Regulating Green Claims: The Global Enforcement Landscape

Quick Read

Regulators across the EU, UK, Australia, and US have shifted from guidance to active enforcement of environmental claims, with material financial and legal consequences now attached to unsubstantiated or misleading green marketing. This whitepaper maps the jurisdiction-specific frameworks—including the EU's Directive 2024/825, the UK's CMA Green Claims Code, Australian Consumer Law, and the FTC Green Guides—that organisations must navigate to ensure compliance. Claims that were acceptable marketing practice three years ago may now constitute legally actionable misrepresentation under these frameworks.

Executive Summary

Enforcement has arrived. The question is no longer whether to comply.

For most of the past two decades, the international standards governing environmental claims — principally ISO 14020 and ISO 14021 — defined what compliant claims looked like. But compliance was largely self-policed. Regulators had limited specific tools, enforcement was sporadic, and the consequences for non-compliance were primarily reputational rather than legal.

That has changed decisively. Across the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other major markets, regulators have moved from publishing guidance to issuing fines. The enforcement actions of 2023–2025 demonstrate that the consequences of making unsubstantiated, vague, or misleading environmental claims are now material — financially, legally, and reputationally.

This whitepaper provides a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction account of the regulatory frameworks now governing environmental claims. It covers:

• The European Union: Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo) and its impact on green claims; the withdrawal of the proposed Green Claims Directive; and the continuing relevance of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

• The United Kingdom: the CMA Green Claims Code, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and the FCA Sustainability Disclosure Requirements

• Australia: ACCC enforcement under the Australian Consumer Law and ASIC's greenwashing programme for financial products

• The United States: the FTC Green Guides and state-level enforcement, particularly California

• Singapore, Hong Kong, and Canada: the developing regulatory picture

Throughout, the whitepaper identifies the practical obligations each framework creates and the ISO 14021 non-conformities most likely to trigger regulatory exposure.

A claim that was standard marketing practice three years ago may now be a legally actionable misrepresentation. The question for every organisation is not whether to comply, but whether its current claims portfolio can withstand scrutiny under the frameworks now in force.

Section 1: The Regulatory Architecture: Understanding the Landscape

Green claims regulation operates at multiple levels simultaneously. Understanding the architecture matters because the obligations at each level are different, the enforcement mechanisms are different, and the interaction between levels creates complexity that purely national analysis misses.

1.1 The International Standards Layer

ISO 14020:2022 (Environmental statements and programmes for products) and ISO 14021:2016 (Self-declared environmental claims) are the foundational international standards for environmental claims. They define what compliant claims look like: accurate, substantiated, specific, appropriately qualified, based on a documented methodology, and made within the context of a documented environmental statement programme.

These standards are not, in themselves, legally binding. But they are the technical benchmark against which legal compliance is increasingly assessed. When the EU EmpCo Directive requires that claims be substantiated, or when the Australian Consumer Law requires that claims not be misleading, the ISO standards provide the most widely recognised methodology for determining what 'substantiated' and 'not misleading' actually mean for a specific claim type.

1.2 The Regulatory Layer

Sitting above the international standards are regulatory instruments that make compliance legally mandatory in specific jurisdictions. These instruments vary in their form:

• Some are binding law directly applicable to businesses (e.g. the Australian Consumer Law)

• Some are binding law transposed through member state legislation (e.g. Directive (EU) 2024/825, which must be transposed into national law by each EU member state)

• Some are guidance with enforcement force through underlying law (e.g. the UK CMA Green Claims Code, which is enforced through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024)

• Some are sector-specific rules for regulated industries (e.g. the FCA Sustainability Disclosure Requirements for financial services)

1.3 The Enforcement Layer

Regulatory frameworks are only as significant as the enforcement mechanisms behind them. The critical development of 2023–2025 is not the creation of new rules but the activation of enforcement. Regulators that previously published guidance and waited for voluntary compliance are now initiating investigations, issuing infringement notices, and obtaining court-ordered penalties.

Key enforcement developments are set out in the jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis below. The headline figures:

Section 2: European Union

The EU regulatory landscape for green claims is currently governed by two overlapping legal instruments, with a third proposed instrument having been withdrawn. Understanding the distinction between them is essential.

