Going Green Without Greenwashing: Answering Your Questions From ICPHSO’s Green Claims Panel, Florida 2026

This blog was originally posted on 17th March, 2026. Further regulatory developments may have occurred after publication. To keep up-to-date with the latest compliance news, sign up to our newsletter.

AUTHORED BY JOANNE O’DONNELL, HEAD OF GLOBAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE, EMILIA ASSENZA, SENIOR GLOBAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST & RUAN DOHERTY, GLOBAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST, COMPLIANCE & RISKS

Key Insight

Green claims are increasingly regulated worldwide as authorities move from voluntary guidance toward enforceable laws designed to prevent greenwashing. However, regulatory approaches differ significantly across jurisdictions, creating complex compliance challenges for companies operating internationally. Businesses must therefore ensure that environmental claims are carefully substantiated, consistent across markets, and supported by credible evidence.

Introduction

The annual International Consumer Product Health and Safety Organization (ICPHSO) symposium took place from 23 to 26 February in sunny Orlando, Florida and welcomed almost 800 product safety professionals, lawyers and regulators from around the world. 

Joanne O’Donnell was invited by leading Irish law firm Mason, Hayes and Curran to join their panel to discuss how to manage green claims across multiple jurisdictions.   

Greenwashing and unsubstantiated ‘green claims’ are a major global regulatory concern, with the European Commission finding that 40% of claims lack supporting evidence and 53% are vague or misleading. This proliferation is driving greenwashing to become a distinct and critical branch of consumer protection legislation worldwide. For international companies, compliance is challenging due to the numerous, disparate anti-greenwashing regimes across jurisdictions where a single product is manufactured and distributed. Failure to comply can result in significant financial penalties and reputational damage. The complexity is evident even within the EU, which has 230 sustainability labels and 100 green energy labels with varying levels of transparency. 

The Panel set out to address this by exploring the various international regimes and provide practical advice for businesses on ensuring consistency and compliance. Here is a summary of some of the key questions that we covered as well as some we were unable to cover on the day due to time constraints.

For more on Environmental Claims and Legal Liabilities, take a Deep Dive into Anti-Greenwashing Regulations.

Question 1: What Do We Mean by “Green Claims”, and What Are the Various Types of Claims That Come Within This Category?

The term “Greenwashing” was coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld in the 1980s to expose the practices of some hotels that urged guests to reuse towels while wasting resources elsewhere.  It has evolved significantly since then but there is still no harmonised internationally recognised definition –  which has resulted in a regulatory landscape that is fragmented and misaligned from country to country.

It is however largely agreed that the term is typically used to describe a statement, symbol or graphic that states or implies that a product, service or brand has positive or neutral impact on the environment. It can cover: 

• What companies say on their product, packaging, website, marketing /external communications. 
• What companies state in their corporate sustainability report if information from that report is used in voluntary advertising or marketing directed at consumers (as per the FAQ document on the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCO) published in November 2025). 
• Colors, green logos or images when combined with written or verbal statements may also fall within scope. 
• Company names, brand names, trading names and product names regardless of whether or not the name is trademarked e.g. names alluding to “green”, “eco” or “sustainable”.  
• Omissions whereby critical information is concealed or left out thereby creating a false or exaggerated impression of a product’s or company’s sustainability. The EU Commission FAQ document is clear – If there is no space to specify the environmental claim, then the claim should generally not be made.
• Sounds in a commercial such as leaves rustling, flowing water, and birds chirping, can also be seen as generic environmental claims.  France’s ADEME April 2024 Guide and the EmpCO specifically refer to  audiovisuals. 
• Repeating, relying on or passing on a claim made by another party in the supply chain even if you did not originally create it (as per the guidance document published by the UK Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) in January 2026 entitled Making green claims: Getting it right, across the supply chain). 

To conclude, there are many different terms used to describe the different forms of of Greenwashing as follows:

• Greenlabeling: branding an unsustainable product as green, sustainable or  “eco-friendly” through misleading,  vague claims, colors, or symbols.
• Greenlighting: Highlighting a small, single, positive initiative to distract from broader environmental harm across operations or supply chains.
• Greencrowding: Safety in numbers; hiding in a group to avoid individual scrutiny.
• Greenrinsing: regularly changing sustainability targets before they are achieved. 
• Greenshifting: Shifting responsibility onto consumers to be more sustainable and reduce their own individual footprint, rather than having to take meaningful action at the corporate or brand level. 
• Greenhushing: Deliberately underreporting, downplaying or hiding sustainability achievements to avoid scrutiny. 

Question 2: How Are Countries Currently Legislating Against Green Claims?

