Navigating Green Claims: A Comparative Guide For Businesses In The UK And EU

As environmental sustainability becomes a priority for consumers and regulators alike, businesses must navigate the complex landscape of green claims. Mills & Reeve and Plesner have taken the opportunity to compare the rules governing green claims in the UK and the EU, and Denmark in particular offering practical insights for businesses on compliance.

Greens claims in the UK

In the UK, consumers are protected from businesses making misleading and false 'environmental claims' by general consumer protection in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ("DMCCA") and business-to-business protection in the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1276) ("BPRs"). In addition, the UK Code of Non-Broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing ("CAP") and UK Code of Broadcast Advertising ("BCAP") advertising codes also govern the use of green claims in advertising.

To illustrate what was expected under the DMCCA and BPR, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") introduced the Green Claims Code in September 2021. This green claims Code is a set of guidelines designed to help businesses make accurate and truthful 'environmental claims' about their products and services. Whilst the Code is not legally binding, helps businesses understand in practice what the current expectations are for compliance in this area. Since 2021 the CMA and also Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) have proactively enforced the Green claims code. Which means that there are also many illustrative decisions published by the regulators about how the code should be applied in practice.

To help what compliance is expected in the UK on green claims at the current time we have explored some of the issues below

What are 'environmental claims'?

In the green claims Code, the CMA suggest that an 'environmental claim' is a claim "which suggest that a product, service, process, brand or business is better for the environment." The Code goes onto say that "they include claims that suggest or create the impression that a product or a service:

has a positive environmental impact or no impact on the environment;
is less damaging to the environment than a previous version of the same good or service; or
is less damaging to the environment than competing goods or services".

Key principles

The green claims Code introduces the following six core principles that businesses should follow:

Claims must be truthful and accurate – In essence, this means that environmental claims must be honest and reflect the true environmental impact of the product or service, without inflating the facts or leaving the consumer with a false impression. For example, the CMA suggests that qualified use of the term "eco-friendly" in advertising or a website would imply that the business or product as a whole has a good environmental impact.
Claims must be clear and unambiguous – To comply, businesses should ensure that environmental claims are easily understood by consumers and are not confusing. For example, the CMA suggest that technical language should be avoided and that the visual components of the environmental claim are also important. The latter point was highlighted in the ASA ruling on an ad for Wessex Water, where the ASA held that the use of the colour green illustrated environmental improvement due to the lack of contextual information about general poor performance. For more information, on this ruling see ASA decision illustrates what omitting material information from Green claims means in practice.
Claims must not omit or hide important relevant information – Businesses should ensure that important information is visible on all environmental claims, allowing consumers to make informed decisions. According to the Code, this includes focusing on the positive impacts only, especially where these are negligible. In a recent ASA ruling on an ad, Shell successfully defended it's position on EV charging stations. Shell's ad included imagery of gas extraction, and a number of disclaimers, which the ASA held made it clear to consumers that the EV charging was only part of Shell's business. For more information, on this ruling see Advertising Standards Authority ruling not upheld on Shell UK's green advert.
Comparisons must be fair and meaningful – To ensure consumers are not misled, comparative environmental claims must be based on up-to-date information, and not rely on false information. This includes ensuring that equivalent products and services only are compared against each other. The comparative advertising rules will also typically apply in many of the circumstances as well.
Claims must consider the full life cycle of the product or service – This means that businesses need to consider the impact for the entire lifecycle of the product, from production to disposal and the impact of the wider business as a whole. Each claim does not need to include information about the full life cycle, but businesses should consider the full life cycle in determining the accuracy of a claim.
Claims must be substantiated – last, but certainly not least, businesses must have robust evidence to back up their environmental claims - making the claim. This could be in a number of different forms such as laboratory tests, or a survey. Increasingly the expectation is a full life-cycle analysis ideally conducted by an independent third-party.

The Code also includes a number of useful, practical questions that we suggest businesses ask themselves and use as a checklist when considering whether they have met the requirements of each of the principles. These include:

"Do I live up to the claims I am making?"
"Is the claim only true and accurate under certain conditions or with caveats, and are these clear?"
"If vague or general terms have been used, have these been explained?"
"Is the claim comparing like with like?"