2.1 The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC) — The Foundation

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) is the primary EU consumer protection instrument for misleading commercial practices. Adopted in 2005 and in force across all EU member states, the UCPD prohibits misleading actions and misleading omissions that cause or are likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken.

Under the UCPD as it stood before amendment, misleading environmental claims were actionable as unfair commercial practices. Member state consumer protection authorities already had enforcement powers. What the UCPD lacked before 2024 was explicit treatment of environmental and sustainability claims. The amendment made by Directive (EU) 2024/825 corrected this.

2.2 Directive (EU) 2024/825: The EmpCo Directive

2.2.1 Instrument and Status

Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (the EmpCo Directive, also referred to as the Empowering Consumers Directive or ECGT) was adopted by the EU Parliament and Council on 20 February 2024, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 March 2024, and entered into force on 27 March 2024.

Member states are required to transpose the Directive into national law by 27 March 2026. The transposed national provisions will apply from 27 September 2026. As at the date of publication, member states are at varying stages of transposition. Germany has adopted legislation (the Third Act Amending the Act Against Unfair Competition) with the first provisions entering into force on 19 June 2026. The Netherlands has published transposition proposals currently progressing through parliament.

2.2.2 What EmpCo Does

The EmpCo Directive amends the UCPD (Directive 2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU). It does not create a new standalone environmental claims law. Instead, it integrates environmental and sustainability claims directly into the UCPD's prohibition on unfair commercial practices.

The Directive makes three categories of change relevant to green claims:

2.2.3 New Blacklisted Practices (Added to UCPD Annex I)

Annex I of the UCPD lists commercial practices that are prohibited in all circumstances, without any need to assess their effect on consumers on a case-by-case basis. EmpCo adds the following to this absolute list:

• Making a generic environmental claim without demonstrating recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. A 'generic environmental claim' is defined as one made in written or oral form where the specification of the claim is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium (Article 2(p) UCPD as amended). The European Commission FAQ on the Directive (updated 18 May 2026, Q4) clarifies that if the specification is stated clearly on the same medium, the claim is not generic and is not caught by this blacklist. Recital 9 identifies examples of terms considered generic when unspecified: 'environmentally friendly', 'eco-friendly', 'green', 'nature's friend', 'ecological', 'climate friendly', 'carbon friendly', 'biodegradable', 'biobased', and similar. The Commission FAQ (Q7) defines three routes to lawfully use a generic claim: (1) EU Ecolabel compliance (Regulation (EC) No 66/2010); (2) compliance with a national or regional ISO 14024 Type I ecolabelling scheme officially recognised in the member states (e.g. Nordic Swan, Blue Angel, Milieukeur); or (3) top environmental performance under other applicable Union law, such as the Energy Labelling Regulation for 'energy efficient' claims.

• Displaying a voluntary sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities. The Commission FAQ (Q8) defines 'certification scheme' precisely: it requires independent third-party verification; publicly available scheme requirements; monitoring by a competent, independent third party that is legally separate from the scheme owner, in line with international, Union or national standards (e.g. ISO 17065); and the scheme must be open to all traders under fair and non-discriminatory terms. Only EU public authorities' labels qualify as 'established by public authorities' — labels from third-country public authorities are not exempt unless backed by a qualifying certification scheme.

• Making an environmental claim about the entire product when it applies only to certain aspects of it

• Presenting requirements imposed by law on all products in the product category as a distinctive feature of the trader's offer

• Claiming, based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Examples from Recital 12 of the Directive include: 'climate neutral', 'CO2 neutral certified', 'carbon positive', 'climate net zero', 'climate compensated', 'reduced climate impact', and 'limited CO2 footprint'.

The offset-based carbon claim prohibition is one of the most significant provisions in the EmpCo Directive, and the Commission FAQ (updated 18 May 2026, Q10) clarifies two important limits on its scope. First, the prohibition applies specifically to offsetting outside the product's value chain. A claim based on the actual lifecycle emissions impact of the product within its own value chain is not caught — for example, a biomass product that genuinely stores more CO2 than it emits along its lifecycle can make a climate-neutral claim. Second, the prohibition applies to product-level claims only. Company-level carbon neutrality or net zero claims based on offsetting are not blacklisted under Annex I point 4c, though they remain subject to other UCPD provisions on a case-by-case basis. Companies may continue to communicate about their investment in carbon credit projects, provided this is done transparently and does not misleadingly imply that a specific product has no climate impact.

