Problematic environmental terms in advertising

Claims of climate neutrality based on offsetting are not allowed under the EmpCo Directive.

As with “climate neutral”: if the claim rests on offsetting, it is not allowed from September 2026.

Risky as a generic environmental claim without specifics; usable with a clear reference and evidence.

Named in the Directive itself as an example of a generic environmental claim.

As an environmental promise (“green hotel”) it is a generic claim; as a colour or place name it is unproblematic.

Protected for food (EU organic regulation); outside that it is a generic environmental claim.

A neutrality-adjacent claim: without a verifiable reduction path it cannot be substantiated.

Only defensible with a named standard and conditions – “degradable” depends on time, temperature and place.

An umbrella term without legal definition – what counts is the individual claim behind it.

For food it is tied to organic certification; in other contexts it is a generic environmental claim.

Usable, but only with a disclosed method, a boundary and a date.

No legal definition of the radius – readers assume much shorter distances than suppliers often deliver.

Sounds measurable but is not: without a stated reduction, the claim stays unsubstantiated.

A feeling, not a claim – dangerous only when it suggests a verified environmental benefit.