EU Greenwashing Rules in 2026: What Changed and Company Cases

The EU's September 2026 greenwashing changes come from Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition. They should not be confused with the separate Green Claims proposal. Nor does a poor environmental score, by itself, establish that a company has broken advertising law.

This guide separates the rules from the company cases, corrects the status of the Unilever investigation, and compares the environmental scores of eight companies covered in our earlier analysis. The most useful question is whether a specific claim matches its evidence, scope and date.

Which EU greenwashing rules changed in 2026?

Directive (EU) 2024/825 required member states to adopt national measures by 27 March 2026 and apply them from 27 September 2026. Its additions to the prohibited-practices list cover:

• Generic environmental claims without relevant, recognised excellent environmental performance.
• Sustainability labels that are neither based on a certification scheme nor established by public authorities.
• Claims about an entire product or business when the benefit concerns only a particular aspect or activity.
• Claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact when based on emissions offsetting.

The directive also addresses future environmental-performance claims through verifiable commitments, a realistic implementation plan and independent expert monitoring. This is not a blanket requirement that every environmental statement receive an accredited auditor's pre-approval. For a specific dispute, check the applicable national measures and the actual claim.

Is that the same as the Green Claims Directive?

No. The separate Green Claims proposal has its own legislative history. Parliament reported in June 2025 that talks were cancelled after the Commission announced an intention to withdraw it. Parliament's February 2026 legislative briefing subsequently described its inclusion among pending proposals in the 2026 Commission work programme.

Neither document supports our earlier claim that the Green Claims proposal would take full effect in 2026. This guide's September deadline refers specifically to the enacted 2024/825 directive. The historical cases below also arose under their own jurisdictions and rules; they are not findings under that new EU instrument.

Eight companies: environmental scores, not a greenwashing league table

These are Mashinii's stored Planet-Friendly Business assessments, dated 26–27 April 2026, checked on 8 October 2026. The scale runs from −100 to +100. They assess a wider environmental record, not the size of a measured gap between advertising and reality.

BP has the lowest score in this selected group. That does not establish that BP made the most misleading advertisement, faces the largest legal exposure, or is the worst environmental company across the entire database. See our methodology and open the company records for the underlying evidence.

The previous version contradicted its own table: TotalEnergies is −50, Ryanair −50, and H&M −40. H&M does have an environmental score; missing data was incorrectly claimed in its narrative.

What the actual company cases show

H&M: unclear labels and commitments, not a €500,000 fine

In September 2022, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets announced commitments from H&M to adjust or stop certain sustainability claims. Its investigation identified general terms such as “Conscious” without sufficiently clear explanations of the claimed benefits.

H&M committed to donating €500,000 to sustainable causes. ACM said it would therefore impose no sanctions. Calling that sum a regulatory fine would misdescribe the outcome. The case illustrates why a broad product label needs a clear explanation; it does not establish that every H&M product carried an unlawful claim.

Unilever: the CMA investigation closed in 2024

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority case record shows that the investigation was closed on 6 November 2024. The CMA considered changes to some product claims and the wider impact of its work, and closed the case as an administrative priority decision.

Crucially, it did not take a view on Unilever's compliance with consumer law. The earlier article left the impression of an ongoing investigation and drew stronger conclusions than the outcome supports. Closure is neither a finding of a breach nor a ruling that all claims complied.

Ryanair: evidence for an airline comparison

The UK's ASA addressed Ryanair's lowest-emissions advertising in a ruling dated 5 February 2020. Its travel advertising guidance explains that the comparison's basis was unclear and the supporting evidence insufficient. Factors such as seat density mattered to interpreting emissions per passenger kilometre.

This is a specific UK advertising example. A lower per-passenger figure, a company's total annual emissions and the impact of an individual journey answer different questions. None should be silently substituted for another when judging a claim.

DWS: distinguish the ESG penalty from the AML penalty

The SEC's September 2023 announcement concerned DWS Investment Management Americas, a Deutsche Bank subsidiary. It described misleading statements about how ESG factors were incorporated into investment processes.

The settlement included $19 million for the ESG matter and $6 million for a separate anti-money-laundering matter. DIMA neither admitted nor denied the SEC's findings. It is inaccurate to describe the entire $25 million as a greenwashing penalty, a criminal guilty verdict or enforcement of EU sustainability-reporting rules.

For investors, the practical issue is whether a fund follows the process it advertises. A portfolio's label alone cannot answer that question.

TotalEnergies does report Scope 3 emissions

Our earlier assertion that TotalEnergies does not report Scope 3 was wrong. Its sustainability glossary explicitly describes reporting for Scope 3 category 11: emissions from the use of sold products. Its 2025 sustainability report includes category 11 and estimates for other categories.

That disclosure does not settle whether every marketing claim or climate strategy is adequate. It does mean that a criticism must address the actual reporting boundary, assumptions or claims instead of asserting that no reporting exists.

This distinction matters across the table. Comparing an oil company's sold-product emissions with a bank's office emissions produces a misleading comparison unless the boundaries are explained. Similarly, a target, a reported reduction and an independently assessed outcome are different kinds of evidence.

How to check a green claim yourself

For the claim you are considering, write down five things:

1. The exact wording and date. A current product statement and an old corporate target need different checks.
2. The entity and scope. Does the claim concern packaging, the whole product, a brand, a subsidiary or the entire group?
3. The comparison. Better than what, over which period, and using which measure?
4. The evidence. Can you find the method, qualifications and original source rather than only a badge or headline?
5. The case outcome, if any. Separate an allegation, investigation, commitment, settlement and court finding.

Use our ESG ratings and independent evidence comparison for the distinction between scoring approaches, and sustainable fund holdings guide to investigate what a portfolio actually owns. Company score links above provide a route into the underlying research.

Reviewed and corrected 8 October 2026: separated EU legislative instruments, updated the Unilever case outcome, corrected score contradictions and TotalEnergies reporting, and clarified the H&M and DWS financial outcomes. URL and original publication date preserved.