2.2.4 New Misleading Practices (Case-by-Case Assessment)

EmpCo also adds to the UCPD's list of practices that are to be assessed case-by-case as potentially misleading. Relevant additions include:

• Making an environmental claim related to future environmental performance without clear, objective, publicly available commitments supported by a detailed implementation plan

• Advertising a product as repairable when it is not

• Omitting information about the fact that software updates will negatively affect the functioning of goods or make use of digital content or digital services impossible

2.2.5 Scope

The EmpCo Directive applies to B2C commercial communications. This includes product packaging, websites, advertising, social media, promotional materials, and verbal communications made in the course of business. It applies to any business communicating with EU consumers, regardless of where that business is established. A company based in Singapore or Australia whose website is accessible to EU consumers is within scope.

2.2.6 Penalties

Penalties under the UCPD as amended by EmpCo are set by member states. The Directive requires penalties to be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. For widespread infringements (coordinated enforcement actions by multiple member state authorities), penalties must be capable of reaching at least 4% of annual turnover in the relevant member state, or EUR 2 million where turnover data is unavailable.

2.3 The Green Claims Directive: A Note on the Withdrawal

A separate legislative proposal — the Directive on Substantiation and Communication of Explicit Environmental Claims (the Green Claims Directive, COM(2023)0166) — was proposed by the European Commission in March 2023 and adopted in amended form by the European Parliament in March 2024. It would have gone significantly further than the EmpCo Directive, requiring pre-publication accredited third-party verification of all explicit environmental claims, scientific substantiation based on internationally recognised methodologies, and a prohibition on environmental labelling schemes not meeting defined criteria.

In June 2025, the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw the Green Claims Directive proposal. Trilogues between the Commission, Parliament, and Council were suspended. As at the date of this publication, the proposal has been withdrawn and the file is closed, with no new legislative proposal announced.

The withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive does not affect the EmpCo Directive, which is in force and proceeding to application. Organisations should not interpret the Green Claims Directive withdrawal as a relaxation of the EU's approach to green claims. The EmpCo Directive's blacklisted practices — including the prohibition on generic claims and offset-based carbon neutrality claims — remain fully operative.

2.4 CSRD and ESRS: The Reporting Dimension

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (Directive (EU) 2022/2464, CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) create mandatory sustainability reporting requirements for large companies. While the primary focus of CSRD is disclosure rather than marketing claims, it creates a significant consistency risk: environmental claims made in marketing materials that are inconsistent with disclosures made in sustainability reports are exposed to both greenwashing liability and CSRD non-compliance liability simultaneously.

Organisations subject to CSRD should ensure their marketing claims governance is aligned with their ESRS reporting. A claim of 'carbon neutral product' in advertising that is not reflected in or is inconsistent with GHG disclosure under ESRS E1 creates a compound legal exposure.

Section 3: United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has a mature green claims enforcement infrastructure that has been significantly strengthened since 2024. Three distinct regulatory frameworks apply, covering consumer-facing marketing claims, financial product claims, and advertising standards respectively.

3.1 The CMA Green Claims Code

The Competition and Markets Authority published its Green Claims Code in September 2021. The Code sets out six principles that all consumer-facing environmental claims must satisfy:

• Claims must be truthful and accurate — claims must be factually correct and must not exaggerate environmental benefits

• Claims must be clear and unambiguous — the average consumer must be able to understand the claim without specialist knowledge

• Claims must not omit or hide important information — information that would materially affect consumer understanding must be included

• Comparisons must be fair and meaningful — like must be compared with like; comparisons with obsolete products or unrepresentative comparators are non-compliant

• Claims must consider the full life cycle — selective focus on one lifecycle stage that creates a misleading overall impression is non-compliant

• Claims must be substantiated — robust, credible, independently verifiable evidence must support every claim

The CMA Green Claims Code applies across all media: product packaging, websites, advertising, labels, imagery, and social media. It applies to all businesses making claims to UK consumers.

The CMA also published sector-specific guidance for the fashion and textile industry in September 2024, setting out detailed expectations for environmental claims in that sector.