Countries are approaching greenwashing from diverse perspectives and with different levels of scrutiny. This regulatory divergence creates significant challenges for multinational companies, which must navigate different expectations and enforcement standards. There are essentially three levels of regulatory protection against greenwashing.

Level 1: Guidance-Based Approaches

This is the most basic level and consists of countries relying on guidance documents and recommendations only – there is no specific “greenwashing” law. The government primarily provides “best practice” documents to encourage voluntary honesty e.g. Brazil, India, Singapore.

Level 2: Consumer Protection Laws with Guidance

Existing consumer protection laws + Green-washing specific Guidance documents. These countries do not have a standalone “Greenwashing Act,” but they aggressively use existing Consumer Protection laws to fine companies in conjunction with guidance documents. Examples include:

United States: 

No federal “green law”; instead, the FTC uses the FTC Act (prohibiting deceptive acts) supported by the “Green Guides. These guides are actively incorporated into law in some states e.g. California 

United Kingdom: 

No specific anti-greenwashing legislation but greenwashing is regulated through a combination of:

• General consumer protection laws
• CMA Green Claims Code (6 principles)
• CMA Guidance on ‘Making Green Claims: Getting it Right Across the Supply Chain, January 2026
• Enforcement bolstered by Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) which allows the UK regulator to fine companies up to 10% of global turnover for misleading claims
  

Level 3: Green Claims–Specific Regulation

This is the gold standard and reflects a growing emergence of greenwashing/green claims specific regulations. The leading example here is the EU with two distinct pieces of legislation on top of existing Consumer Protection laws:

Empowering Consumers for Green Transition Directive

• Amends existing EU consumer protection legislation by adding environmental, social, and circularity aspects as key product features that must not mislead consumers to the already existing list of misleading business practices that are prohibited.
• Contains a Blacklist of prohibited practices e.g. Claiming that a product is “carbon neutral” based on offsets or the use of generic terms like “green” or “eco” without being able to point to an official EU Ecolabel or equivalent.
• 31 March 2026 represents the deadline for transposition by EU Member States after which it will apply from 27 September 2026.
  

Draft Green Claims Directive

• Proposed originally in March 2023.
• If finalised, companies will be required to ensure that their environmental claims are verified by an independent, accredited body before they can use them in marketing.
• In June 2025, the EU Commission announced its intention to withdraw the draft but subsequently stated that it was still on the table. The draft was added to the EU Consumer Agenda for 2026 earlier this year but its future is unclear at the moment.

Question 3: How Do the Approaches in the EU, US and UK Differ From Each Other?

The EU is moving towards mandatory green-claim specific regulatory regime based on verified, third-party substantiated green claims whereas the UK and US rely more on guidance combined with existing mandatory consumer protection laws and high enforcement risk. Some of the key differences between the three regimes can be summarised below:

Question 4: What Are the Main Regulatory Trends With Regard to Green Claims Legislation?

The global regulatory landscape for green claims is undergoing a significant transformation, characterized by the following key trends:

Shift from ‘Soft’ to Hard Law

There is a global movement from voluntary guidelines to mandatory “hard law” with tangible enforcement power. This is evident in the increasing number of new regulations focused on green claims.

Stricter and More Punitive Penalties

Penalties are becoming increasingly more severe and are now often tied to a company’s financial turnover. For instance, the UK’s CMA can fine up to 10% of global turnover (the most punitive) whilst Canada similarly allows for fines up to 3% of global turnover. In the EU, companies can be fined up to 4% of their annual turnover in the EU member state where the infringement occurred.

Authorities are also empowered to confiscate profits gained from products associated with misleading claims, and in some jurisdictions, individuals can face imprisonment (e.g., up to 2 years in France and 6 months in California for deceptive recyclability symbols).

Increased Use of AI in Oversight and Compliance

AI is being adopted across the board:

• Regulator Side: Regulators like the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are using AI-based ad monitoring systems to proactively scan for and issue automated warnings against misleading “sustainable” claims.
• Litigation Side: Class-action lawyers and litigation funders are deploying AI to identify discrepancies between a company’s internal data and its public marketing claims.
• Company Side: AI is becoming a mandatory “pre-scan” tool for legal teams to vet claims internally before they are made public.

Rise in Litigation

Greenwashing litigation is increasing globally, with new types of claims emerging:

• “Industry Competitor Litigation” is on the rise where companies sue each other for gaining an “unfair green advantage.”
• There is also a surge in litigation targeting products marketed as “natural” or “sustainable” that contain PFAS substances.

