INDEPENDENT. RECOGNIZED. SECURE.
Legally sound certification:
Free Claim CheckEmpCo · Directive (EU) 2024/825
For twenty days before 27 September 2026 we published one substantiated fact about environmental claims every day: how many claims examined turned out to be unsupported, what infringements have already cost, which maximum fines apply in which country, and what consumers expect from a label. Here they are in one place, in the order of the series and with the source for every figure.
Greenwashing in figures · Fines and maximum penalties · Enforcement in France and the Netherlands · Consumer expectations · Labels and evidence
Why this collection
The figures on this page come from very different sources: studies by the European Commission, Eurobarometer surveys, inspections by authorities in France and the Netherlands, court and fining procedures, and private screenings. They are not comparable with one another, and we do not present them as if they were. Each one comes with its source and with what it actually measured.
What connects them is a single question. Not whether an environmental claim sounds good, but whether it can be proved. That is exactly the point on which the legal position has turned since 27 September 2026.
Fact 01 of 20
In 2020 the European Commission held 150 environmental claims from across the EU against the standards of unfair commercial practices law: is the claim clear, unambiguous, accurate and verifiable? For more than half of them the answer was no. That finding is the starting point of the entire European regulation of environmental claims, from EmpCo to the proposed Green Claims Directive. One qualification matters: this was a sample, not a full survey, and “vague” does not automatically mean unlawful. The finding says something else, and it weighs more: the majority of claims were worded in a way that made it impossible to establish what was actually being asserted.
Source: European Commission, Green Claims, 2020 study of 150 environmental claims across the EU
Fact 02 of 20
The Commission’s Joint Research Centre analysed launches of packaged food products in 24 European countries. In 2011 one in eight new products carried a sustainability-related claim; by 2022 it was almost four in ten. Organic claims are not counted in that figure. That is a market observation, not an accusation. For practice, however, the curve means something very concrete: from 27 September 2026 every one of those claims is a claim that may have to be substantiated. Anyone who has added such statements to a range over the years now has a backlog that accumulated one product at a time.
Source: European Commission JRC, 2024. New packaged food launches in 24 European countries, excluding organic claims
Fact 03 of 20
Flash Eurobarometer 535 asked 26,635 people across all 27 member states whether an environmental label needs to be verified by an independent organisation to be credible. 56 per cent agreed totally, a further 31 per cent tended to agree. Together that is almost nine in ten respondents. What is striking is that the expectation existed before it became law. Since 27 September 2026 the law requires the same thing: a sustainability label may only be used towards consumers if it is based on a certification scheme or was established by a public authority. Regulation and consumer expectation point in the same direction for once.
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 535, September 2023, 26,635 respondents across the EU-27
Fact 04 of 20
The flustix EmpCo Claim Check is not an automated tool. You submit up to five environmental claims exactly as they appear today on the packaging, the label, in the online shop or in a catalogue. A person reviews them and sets out which ones hold up, which need to be made more specific and where independent evidence is required. You receive a written assessment as a PDF within two to three working days, with no contract and no obligation. The reasoning is simple: most companies do not know how many of their claims are critical in the first place. That question can be answered before anyone spends money.
Source: flustix EmpCo Claim Check, free of charge at flustix.com/en/empco-claim-check
Fact 05 of 20
The same 2020 Commission study did not only look for unclear wording. It also asked whether any evidence could be found for a claim. For four in ten claims, it could not. That is the difference between a wording problem and a substance problem. An unclear claim can be rewritten. A claim without evidence can only be substantiated or dropped. This is exactly where EmpCo bites: the burden of proof sits with the company making the claim, and it is not requested in advance but afterwards, when someone challenges it.
Source: European Commission, Green Claims, 2020 study of 150 environmental claims across the EU
Fact 06 of 20
The UK advertising regulator ASA analysed 7.7 million served online ads and classified the environmental claims within them. Three quarters were absolute: no qualification, no reference point, no indication of what exactly they applied to. The study expressly did not assess whether those claims were compliant. It shows something else: how routine the absolute form has become. The broader and more definitive a claim sounds, the more the evidence has to carry. A claim with a reference point is therefore not weaker, it is more robust.