Greens claims in the EU, with a particular focus on the position in Denmark

In the EU, the rules governing the use of environmental claims fall under the general provisions on misleading marketing as set out in directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer practices ("UCP Directive"). These general provisions apply to all claims, including environmental claims, when used in marketing.

The prohibition against misleading marketing practices under the UCP Directive has been implemented into Danish law through the Danish Marketing Practices Act ("DMPA"). In particular, Sections 5, 6, 13, and 20 prohibit misleading marketing and establish a requirement that all claims must be substantiated by adequate documentation.

Currently, the DMPA does not contain any provisions specifically targeting the use of environmental claims. However, the general prohibitions against misleading marketing are supplemented by guidance issued by the Danish Consumer Ombudsman ("DCO"). This includes the DCO's Guidance on the Use of Environmental and Ethical Claims (in Danish) and the Recommendations for Businesses' Environmental Marketing.

Although not legally binding, the DCO's guidelines and recommendations provide valuable insight into how the DCO interprets and applies the rules set out in the DMPA, helping businesses gain a practical understanding of how to ensure that their environmental claims comply with the DMPA. The importance of this is underscored by the fact that the number of complaints and active cases concerning environmental marketing handled by the DCO has been steadily increasing since autumn 2022.

General principles

Based on administrative practice and the guidance from the DCO, we have outlined below the key principles that apply to environmental claims in Denmark.

In the DCO's latest recommendations, the term "environmental claims" is used as a collective term encompassing climate, environmental, and sustainability-related claims.

According to the DCO, all environmental claims used in marketing must meet certain general legal requirements, meaning such claims must be:

Accurate and precise – The claim must be correct, and it must be clearly stated whether the claim applies to the company as a whole, specific activities, or a product.
Relevant – The message must not highlight features or aspects that are insignificant in relation to the impact on the climate or environment. For example, it would be mis-leading to highlight an environmental benefit of a product in marketing if the benefit is due to legislation requirements, a standard industry practice, or is commonly found within the product or product category. In case 12/03215, a taxi company advertised its taxis as "energy class C or better". The DCO found the claim misleading, as 70 % of taxis on Danish roads already met this standard. The claim wrongly implied a unique environmental benefit.
Balanced – Exaggerations about the company's activities or the product's impact on the climate or environment must not occur, and essential information must not be omitted.

Furthermore, the claims must be clearly formulated so that consumers can immediately under-stand them without ambiguity. The overall impression, including colors, effects, and other visual elements, will also affect the assessment of whether the claims are likely to mislead.

It is also important to note that environmental claims must be substantiated with documentation, and that the standards for adequate documentation are generally strict.

Specific requirements

While all environmental claims must meet general requirements, different categories of claims are subject to additional, claim-specific conditions. Below, we have outlined some of these.

