Greenwashing: legal risks of green claims for companies in the EU

Greenwashing is a misleading environmental claim, and in the Netherlands it is unlawful as an unfair commercial practice under Articles 6:193a to 6:193j of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) can fine it and consumers, competitors and NGOs can challenge it in court. Since 16 July 2026 the Dutch rules implementing the Empowering Consumers Directive (EU) 2024/825 also ban generic green claims, offset-based neutrality claims and self-made sustainability labels outright.

What counts as greenwashing under Dutch law?

Greenwashing is any commercial practice that creates a false impression about the environmental characteristics of a product, service or company. There is no separate greenwashing statute; the unfair commercial practices rules in Book 6 BW apply.

Under Article 6:193c BW a practice is misleading if it contains incorrect information, or correct information presented in a way that deceives the average consumer, for example about environmental or social characteristics. Article 6:193d BW covers misleading omissions of material information. Under Article 6:193b BW such practices are unlawful towards the consumer.

Two features shape the subject. The test is the overall impression on the average consumer, so a claim can be accurate word for word and still mislead. And under Article 6:193j BW the court can place the burden of proving that the information is correct and complete on the trader. A green claim without a file of evidence behind it is therefore a liability.

Competitors can also rely on the rules on misleading advertising in Articles 6:194 and 6:194a BW, and NGOs on the general tort provision of Article 6:162 BW. Our guide to unfair commercial practices sets out the framework.

Which claims get companies into trouble?

• Generic claims such as “eco-friendly”, “green” or “conscious” without saying what is better and by how much.
• Selective truths: highlighting a small improvement, such as recyclable packaging, while the main impact lies in production.
• Targets presented as achievements, such as a 2035 goal written in the present tense.
• Offsetting presented as neutrality: “climate neutral” because emissions are compensated elsewhere.
• Green imagery and self-designed quality marks without a substantiated link to an environmental benefit.

Which rules apply since July 2026?

The Dutch Implementing Act on better sustainability information for consumers (Stb. 2026, 152) amends Book 6 BW and entered into force on 16 July 2026 (Stb. 2026, 204). It adds new practices to the blacklist of Article 6:193g BW, which are unfair in all circumstances.

• A sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or set up by public authorities.
• A generic environmental claim without recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.
• A claim about the whole product or the whole business when it only concerns one aspect.
• A claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact because greenhouse gas emissions are offset.
• Presenting legal requirements that apply to all products in the category as a distinctive feature.

Claims about future environmental performance are not blacklisted, but Article 6:193c(2)(d) BW now treats them as misleading without clear, verifiable commitments. These must be set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan with measurable, time-bound targets, verified regularly by an independent expert whose findings are available to consumers. A net-zero pledge without such a plan is a clear risk.

A climate-neutral claim based on offsetting is now prohibited as such. Claims about reductions you actually achieved in your own operations remain possible, provided you substantiate them and state the scope.

How does the ACM approach sustainability claims?

The ACM supervises unfair commercial practices and has made sustainability claims a priority. Its guidance on sustainability claims (Leidraad Duurzaamheidsclaims) is the practical benchmark for advertising in the Dutch market.

The guidance asks you to make clear what the sustainability benefit is, to substantiate claims with up-to-date facts, to make fair comparisons, to be honest and concrete about your efforts, and to use visuals and quality marks that help consumers. It is not legislation, but it shows how the regulator reads your advertising.

Under Article 2.15 of the Consumer Protection Enforcement Act (Wet handhaving consumentenbescherming) the ACM can impose a fine of up to €900,000 or 1% of turnover, whichever is higher. For blacklisted practices under Article 6:193g BW the maximum is €900,000 or 10% of turnover. The ACM can also accept binding commitments, and it publishes its decisions.

The Advertising Code Committee (Reclame Code Commissie) is a self-regulatory body. Its rulings are not binding and it cannot fine, but complaints are quick, cheap and public. See also our article on legal pitfalls in influencer marketing.

What remains of sustainability reporting after Omnibus I?

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) still requires audited sustainability reporting, but Directive (EU) 2026/470 of 24 February 2026 (Omnibus I) narrowed its scope sharply. Reporting now applies to companies with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover above €450 million.

Groups meeting these criteria on a consolidated basis also report, as do certain EU subsidiaries and branches of non-EU groups with significant EU turnover. Smaller companies may still receive questionnaires from large customers, but the amended directive limits what in-scope companies may demand from smaller companies in their value chain.

Omnibus I also amended the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), which applies later than originally planned. See our articles on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and ESG regulation in 2026. The separate Green Claims Directive proposal, which would have required prior verification of claims, is not part of Dutch law; the binding rules are those in Book 6 BW.

What have Dutch courts decided?