3.2 The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA)

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 entered into full force in the United Kingdom on 6 April 2025. The DMCCA fundamentally changes the enforcement landscape for green claims by giving the CMA direct administrative enforcement powers that it previously lacked.

Prior to the DMCCA, the CMA was required to go to court to enforce consumer protection law and obtain remedies against infringing businesses. Under the DMCCA, the CMA can now:

• Investigate and determine breaches of consumer protection law (including misleading environmental claims) without court proceedings

• Require businesses to provide undertakings committing to compliance

• Impose direct administrative fines of up to 10% of global annual turnover, or £300,000, whichever is greater

• Impose daily penalties for continued non-compliance

• Order redress for affected consumers

The CMA has signalled that it will take a phased approach to enforcement, initially targeting the most egregious breaches. Greenwashing, false or misleading environmental claims, and systematic governance failures in claims management are identified as priority areas.

The 10% of global annual turnover penalty cap is significant. For a large multinational, this creates potential financial exposure that dwarfs most prior greenwashing settlements. Importantly, liability under the DMCCA does not require intent. A business that makes misleading environmental claims in good faith, without adequate substantiation, may still face enforcement.

3.3 FCA Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) — Anti-Greenwashing Rule

The Financial Conduct Authority's Sustainability Disclosure Requirements include an anti-greenwashing rule that has applied to all FCA-authorised firms since 31 May 2024. The rule applies to any sustainability-related claim made by an FCA-authorised entity in any communication connected with a financial product or service.

Key features of the FCA anti-greenwashing rule:

• Sustainability claims must be fair, clear, and not misleading — the same standard as the broader FCA communications rules, applied specifically to sustainability claims

• Claims must be consistent with the sustainability profile of the product or service to which they relate

• The rule applies to ALL communications — including marketing materials, websites, social media posts, and verbal communications made in the course of business. A compliance officer's LinkedIn post about the firm's sustainability credentials is within scope.

• The rule applies to claims about the firm itself as well as claims about specific products

The FCA has published guidance on how to comply with the anti-greenwashing rule, including worked examples of compliant and non-compliant claims. It has indicated that enforcement will focus on areas of most consumer risk.

The SDR also includes a product naming, marketing, and labelling regime for UK investment products, with defined criteria for sustainability-related fund names and labels. Funds using labels such as 'sustainable' or 'responsible' in their name or marketing must meet defined product-level criteria.

3.4 Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)

The ASA applies the UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing (CAP Code) and the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (BCAP Code) to advertising content. The ASA has established a significant body of adjudications on environmental claims in advertising, providing detailed guidance on what is and is not acceptable.

ASA adjudications are not legally binding in the same way as CMA enforcement, but they are influential and their outcomes require advertisers to withdraw or amend non-compliant advertising. The ASA and CMA work cooperatively on environmental claims, with ASA adjudication outcomes informing CMA enforcement priorities.

Section 4: Australia

Australia has established itself as the most active enforcement jurisdiction globally for green claims outside Europe. Both the ACCC (covering consumer goods and services) and ASIC (covering financial products and services) have obtained material penalties in greenwashing proceedings. Environmental and sustainability claims enforcement has been listed as a priority for both regulators for 2024–2025 and beyond.

4.1 Australian Consumer Law (ACL)

The Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) is the primary legal framework governing environmental claims in Australia. The ACL prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce (section 18) and false or misleading representations (section 29).

Environmental claims that are vague, unsubstantiated, or misleading can breach section 18 regardless of whether the claimant intended to mislead. Australia's consumer law liability is strict in this sense: honest belief in the truth of a claim is not a defence if the claim is objectively misleading.

Civil penalties under the ACL for corporations can reach the greater of:

• AUD 50 million per contravention

• Three times the benefit obtained from the contravention

• 30% of adjusted turnover for the relevant period

In practice, courts assess penalties holistically taking into account the nature and severity of the conduct, the size of the organisation, and the need for deterrence.

4.2 ACCC Enforcement and Guidance

The ACCC published its guidance for businesses on making environmental claims in December 2023. The guidance sets out eight principles: accuracy and truthfulness; evidence-based claims; specific rather than vague claims; explaining limitations (do not hide relevant information); product lifecycle consideration; distinguishing genuine claims from legal baseline compliance; honest future claims; and claims covering only what the trader controls.

