similar bills are pending in New York and Washington and several other states — a trend companies should expect to continue rather than wait out.
These developments are narrowing the space for vague or unsupported environmental claims and increasing the need for companies to demonstrate the evidence behind what they communicate.
More Communications, More Complexity
Sustainability information now appears across a growing mix of voluntary and mandatory reports, websites, investor materials, product communications and other channels. As the same information is adapted across teams, audiences and outputs, opportunities for inconsistent or unsupported claims multiply.
AI adds another layer of complexity. As organizations increasingly use AI to develop, adapt and manage content, strong governance and a reliable source of truth become even more important. Communications teams, data owners and AI tools should be working from the same approved information, with clear ownership and review processes in place before content is published.
The good news is that organizations don’t need to reinvent their communications processes to manage these risks. A few practical steps can help strengthen claims, improve consistency and build greater confidence in sustainability communications.
Building More Credible Sustainability Communications
While regulations and communication channels continue to evolve, the fundamentals of credible sustainability communications remain consistent. The principles below offer a practical guide for keeping reporting, website and marketing claims accurate, defensible and ready for the level of scrutiny regulators and stakeholders now expect.
-
Start with the evidence.
A claim can be factually accurate and still misleading if the evidence behind it doesn’t hold up to the way readers will interpret it. Test not just whether a number is correct, but whether it supports the claim in the real-world context your audience will assume.
For example: A claim like “95% of our packaging is recyclable” can be technically true and still misleading if most municipal programs can’t actually process the packaging. The evidence needs to support the claim as readers will understand it, not just as a lab or industry definition allows.
-
Be specific.
The same metric can quietly shift meaning depending on where it appears. Define the boundaries behind every figure — what’s included; what’s excluded — and make sure that scope travels with the number wherever it’s reused.
For example: Watch for the same metric meaning different things across documents. A report that says “40% renewable electricity" might reflect owned facilities only, while the website drops that boundary and implies it covers the full footprint. Keep the scope identical wherever the number appears or restate it each time.
-
Tell the complete story.
Progress claims need to reflect the shape of the plan, not just the pace so far. Be clear about which reductions are already secured and which depend on harder work still ahead.
For example: “Ahead of schedule on our 2030 net-zero pathway” can mask a hockey-stick plan — early wins from easy fixes like office energy or travel-related emissions reductions, with the harder industrial reductions pushed to the final years. If interim progress leans on the easy categories, say so, rather than letting the pace imply the hard part is solved too.
-
Consider the overall impression.
Design and placement can imply a scale of impact the underlying initiative doesn’t support. Weigh how prominently a claim or image is featured against how much of the business it actually reflects.
For example: An annual report cover featuring a solar farm or a flagship low-carbon product can imply a company-wide shift that a single pilot or 2% of revenue doesn’t support. Match the visual emphasis to the actual scale of the initiative relative to the business.
-
Create a single source of truth.
Different teams can pull from different versions of what looks like the same data — a modeled estimate here, an assured figure there. A single source should carry not just the number, but its vintage and level of verification. Learn more about CRI’s content block approach to help strengthen content governance.
For example: A marketing update citing a preliminary, internally modeled figure that hasn’t gone through the same third-party assurance as the number in the official report creates two versions of the truth — one more current, one more rigorous. Route both through the same data owner so a claim’s vintage and assurance level travel with it.
-
Build a green claims review into your process.
Claims tied to external frameworks or targets can fall out of alignment over time, even if no one edits the original language. Review should catch not just what’s published, but what’s gone stale.
For example: A science-based target can quietly fall out of compliance when a validation lapses or the methodology updates, and a standing website claim doesn’t always get flagged for re-review. Build in recurring checks for claims tied to external frameworks, not just one-time sign-offs before launch.
As scrutiny increases, the answer isn’t to stop communicating sustainability progress. It’s to build the processes and guardrails that enable organizations to communicate with confidence. By grounding claims in evidence, managing content consistently and embedding review from the start, companies can reduce risk while strengthening the credibility of their sustainability communications.
Looking to institutionalize a green claims review into your reporting processes? Our Green Claims Advisory can help:
- Review existing claims, supporting evidence, and communications to identify risks and opportunities.
- Refine language, context and substantiation, so claims are accurate, specific and evidence based.
- Integrate green claims review into reporting and communications processes through shared content, governance, and review workflows.