Source: UK ASA Pulse Report, 2026, 7.7 million online ads served to UK consumers, compliance not assessed
Fact 07 of 20
The Commission’s research centre screened 36,335 packaged food products in 24 EU countries and identified 210 different sustainability-related labels. Fewer than half of them had an assessment by an independent third party behind them. On the shelf, none of that is visible. A mark looks like a mark, whether a published programme with independent monitoring stands behind it or a house rule of the provider. Since 27 September 2026 that very distinction is the legal standard, and the duty to check falls on the company displaying the mark.
Source: European Commission JRC, 2024, 36,335 packaged food products screened across 24 EU countries
Fact 08 of 20
In the same Eurobarometer, close to three quarters of respondents said the environmental impact of a product is important or very important to them when deciding what to buy. That is where the point of the regulation lies. An environmental claim is not decoration, it is a selling argument that can move the choice between two products. Which is precisely why competition law treats it strictly: what influences sales has to be true. The survey measures stated intention, not actual behaviour at the till, but it shows what people respond to.
Source: Flash Eurobarometer 535, September 2023, 26,635 respondents across the EU-27
Fact 09 of 20
A private screening by WORTLIGA and media4nature looked at 345 companies using their own sustainability claims. For 176 of them, a good half, vague or unsupported wording was noted. A screening is not a legal assessment, and the survey is not representative. Its value lies elsewhere: it shows how often established sustainability language raises questions as soon as someone looks closely. Terms that have been in use for years are not harmless simply because they sound familiar.
Source: WORTLIGA and media4nature, 2026, 176 of 345 companies using their own sustainability claims, non-representative private screening against EmpCo and the German Unfair Competition Act
Fact 10 of 20
The same screening analysed 476 German-language company web pages and sorted the findings: 21 per cent used vague environmental terms, 12 per cent made comparisons without a benchmark, 9 per cent based climate claims on offsetting, 2 per cent made claims with an overly broad scope. The categories overlap, the figures are rounded, and the climate claims were measured against the rule applying from 27 September 2026. All four still point at the same place: a claim sounds clear until someone asks what it covers, what it is compared with and which evidence supports it.
Source: WORTLIGA and media4nature, August 2026, 476 German-language company web pages, percentages rounded, categories overlap
Fact 11 of 20
The Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics tracks climate litigation worldwide. In its 2026 snapshot, close to two thirds of the cases decided so far against misleading climate claims ended in favour of the claimant. These are not all EmpCo proceedings, and the figure describes decided cases, not every claim brought. It still shows a development that matters for planning: what begins as advertising copy increasingly ends as a question of evidence, scope and substantiation. And that question is not settled in the marketing department.
Source: LSE Grantham Research Institute, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation, 2026 Snapshot
Fact 12 of 20
In targeted inspections in 2023 and 2024, the French consumer protection authority DGCCRF checked more than three thousand establishments for their environmental claims. The result: serious breaches at over 15 per cent of them, more than 430 compliance orders and more than 70 fines or criminal reports. Those inspections took place before EmpCo became applicable. That is the actual point: scrutiny of environmental claims did not begin on 27 September 2026. It was already running under general unfair competition law. The new rules do not raise the attention, they sharpen the standard.
Source: French DGCCRF, 2025, targeted environmental claims inspections conducted in 2023 and 2024
Fact 13 of 20
In a survey of 3,201 people in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK, the majority wanted the share of recycled material stated clearly as a figure on the packaging. “Made with recycled material” sounds good and leaves the decisive question open: how much. A percentage answers it and has a second advantage that is often overlooked. It is measurable, and therefore substantiable. A vague statement is hard to prove; a declared share is not, once the route of the material and the mass balance have been assessed.
Source: Amcor consumer survey, fieldwork 2025, report 2026, n = 3,201 across France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Poland and the UK
Fact 14 of 20
The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets looked at ten major clothing companies and took six of them into further investigation. Selection for further investigation is not yet a finding of infringement. It does show how closely authorities look at the language companies use to describe environmental benefits, and that they do it sector by sector. After fashion came packaging, food and aviation. The question stays the same in every sector: can the claim be proved?
Source: Netherlands ACM, 2021, follow-up investigation, no infringement finding at that stage
Fact 15 of 20
Three recent cases, three very different sums. Eight million euros for “Climate Protect”, imposed by the Italian competition authority AGCM and upheld in court in December 2025. One million euros for stating that a circular system was being designed. Twenty-five million euros in a case brought by the Frankfurt public prosecutors over the sentence that sustainability is part of the company’s DNA. The cases rest on different legal bases, the amounts are not directly comparable, and all three predate EmpCo’s application. Together they still show an order of magnitude: an unproven environmental claim is a financial risk that can be quantified. Anyone planning for 2027 should budget the evidence alongside the media spend, not after it.