Two judgments show where the line falls. In the KLM case the court found specific green advertising misleading; in the Shell case the court of appeal recognised a duty of care but set aside a fixed reduction order.

Fossielvrij NL v KLM

On 20 March 2024 the District Court of Amsterdam held that several KLM advertisements were misleading and therefore unlawful (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512). The claims concerned sustainable aviation fuel and reforestation-based CO2 compensation, and suggested that flying with KLM could be sustainable.

The court accepted that an airline may talk about its efforts, but required a realistic and concrete picture of what the measures achieve. Because KLM no longer ran the advertisements, the court did not order a rectification; the finding of unlawfulness was itself the main consequence.

Milieudefensie v Shell

On 12 November 2024 the Hague Court of Appeal set aside the 2021 order requiring Shell to reduce its emissions by 45% (ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2024:2100). The court held that Shell does have an obligation to help counter dangerous climate change, but that a civil court cannot set a specific reduction percentage for this company. Read more about the ruling in the climate case against Shell.

Who can act against a green claim?

Four routes lead to the same claim. The ACM enforces under public law; consumers, competitors and NGOs go to the civil courts.

A consumer can claim damages or, in some cases, annul the contract on the basis of Article 6:193b BW. A representative organisation can bring a collective action under Article 3:305a BW (WAMCA). Competitors usually start summary proceedings (kort geding) under Articles 6:194 and 6:194a BW for an order to stop and a rectification.

Contractual consequences also follow: sustainability-linked financing, tender exclusions, warranties in supply agreements and ESG representations in transactions. See our articles on ESG clauses in contracts and supplier codes of conduct.

How do you build a claims process that holds?

The question is not whether your company is sustainable, but whether you can prove every claim you publish. Four steps cover this.

• Make an inventory of every environmental claim on the website, packaging, advertising, social media, marketplaces, tenders and reports, including claims by resellers and influencers acting for you.
• Test each claim against Articles 6:193c and 6:193g BW: is it generic, does it rely on offsetting, does it cover the whole product, is the label certified, is a future pledge backed by a verified plan?
• Require sign-off by legal, sustainability and product staff before any claim is published, and keep a record of the decision and the evidence.
• Review claims periodically, because evidence ages and supply chains change.

Certification helps, but only within its scope. A certificate for responsibly sourced cotton supports a claim about that cotton, not a claim that the company is sustainable.

Sector rules come on top. Energy labels, textile rules, the EU rules on nutrition and health claims for food and the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) for financial products impose their own requirements, which do not replace Book 6 BW.

What should you do when a claim is challenged?

Secure the position first: keep a record of the claim as published, collect the evidence as it stood at that moment and stop repeating the claim while you assess it. Do not quietly delete the claim without keeping a copy.

Answer an ACM request for information accurately, completely and within the deadline; you are obliged to cooperate. A complaint to the Reclame Code Commissie is answered in writing and the ruling is published. Summary proceedings by a competitor or NGO move fast, so your evidence file must already exist. A WAMCA action starts with an admissibility phase in which the claimant organisation must meet requirements on governance and representativeness.

What should you check as a company making green claims?

• Do you have evidence for each claim before it is published?
• Are any claims generic or based on offsetting, which is now blacklisted under Article 6:193g BW?
• Are your sustainability labels based on a certification scheme or set by public authorities?
• Is every future target backed by a detailed plan and independent verification?
• Do you fall within the CSRD thresholds of 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover?

What should you check as a competitor or business customer?

• Which specific claim is misleading, and can you document it as published?
• Is it a blacklisted practice under Article 6:193g BW, which needs no further test?
• Is summary proceedings under Articles 6:194 and 6:194a BW the fastest route?
• Would a complaint to the ACM or the Reclame Code Commissie be more effective?
• Do your supply contracts contain ESG warranties you can rely on?

What can we do for you with greenwashing and green claims?

As corporate lawyer we advise companies operating in the Netherlands; our corporate law guides cover related obligations.

• We review your environmental claims against Articles 6:193c and 6:193g BW.
• We set up a sign-off and evidence procedure for new claims.
• We respond to ACM requests for information and represent you in enforcement proceedings.
• We handle complaints before the Reclame Code Commissie.
• We conduct or defend summary proceedings over misleading advertising.
• We draft ESG clauses for supply and customer contracts.

Summary

• Greenwashing is an unfair commercial practice under Articles 6:193a-6:193j BW, and the trader may have to prove its claims.
• Since 16 July 2026 generic claims, offset-based neutrality claims and uncertified labels are blacklisted in Article 6:193g BW.
• The ACM can fine up to €900,000 or 10% of turnover for blacklisted practices.
• Courts require a realistic picture of what green measures achieve (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512).
• CSRD reporting now applies only above 1,000 employees and €450 million turnover.

Frequently asked questions