These eight principles closely track the requirements of ISO 14021 and the principles of ISO 14020. An organisation that applies the ISO standards rigorously is well-placed to comply with the ACCC guidance.

The ACCC has confirmed greenwashing as a compliance and enforcement priority for 2025–2026, with particular focus on energy, food, fashion, and homewares sectors.

4.3 Confirmed ACCC and ASIC Enforcement Outcomes

The following enforcement outcomes are confirmed matters of public record:

4.4 ASIC Regulatory Guide 228 and REP 791

ASIC's Regulatory Guide 228 (Prospectuses: Effective disclosure for retail investors, updated for ESG context) and its Report REP 791 (How ASIC assessed potential greenwashing by superannuation and investment funds, August 2024) provide detailed guidance on what ASIC considers compliant and non-compliant for financial product ESG claims.

REP 791 identified a range of recurring failures in supervised entities' ESG claims: vague and aspirational language not matched by actual investment criteria; claims about ESG screening that overstated the scope or rigour of the screening applied; sustainability metrics based on inconsistent or poorly defined methodologies; and future climate commitments without supporting implementation plans.

Section 5: United States

The United States regulatory environment for green claims is less centralised than the EU or UK frameworks. Federal guidance is provided by the FTC through its Green Guides, while state-level regulation — particularly in California — creates additional legally enforceable requirements. Significant class action litigation risk also exists independently of regulatory enforcement.

5.1 FTC Green Guides (16 CFR Part 260)

The Federal Trade Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (the Green Guides) provide the FTC's interpretation of how environmental marketing claims should be made without being unfair or deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45). The Green Guides are guidance, not regulation — they do not have the force of law. However, the FTC can and does bring enforcement actions against businesses making claims that are deceptive under Section 5, using the Green Guides as the benchmark for what constitutes deception.

The current edition of the Green Guides was last revised in 2012 (77 Fed. Reg. 62122 (October 11, 2012)). A formal review process was initiated in December 2022 and nearly 60,000 public comments were received. However, as at the date of this publication, revised Green Guides have not been issued. The revision process was interrupted by the change of administration in January 2025, and final revisions are currently of uncertain timing.

The 2012 Green Guides provide guidance on the following claim types relevant to ISO 14021:

• General environmental benefit claims — disfavoured; require robust, comprehensive substantiation covering the full product lifecycle

• Recyclable claims — unqualified recyclability claims should not be made if recycling facilities are not available to a substantial majority of consumers (interpreted as approximately 60% of the relevant market)

• Recycled content — guidance on distinguishing pre-consumer and post-consumer content

• Compostable — claims require qualification if industrial composting facilities are not widely available

• Degradable — products should not be claimed degradable unless they completely decompose within one year after customary disposal

• Carbon offsets — guidance on offset quality and disclosure; revised guidance specifically on carbon neutral and net zero claims is anticipated in any future revision

The FTC has enforcement authority under Section 5 through civil penalty actions. State attorneys general also have enforcement authority under state consumer protection laws.

5.2 California: SB 343 and AB 1305

California has enacted specific environmental marketing legislation that imposes stricter requirements than the federal Green Guides for products sold in California.

5.2.1 SB 343 (Plastic Recyclability)

California SB 343 (effective 1 January 2024) restricts the use of the chasing arrows symbol and the term 'recyclable' on plastic products sold in California. A plastic product may only be labelled recyclable if it meets specific requirements, including that it is collected for recycling by at least 60% of California waste collection programmes, that it is sorted into defined categories at recycling facilities, and that it has established end markets. The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) maintains lists of plastics that meet and do not meet these requirements.

This is a materially more restrictive standard than the FTC Green Guides' approximate 60% availability threshold, because it requires demonstrated collection, sorting, AND market existence, not just collection availability.

5.2.2 AB 1305 (Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures)

California AB 1305 (Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act, effective 1 January 2024) requires any company that makes net zero, carbon neutral, or greenhouse gas emissions reduction claims, or that uses voluntary carbon offsets, and that operates in California or sells products or services in California, to publish specified disclosures on its website. Required disclosures include:

• For companies making climate claims: the specific claims made; the basis for the claims; any third-party verification of the claims; and the methodologies used to calculate progress

• For companies selling or buying carbon offsets: details of the offset projects; the protocols used; the verification body; and whether the offsets are additional, permanent, and not double-counted

Violations of AB 1305 are subject to civil penalties of up to USD 2,500 per day per violation, up to a maximum of USD 500,000. The scope is broad: any company with California customers making climate-related claims is potentially subject to the Act.