Intensified Regulatory Investigations and Enforcement

Regulators are becoming more coordinated and active:

• EU: National enforcement is already active (e.g., recent fines against leading fast-fashion and high-end fashion designers by Italy), and the coordinated Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network is being used for cross-border investigations.
• UK: Regulators are “hunting in packs” with Sector-Wide ‘Sweeps’ (e.g., fast-moving consumer goods, fashion). A history of ASA rulings now makes a company a high-priority target for a significant CMA fine.
• Global: South Korea has recorded nearly 5,000 cases in two years (2020–2022), and Australia’s ACCC has made greenwashing a top priority for 2026-27, demonstrated by multi-million dollar penalties. State-level enforcement in the US is also increasing, led by California and New York.

Question 5: How Can a Company Practically Reconcile California’s Truth in Labeling Law (SB343) With Other Conflicting State Law? For Example, Chasing Arrows Around Resin Code May Be Prohibited in California but Legally Required in Other States. Creating Multiple Versions of Packaging is Not Feasible/Reasonable.

This is one of the main themes that emerged from the public comment period during the development of the California Truth in Labeling Law (SB343). As it stands today, SB 343 may lead to conflict with a number of other US states that require the use of the chasing arrows symbol and Resin Identification Code (RIC) system, so producers will have to take a state-specific approach to ensure that their packaging labelling is compliant. There have been no rulings or additional guidance provided on this matter. As such, the general advice is that companies should adopt strategies that comply with the strictest law whilst fulfilling their requirements in other US states.  

Compliance and Risks monitor regulatory developments in all US states including California on a daily basis so we are keeping a close on this in the event that guidance and/or further clarification is published. 

Question 6: If a Company Wants to Use More Sustainable Materials and Have Green Claims, but There is a Fear of Restricted Chemical Failures, an Example With BPA With Recycled Polyester, How Can a Company Navigate This Issue?

Chemical contamination in sustainable materials is a risk that needs to be taken into account when evaluating materials strategies. 

Although recycled materials play a key role in advancing sustainability, they can contain unknown chemical mixtures including substances such as bisphenols. Hazardous compounds like BPA may still be present, making it essential for companies to comply with applicable chemical regulations and restrictions through appropriate testing and certification.

From a green claims perspective, this means that the use of sustainable or recycled materials must be properly substantiated. For instance, a “BPA-free” claim can only be used when supported by robust and verifiable evidence.

Question 7: The Chasing Arrows Label is Used on Packaging Within the EU and Includes the Applicable Material Identification Code. Would it Still Be Permissible to Use Globally Standardized Packaging Bearing the EU Label in California, Provided That We Can Demonstrate That the Material Coding Information is Accurate and Compliant in Substance?

California Truth in Labeling Law (SB343) prohibits the chasing arrows symbol unless specific recyclability criteria are met, regardless of whether the material coding information is accurate. If you are using any form of chasing arrows symbol/recyclability claim on packaging in California, you must be able to prove that the material itself is actually recyclable statewide (i.e. collected and processed for recycling in at least 60% of California’s population). If the packaging material does not meet the recyclability criteria, the material identification code should be placed inside a solid equilateral triangle instead of the chasing arrows symbol. 

Question 8: What Will the Effect of the EU’s Digital Product Passport be on Greenwashing?

In the EU, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which entered into force on 18 July 2024, sets down environmental sustainability requirements for certain priority products (e.g. textiles/apparel, tyres, mattresses and furniture) and also establishes a DPP to provide information about their environmental footprint. Similarly, the EU Batteries Regulation which entered into force on 17 August 2023 also requires a ‘digital battery passport’ to provide information about the battery’s composition and sustainability requirements. DPPs are also required under the EU Toys Regulation and the EU Construction Products Regulation and are also being explored in other regions (e.g. China). 

The DPP will certainly become a key tool to combat greenwashing, given that it will contain details on product materials, recycling information, sources of materials etc. It will also serve as a valuable instrument for companies, enabling them to substantiate their claims through the information included in the DPP. By way of example, the DPP can contain information which is used to verify the sustainability claims made on the product. It will also facilitate the collection and analysis of data and certificates across the entire supply chain, thereby enhancing traceability and the verification of related claims. 

Question 9: What Considerations Are There for Greenwashing Arising From the Use of Third Party “Green” Certifications?

Reputable third party certification is a strong tool to substantiate green claims, compared, for example, to internal testing and/or self certification. Although obtaining third party certification is not always mandatory, it remains the most reliable method to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the claim.