Source: €8m: AGCM Italy, PS12525, 2025, upheld by TAR Lazio in December 2025. €1m: AGCM Italy, PS12709, 29 July 2025. €25m: Frankfurt public prosecutors, 2 April 2025, final
Fact 16 of 20
Since 12 May 2024 the French consumer code provides for a sanction for misleading environmental claims that is measured against the expenditure on the advertising concerned, up to 80 per cent of it. Other methods of calculation may apply alongside. That ties the risk directly to reach. The more money behind a claim, the greater the possible consequence. For planning it means the evidence belongs on the same line as the media budget. A budget that increases the reach of a claim also increases the risk behind it, unless the claim is substantiated.
Source: Art. L132-2 Code de la consommation, in force since 12 May 2024, other penalty calculations may apply
Fact 17 of 20
For cross-border infringements, European law requires maximum fines of at least 4 per cent of annual turnover. Across a review of 17 member states the range runs from 4 per cent, through 5 per cent in Sweden, Finland and Croatia, to 10 per cent in the Netherlands and Poland. These are statutory maximums, not automatic penalties, and both the turnover base and the thresholds differ from country to country. For a company using the same claim in several markets that produces an uncomfortable calculation: the evidence has to hold everywhere the claim appears, because the risk is measured under each national law separately.
Source: Art. 13 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161, turnover bases and thresholds differ by country, 17 member states reviewed
Fact 18 of 20
Special Eurobarometer 550 surveyed 26,346 people across the EU. After receiving information about PFAS, more than eight in ten expressed concern about their potential health effects. Concern is not scientific proof of a risk, and the question was asked after information that explained the subject in the first place. That is precisely where the practical signal lies: once people understand what is at stake, expectations rise for what a product says about it. A reassuring phrase without a solid basis then meets an audience that looks more closely.
Source: European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 550, 2024, EU-27, n = 26,346, respondents had received information about PFAS
Fact 19 of 20
In a study by Janzik and others in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, more than seven in ten of 1,135 respondents in Germany said they were concerned or very concerned about the possible health effects of microplastics. The fieldwork dates from April 2022. Here too the figure measures public concern, not a confirmed risk. For claims about microplastics it implies a particular duty of care: consumers need to be able to see what exactly was assessed, under which definition and with what result. Where you cannot inspect the product, only the evidence carries.
Source: Janzik et al., Journal of Environmental Psychology 110 (2026), Germany, n = 1,135, survey conducted April 2022
Fact 20 of 20
In November 2025, 21 airlines committed to the European Commission and the consumer protection authorities of the CPC network to change their communication. Among the commitments: no longer claiming that a surcharge for climate protection projects or the use of alternative aviation fuels neutralises the emissions of an individual flight. This was not a fining procedure but a coordinated action with voluntary commitments, and it ran entirely under existing consumer protection law. That is the closing point of this series: scrutiny of environmental claims did not wait for EmpCo. The new rules only give it a sharper standard.
Source: European Commission and CPC Network, coordinated action on environmental claims in air travel, November 2025
Read on
The facts on this page describe the situation. What the directive requires in detail, which six commercial practices are unfair in all circumstances, which four criteria a certification scheme has to meet and what applies to old stock is set out in full on our page on EmpCo and green claims.
Editorial responsibility: Malte Biss, CEO & Founder of flustix
Free EmpCo Claim Check
From 27 September 2026, EmpCo brings markedly stricter requirements for environmental claims and sustainability labels: claims must be specific, verifiable and substantiated. Send us up to five of your claims and we will set out which of them already hold, which should be made more precise and where independent evidence is advisable or required. You receive a written assessment as a PDF within two to three working days. Free of charge and without obligation.
It's not too late
We guide companies from industry, retail and brand ownership, from selecting the right certification to communicating their green claims with confidence. Book a free first consultation tailored to your product portfolio.
Prefer to write? Send us a message
Your flustix team
Sales & Certification Development
Program & Partnerships
k.schaumann@flustix.com+49 179 616 27 98
Free consultationSimply scan to book a free consultation directly
flustix.com/call-kathrin