5.3 Private Litigation

Independent of regulatory enforcement, private class action litigation for misleading environmental claims is active in the United States. Consumer plaintiffs have brought successful actions against companies making unsubstantiated recyclability claims, misleading compostability claims, and offset-based carbon neutrality claims. Settlement values in significant cases have reached tens of millions of dollars.

Section 6: Asia-Pacific and Canada

6.1 Singapore

Singapore has sector-specific green claims frameworks rather than a single overarching instrument:

• MAS ESG Fund Guidelines: The Monetary Authority of Singapore's Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management and requirements for ESG fund disclosure require fund managers making ESG-related claims to document their methodology, disclose data sources and limitations, and ensure claims are substantiated. Generic ESG labels without supporting criteria are not acceptable.

• SGX Sustainability Reporting: Singapore Exchange-listed companies are subject to mandatory sustainability reporting requirements, with climate-related disclosures now mandatory for certain sectors. Environmental claims in sustainability reports carry disclosure obligations.

• Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (CPFTA): Misleading environmental claims in consumer marketing are actionable under the CPFTA. While no major enforcement actions against product-level green claims had been publicly reported as at the date of publication, the legal basis for enforcement exists.

6.2 Hong Kong

Environmental claims in Hong Kong are governed by a combination of:

• SFC Code on ESG Funds and Circular on Management and Disclosure: The Securities and Futures Commission has issued a circular requiring SFC-authorised funds making ESG claims to meet disclosure requirements. Generic ESG designations must be supported by specific investment criteria.

• Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362): False trade descriptions, including misleading environmental claims on products, are prohibited. Enforcement is through the Customs and Excise Department.

• HKEX ESG Reporting Guide: Listed companies must comply with climate-related disclosure requirements. Environmental claims in sustainability reports must be consistent with underlying disclosures.

6.3 Canada

Canada amended its Competition Act in 2024 to explicitly address environmental performance claims. Section 74.01(1)(b.1) of the amended Competition Act prohibits representations to the public that a product or business operation has a beneficial or neutral environmental effect if those representations are not based on adequate and proper substantiation in accordance with internationally recognised methodology at the time the representations were made.

'Internationally recognised methodology' is not defined in the Act but is widely interpreted by legal practitioners to include ISO 14021:2016 and the ISO 14020 family. The Canadian Competition Bureau has published guidance indicating that claims should be specific, truthful, and verifiable, and that substantiation methodology should be documented before the claim is made.

Penalties for breach of the misleading representations provisions can include administrative monetary penalties. Private rights of action also exist under the Competition Act for affected parties.

Section 7: The Common Thread: What All Frameworks Require

Despite their jurisdictional and structural differences, the regulatory frameworks described in this whitepaper converge on a common set of requirements. An organisation that genuinely meets these requirements is substantially compliant across all major enforcement jurisdictions:

The ISO 14021:2016 requirements are not merely aspirational guidance that happens to overlap with regulation. They are the technical standard against which the legality of specific claims is assessed in enforcement proceedings across multiple jurisdictions. An organisation that applies ISO 14021 rigorously — not as a compliance exercise but as a genuine operational discipline — is substantially protected against the specific claims most likely to attract regulatory action.

Conclusion

The Enforcement Era Has Begun

The regulatory frameworks described in this whitepaper have three things in common: they are legally binding, they are being actively enforced, and they are aligned with the requirements of ISO 14020 and ISO 14021.

The EmpCo Directive's prohibition on offset-based carbon neutrality claims and generic sustainability labels takes effect across the EU from 27 September 2026. The CMA's power to fine UK businesses directly — up to 10% of global turnover — has been in force since 6 April 2025. The ACCC has obtained an AUD 8.25 million penalty against Clorox Australia for misleading recycled plastic claims. ASIC has obtained AUD 11.3 million and AUD 12.9 million penalties for greenwashing in financial products. The Canadian Competition Act amendment is in force. California's AB 1305 carbon disclosure requirements apply to any company making net zero claims with California customers.