General environmental or climate claims without explanations: Broad statements (e.g. "green", "eco-friendly" or "climate-friendly") are highly restricted. For such claims it must be substantiated that the product has a significantly lower climate or environmental impact than comparable products. Documentation must as a main rule be based on a life cycle assessment ("LCA"). On this basis, the DCO's clear advice is to avoid general claims and instead use claims that are as specific as possible. Alternatively, a general claim can be accompanied by clear information explaining the specific benefit, which will also help minimising the risk.
General environmental or climate claims with explanations: General statements that are accompanied by an explanation of the specific environmental benefit (e.g. "green – because it emits 25 % less CO₂") do not require a full LCA. However, even if the claim meets the general requirements and the environmental benefit can be documented, the DCO imposes some additional conditions. For example, the benefit of the product must be significant in terms of its overall climate or environmental impact and must also not be significantly outweighed by other climate- or environment-damaging aspects of the product.
Sustainability claims: Claims using terms such as "sustainable" or "sustainability" are particularly risky. These imply broad and long-term responsibility and therefore require documentation that the product or company's activities do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. As this is extremely difficult to document, the DCO generally advises against the use of such claims. In case 20/13487, a clothing company marketed its products with claims like "SUSTAINABLE CLOTHING". The DCO found the claims misleading, as the company could not provide documentation based on a life cycle assessment to substantiate the sustainability claims.
Low/zero emission claims: Claims such as "low emissions" or "zero emissions" must specify the basis of comparison and be substantiated with technical documentation. If claims refer only to for instance the use phase, this must be clearly stated. If a zero-emission claim is not limited to a specific context, comprehensive documentation is required to demonstrate that the company's products and activities does not contribute to emissions at any stage of its lifecycle. In case 22/05936, a company marketed a vehicle as having "zero emissions" without clarifying that this referred only to driving, not to battery production or charging. The DCO found the claim misleading due to lack of contextualisation.
Climate compensation claims: Claims suggesting climate neutrality through offsetting (e.g. "climate neutral thanks to compensation") are only lawful if consumers are clearly informed that the product itself causes emissions, and that these are offset. The compensation must be real, verified, and transparently described. In case 22/07375, a trader advertised a product as climate-compensated without explaining how the compensation occurred or who verified it. The DCO found the claim misleading because essential information was omitted. In a joint statement with other Nordic consumer authorities, the DCO advised against using general claims like "CO₂-neutral" based solely on climate compensation schemes, as these are easily misleading to consumers.
Targets and visions: Claims about future environmental goals (e.g., "we aim to be CO₂-neutral by 2030") must be realistic and based on a concrete action plan detailing how to achieve the stated objective. The action plan must be initiated or imminently planned, and it must also be measurable. For targets and visions regarding sustainability or reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the plan must, moreover, be verified by an independent body. In case 22/11573, a trader stated on product packaging that it would "make an extra effort for the climate". The DCO found the claim misleading because there was no concrete or verified action plan to support it.
Recycling and reuse claims: Claims must distinguish clearly between "recycled" and "reused" and specify the percentage and type of recycled content if used as a general claim. Inaccurate or exaggerated use of these terms can be considered misleading. In case 22/00560, bottled water was marketed in packaging claimed to contain "reused plastic", but in reality, the plastic was recycled. The DCO found the claim misleading, as the environmental impact of recycling is higher than reuse, and the terminology was inaccurate.

As the above requirements and administrative practice underlines, the DCO applies a strict practice clamping down on broad and undocumented environmental claims used in Denmark.

Developments in the EU

The EU has also, with varying degrees of success, moved to strengthen its regulatory approach to environmental claims which has been advanced through the introduction of two new directives, with the intent of imposing stricter requirements on businesses in this regard.

In March 2023, the European Commission proposed a draft Green Claims Directive, which, among others, aimed to harmonize the regulation of environmental claims and eco-labeling schemes across the EU. The proposal also included provisions for third-party verification, requiring Member States to establish procedures for independent pre-approval. This would result in an EU-wide certificate of conformity, confirming that the environmental claim or label complies with the Directive's requirements and is recognized throughout the EU. However, on Friday, 20 June 2025, the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw the proposal for the Green Claims Directive. A formal decision on the withdrawal is still pending. You can read more about these recent developments here.

Directive 2024/825 was advanced and subsequently adopted on 28 February 2024. The directive was adopted to amend the UCP Directive, which will be transposed into Danish law through the DMPA. From 27 September 2026, certain marketing claims will automatically be considered misleading. This will include:

Making a generic environmental claim, even though the trader cannot demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim;

The display of sustainability labels that is not based on a certification scheme or is not established by public authorities;

Claiming, based on offsetting, that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions; and

Making an environmental claim concerning an entire product or the trader's business as a whole, when it only concerns a specific aspect of the product or a specific activity.

Consequently, traders should observe the necessary diligence prior to launching marketing initiatives with environmental claims in Denmark to ensure compliance with existing requirements under the DMPA, and also assess how the upcoming regulatory changes will affect their marketing initiatives moving forward.

Conclusion

Navigating green claims in the UK and EU requires a thorough understanding of the respective regulatory frameworks and importantly how they are changing as a result of both regulatory decisions and new legislative proposals. This is particularly important in a climate of high enforcement risk across the UK and EU member states. By adhering to the principles outlined in this article, businesses can avoid greenwashing and build consumer trust.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.