Talk radio hosts and politicians love to complain about over-regulation, yet when it comes to green claims, the opposite often feels true. ‘Recyclable’ packaging still has to be taken to a large supermarket to actually be recycled, ‘eco’ ranges appear with little explanation of what makes them eco, and carbon neutral claims rest on offsets few customers could ever check. For years, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and other watchdogs seemed able to do little more than issue rulings, leaving it to consumers to call out or boycott the worst offenders. The trouble is that telling genuine green credentials from greenwashing is often close to impossible, and businesses doing the real work get lumped in with those that aren’t.
In 2026, that has started to change, with regulators taking action against false environmental claims in several high-profile cases. So, are we finally seeing a crackdown? And for businesses genuinely working to reduce their emissions, how can they communicate that progress in a way that is fair, transparent and on the right side of the rules?
Key Greenwashing Issues Of 2026 and 2027
Vague claims
Words like ‘eco-friendly’, ‘sustainable’ and ‘green’ remain the most common problem, because they promise a lot while committing to nothing measurable. This year, the ASA analysed over 7 million online ads and found that around three-quarters of the green claims it identified used broad or absolute terms such as “eco-friendly”, “sustainable” or “carbon neutral”.
Claims that tell only half the story
A claim can be technically true and still mislead. Labelling a range ‘recycled’ when only some of the materials are recycled, or measuring a carbon footprint from production to shop shelf while implying it covers the product’s whole life, creates an impression the evidence doesn’t support. Qualifying details tucked away on a product page or in the small print rarely correct that impression.
Carbon neutral claims built on offsets
Calling a product carbon neutral because the business has bought offsets says little about the product’s actual footprint. Offsets vary widely in quality and are difficult to measure with any accuracy. So customers have no realistic way to check whether the emissions they’re said to cancel out were ever reduced at all.
Greenhushing
The opposite problem is growing too. Green claims appeared in just 1% of the ads the ASA analysed, which suggests that businesses doing genuine work are staying silent for fear of getting it wrong.
Digital carbon and AI
Digital is often assumed to be the clean option, but data centres run on electricity and AI has accelerated demand dramatically. Microsoft’s 2026 sustainability report showed emissions up 25 percent, mainly because of the rapid expansion of AI data centres. At the same time, tech companies argue AI will help solve climate change. A report published in February by climate groups found that 74% of these claims about AI’s climate benefits are unproven. How emissions are counted matters as well. A company running a data centre in Ireland could buy certificates from summer solar generation in Spain and claim that data centre’s emissions are zero, even on a winter night when renewables can’t power it. For businesses outside tech, if green credentials rest on going digital or adopting AI, the emissions haven’t disappeared; they’ve moved.
The Crackdown on Greenwashing
The good news is there does seem to have been more of a crackdown on greenwashing in 2026 and hopefully these actions will see greenwashing decrease in 2027.
How the ASA is clamping down on greenwashing
In June, the ASA ruled against Adidas, Calvin Klein and UNIQLO, finding that terms like “recycled”, “organic” and “responsibly sourced” in paid search ads implied whole products or ranges were made from those materials. Pointing to qualifying details on the product page wasn’t enough; the ASA ruled that information had to be in the ad itself. These rulings followed earlier bans against Nike, Superdry and Lacoste, which signals a sector-wide focus on fashion. The ASA also now uses AI to monitor ads, so it no longer needs a complaint before taking action.
More powers for the CMA to confront misleading claims
Since April 2025, the Competitions and Market Authority (CMA) has been able to fine businesses directly for misleading claims without going to court, with penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. It has already shown it will use these powers, fining the AA £4.2 million for breaching consumer law this April. That case concerned hidden fees rather than green claims, and there hasn’t yet been a greenwashing fine. However, the CMA has confirmed misleading green claims remain an enforcement focus, and consumers who are particularly concerned about the environment could be treated as “vulnerable”, potentially leading to higher fines.
The EU has banned generic green claims
In September 2026, the EU banned terms like ‘eco-friendly’, ‘green’ and ‘climate-friendly’ unless a business can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance. Product-level carbon neutral claims based on offsetting are also prohibited. This applies to any business selling to EU consumers, whether it sells through an EU subsidiary, a distributor, an online marketplace, or its own website.
What this means for businesses
- Vague claims are now the biggest risk. Specific, evidenced statements are what regulators want to see.
- Qualification should feature alongside the claim, not on a separate page.
- UK businesses selling into Europe need to meet EU rules as well as UK ones.
The crackdown is real but inconsistent. Rather than going after every business making misleading claims, bigger companies seem to be being targeted, seemingly with the hope that making an example of them will urge others to be more transparent. Whilst rulings and complaints are rising, the first UK greenwashing fine has yet to be issued.
Communicating Green Credentials With Clarity
We touched earlier on greenhushing and I can certainly understand the temptation not to speak up about green credentials. After all, virtually none of us are perfect. But silence carries its own cost. When businesses doing genuine work stay quiet, the conversation is left to those making the loudest and least substantiated claims, making it harder for consumers to make informed decisions. The new rules aren’t designed to stop businesses talking about sustainability. They’re designed to make sure that what gets said is specific, accurate and backed by evidence.
One of the most effective ways to do this is a dedicated page on your website that sets out your environmental position in full. It can cover what’s already been achieved, with figures where possible, what’s in progress and the targets being worked towards, as well as the areas where progress is still slow or a solution hasn’t been found yet. That honesty is what makes the rest credible. A business that acknowledges its packaging isn’t fully recyclable yet, or that its delivery fleet is still mostly diesel, is far more trustworthy than one claiming to be ‘eco-friendly’ across the board.
For ads, product labels, social posts and packaging, qualifications need to sit alongside any claims, as recent ASA rulings have shown.
The crackdown may feel like a threat, but for businesses already doing the work, it’s an opportunity. As vague claims disappear from the market, specific and honest ones will stand out more than ever. It’s what will set genuine businesses apart and drive greenwashing out.
