It’s not uncommon to see products sold on shop shelves that market themselves as ‘carbon neutral’ or ‘environmentally friendly’. But these claims are not always clear or backed up by evidence - and courts are forcing companies to take them down.
German non-profit Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH) has been on an anti-greenwashing litigation spree over the last three years, stopping more than 100 firms from advertising their products or corporate activities as good for the environment. These include the makers of shower gel and trainers, and cruise and airline operators.
Agnes Sauter, head of ecological market surveillance at DUH, says companies are increasingly advertising their products and services with purported environmental benefits as shoppers become more aware of the impacts of the things they buy.
But the claims do not always stand up to scrutiny. A 2020 study by the European Commission found more than half of environmental claims in the EU to be vague, misleading or unfounded and 40 per cent were unsubstantiated.
“Greenwashing has become a growing problem that misleads consumers and hinders real progress in climate protection and the sustainable use of resources,” says Sauter.
Which companies have been accused of greenwashing?
Although it has been filing greenwashing claims since May 2022, DUH stepped up its action last year following a judgment by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) against sweet company Katjes.
The court ruled that ambiguous terms like ‘climate neutral’ - which could mean that a company has actually cut its emissions or that it has bought controversial carbon offsets - would only be allowed if they were properly explained within the advert itself.
In the last few months alone, DUH has confronted around 20 companies about their advertising claims under Germany’s Act against Unfair Competition, arguing that information is missing or challenging companies to show that the climate protection projects they use to achieve neutrality can meet their promises.
Sauter says the non-profit sees itself as an advocate for consumers “because correct information about the quality of a product enables informed purchasing decisions to be made”.
Judges have proved sympathetic. Last month, sporting goods brand Adidas was ordered to stop advertising that it would become ‘climate neutral by 2050' because it had not clearly explained how it would meet this goal.
“Climate protection is an increasingly important topic for consumers, dominating not only the news but also everyday life,” says Cologne Regional Court. “And advertising a company or its products with supposed climate neutrality can therefore have a significant impact on the purchasing decision.”
In a statement, Adidas says the decision relates exclusively to “specific wording” on its website, which has since been changed.
Climate neutral promises can confuse or deceive consumers
Sauter says corporate announcements that companies would be CO2 or climate neutral in the coming decades convey the impression of acting sustainably and responsibly, “but in most cases, this is nothing more than blatant consumer deception”.
She says these measures are often formulated vaguely and are difficult or even impossible to verify. “Such advertising claims must be credibly substantiated and presented in a way that is understandable to consumers. In our opinion, anything else is massive greenwashing and must be stopped immediately."
Aviation group Lufthansa, headquartered in Germany, was also banned by Cologne Regional Court in March from advertising that passengers can ‘compensate’ for carbon emissions from its flights. The adverts gave the false impression that a payment would make flying completely carbon neutral.
DUH previously won a similar legal victory specifically against airline Eurowings, which Lufthana operates. Lufthansa says it is carefully considering the latest ruling.
Last year, Hamburg Regional Court upheld a greenwashing lawsuit against Shell Germany.
DUH argued that giving customers the option of offsetting emissions from filling their cars with petrol or diesel gave a misleading impression that they could drive without any environmental impacts, because it was done via carbon credits from forest protection projects in Peru and Indonesia.
Shell Germany said the decision obliged it to stop CO2 offsetting and to stop selling Shell Helix bottles with the logo ‘CO2-neutral’.
Similarly, Karlsruhe Regional Court found consumers had been misled by cruise line TUI Cruises’ advertising promise that its cruise operations would be decarbonised by 2050.
Some of DUH’s claims target specific products. Following a successful lawsuit, home improvement chain Obi has been told it cannot advertise a wall paint as ‘climate-neutral’.
Legal action is sending a ‘strong signal’ to greenwashing companies
Some of these cases are still subject to appeal, and DUH will be watching to make sure that any final rulings are followed through. It enforced an injunction it had won in 2023 against drugstore chain dm for misleading consumers with the terms ‘climate neutral’ and ‘environmentally neutral’ on particular products.
When the company started to readvertise with the new slogan ‘act environmentally neutral’, DUH started fresh legal proceedings until dm agreed to stop using that too.
A number of DUH’s legal claims are still ongoing and some could be appealed. But Sauter says most of the companies it has legally threatened have withdrawn specific advertising claims and made a declaration that they will stop.
These include gas suppliers who marketed fossil gas as climate-neutral green gas, a company in the Bauhaus Group that advertised a disposable grill made of ‘100% natural materials’ and Poco furniture stores that marketed a chair as ‘environmentally friendly’.
Sauter says DUH’s activities were having a “strong signalling effect” and advertising with climate neutrality on the basis of offsetting claims “has rapidly decreased”.
Regulators are cracking down on greenwashing in Europe too
And DUH is not done yet. It recently sent cease-and-desist letters to five companies that it claims advertise environmental benefits without providing information about them: beauty Coty over its ‘ocean-friendly’ sunscreen; Deichmann and Tchibo about shoes and clothing marketed as ‘sustainable’; DIY brand Toom over a laminate marketed as ‘good for the environment’; and L'Oreal's over its ‘sustainability commitment’.
DUH’s victories only apply directly to corporate activities in Germany. But Sauter points out that competition law is regulated at the EU level and so, if a German court finds an advert to be misleading, there is a good chance that a court in another EU country would agree.
Regulators have also been cracking down on greenwashing. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), for example, previously banned an advert by Lufthansa for making unjustified climate claims. And both the ASA and the Netherlands’ equivalent have ordered Shell and its subsidiaries to take down greenwashed adverts.
DUH is now calling on Germany’s new federal government to set clearer rules and fines for consumer deception. It is already required to put into law new EU rules aimed at empowering consumers for the green transition. And in future it will likely have to implement a proposed greenwashing law expected to tackle both product and company-level claims.
Sauter says sustainability cannot just be a marketing ploy and must lead to real improvements in the design of products. “After all, honest climate and environmental protection is urgently needed in the face of the climate crisis and can only be strengthened by clear regulations.”