Under the EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transitions Directive, third party certification is mandatory for sustainability labels, meaning that the use of self-made sustainability labels is no longer allowed. Before displaying a sustainability label, the trader must ensure that the sustainability label is based on a certification scheme that meets the minimum conditions of transparency and credibility, including the existence of objective monitoring of compliance with the requirements of the scheme. Claims related to future environmental performance are also banned unless they have been verified by an independent third party expert.

The draft EU Green Claims Directive, proposed since March 2023, would require companies to ensure that their environmental claims are verified by an independent, accredited body before they can use them in marketing.  In June 2025, the Commission announced its intention to withdraw the draft but it was added to the Consumer Agenda for 2026 and has not therefore been withdrawn, although its future is unclear at this point.  

Compliance & Risks monitor regulatory developments in the EU on a daily basis so we are keeping a close on this proposal. 

Question 10: What Role Can Technology Play With Regards to Green Claims?

As robust and verifiable data becomes increasingly important to substantiate green claims, data cleanliness plays a crucial role to avoid greenwashing. Technology, such as AI,  can therefore assist in ensuring that high-quality data is properly collected, managed and stored to support such claims. 

Where information cannot be verified and transparency is lacking, claims are far more likely to be unsubstantiated. Effective data systems must also guarantee traceability. To this end, data management tools and solutions, often enhanced by AI, should be used by companies to ensure that their data is accurate, complete and up-to-date. 

From an enforcement point of view, it is also worth noting that AI models are increasingly being used by authorities to detect and address potential cases of greenwashing. In the UK, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has developed an Ad Monitoring system that utilizes AI to identify non-compliant advertisements – including those that may contain potentially misleading ‘green’ claims – across digital platforms. In December 2025, they proactively identified over 300 adverts by travel agents featuring green claims, of which 213 appeared likely to breach the ASA’s rules. Similarly, the EU surveillance webcrawler can track websites to find reappearances for products that EU member state authorities have already taken action against. 

On the litigation side, class-action lawyers and litigation funders are also leveraging AI to quickly identify discrepancies between a company’s internal data and their public marketing statements – the goal of which is to find inconsistencies that may form the basis of legal action.

Question 11: What Can Be Considered Acceptable Evidence to Substantiate a Claim? It is Challenging to Identify Clear Regulatory Guidance on This Matter, Aside From Obtaining Validation From an Official Certifying Body? Aside From 3rd Party Testing and Certifications, Are There Any Other Forms of Substantiation That Regulators Might Require?

Apart from third-party certification, substantiation can be achieved through robust,  credible and up-to-date evidence. In other words, a business must be able to provide appropriate evidence that the claim is true, accurate and not misleading. It may come from published research, for example, or studies that a business has commissioned or conducted. The more independent and widely supported the evidence, the more likely it will be to support a claim.

Useful guidance on this is given, for example, by the UK Green Claims Code which states that “what is required will depend on the circumstances and may vary depending on the nature of the product and the claim being made.” 

Evidence may also depend on:

• Who you are in the supply chain (e.g. are you a manufacturer, supplier, retailer); and
• The type of product, service or sector. 

Recent Guidance published by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in January 2026 entitled ‘Making Green Claims: Getting it Right Across the Supply Chain” contains useful checklists for retailers, brands selling through third party retailers, suppliers and manufacturers and highlights that businesses in the supply chain may need to work together to ensure that claims made to consumers are accurate and not misleading. This includes those that hold the evidence needed to support a claim sharing it with others in the chain who may want or need to communicate the claim to others and eventually consumers. 

It is also worth referring to sector-specific guidance if available.  In September 2024, the UK CMA published guidance entitled“ Complying with consumer law when making environmental claims in the fashion retail sector” which recommends that suppliers should be able to back up the claims that fashion retailers make with evidence which could include final scope certificates and final transaction certificates. The guidance also recommends that fashion retailers:

• Carry out regular spot checks of relevant certificates;
• Get confirmation from suppliers that they have read, understood and will comply with relevant policies and contractual terms regarding environmental claims;
• Get either the relevant certificates or other appropriate confirmation, such as a declaration from the supplier, that product information is accurate, prior to offering products for sale. 

Where a claim is not based on accepted scientific or other evidence it is likely to be more difficult to substantiate. Claims based on material that departs significantly from accepted scientific understanding or methodology, or for which there is conflicting evidence, are more likely to be misleading.”

Furthermore, claims must consider the full life cycle of the product and the whole of a business’s activities. Companies should also implement appropriate systems to retain documentation supporting their claims.

Simplify Corporate Sustainability Compliance

Six months of research, done in 60 seconds. Cut through ESG chaos and act with clarity. Try C&R Sustainability Free.

START TRIAL