The question facing every organisation that makes environmental claims is not whether this regulatory environment will affect them, but whether their current claims can withstand scrutiny under frameworks that are now operational. For most organisations, the honest answer is that a significant portion of current claims — particularly those using vague terms like 'sustainable', 'eco-friendly', and 'green'; those making offset-based carbon neutrality claims; those making recyclability claims without geographic qualification; and those with evidence that predates the current product formulation — cannot withstand that scrutiny.

The solution is not to stop making environmental claims. Genuine environmental performance is commercially relevant and organisations with authentic sustainability credentials have a legitimate interest in communicating them. The solution is to build the governance infrastructure that makes every claim defensible: a documented environmental statement programme, current and specific evidence for every active claim, appropriate qualification of every claim, and independent assessment where the stakes are highest.

About Speeki GreenDesk™

Speeki GreenDesk™ is an independent environmental claims governance and verification service. Claims are assessed against ISO 14021:2016 and the applicable regulatory frameworks in the jurisdictions where the claim will be used. All determinations are issued under Speeki's ISO 17021-1 accreditation through COFRAC (France) and ANAB (United States). Speeki does not advise clients on what claims to make. Independence is the foundation of its value.

Standards and Regulatory References

All references verified as at the date of publication. Readers should verify current status before relying on any reference for compliance purposes.

ISO 14020:2022. Environmental statements and programmes for products — Principles and general requirements. Third edition. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

ISO 14021:2016. Environmental labels and declarations — Self-declared environmental claims (Type II environmental labelling). Second edition. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition (EmpCo Directive). OJ L, 6.3.2024. In force 27 March 2024. Applies from 27 September 2026.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Questions & Answers on Directive (EU) 2024/825 (ECGT/EmpCo Directive). Originally published 27 November 2025; updated 18 May 2026. Preliminary views of EC services; not a formal Commission position. Available at commission.europa.eu. Cited on: definition of generic environmental claims (Q4); recognised excellent environmental performance pathways (Q7); certification scheme requirements (Q8); scope of offset-based claim prohibition including value chain carve-out and company-level distinction (Q10); scope of Directive including corporate websites and CSRD interaction (Q1).

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/825.

Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights. OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, as amended by Directive (EU) 2024/825.

Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, CSRD). OJ L 322, 16.12.2022.

Commission Proposal COM(2023)0166. Proposal for a Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). March 2023. Withdrawn by the European Commission in June 2025.

Competition and Markets Authority (UK). Green Claims Code. Published September 2021. Available at cma.gov.uk.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (UK). Entered into force 6 April 2025.

Financial Conduct Authority (UK). Sustainability Disclosure Requirements (SDR) and investment labels. Anti-greenwashing rule effective 31 May 2024. PS23/16.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law). Maximum civil penalties for corporations: AUD 50 million or 30% of adjusted turnover.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Environmental and sustainability claims — a guide for business. Published December 2023. Available at accc.gov.au.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Clorox Australia Pty Ltd: Federal Court of Australia, penalty of AUD 8.25 million agreed February 2025; proceedings commenced April 2024.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Gas Networks Pty Ltd: Federal Court of Australia. Proceedings commenced June 2025. Alleges false and misleading representations that gas distributed on the network will be renewable within a generation. Ongoing as at date of publication.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mercer Superannuation (Australia) Limited: Federal Court of Australia, AUD 11.3 million penalty, August 2024.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd: AUD 12.9 million penalty, 2024.

ASIC REP 791. How ASIC assessed potential greenwashing by superannuation and investment funds. Australian Securities and Investments Commission, August 2024.

FTC Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (Green Guides). 16 CFR Part 260. Last revised 2012. 77 Fed. Reg. 62122 (October 11, 2012). Review initiated December 2022; revised guides not yet issued as at date of publication.

California SB 343. Packaging: recyclability labelling. Effective 1 January 2024.

California AB 1305. Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act. Effective 1 January 2024.

Competition Act (Canada) RSC 1985, c C-34, as amended 2024. Section 74.01(1)(b.1) on environmental performance claims.

Note: This whitepaper does not constitute legal advice. Organisations with specific compliance questions should seek advice from qualified legal counsel in the relevant jurisdictions.