Greenwashing in court: What "climate neutral" may still mean
Germany's Federal Court of Justice has strictly reined in climate neutrality advertising. What follows from the Katjes ruling and how to phrase environmental claims in a legally sound way.
The Katjes ruling as a turning point
With its judgment of June 27, 2024 (I ZR 98/23), Germany's Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) classified the advertising of the confectionery manufacturer Katjes using the term "climate neutral" as misleading. The core of the decision: "climate neutral" is ambiguous — it can mean an actual reduction of emissions in the production process or mere offsetting via certificates. With such an ambiguous environmental claim, the intended meaning must be explained in the advertisement itself; a QR code or website link is not sufficient.
Why stricter standards apply to environmental advertising
The BGH builds on its established case law on environment-related advertising: because consumers can hardly verify ecological claims themselves and attach considerable economic significance to them, there is a heightened need for clarification. For practice, this means: what passes as permissible puffery in other advertising claims can already constitute misleading conduct under §§ 5, 5a UWG (German Unfair Competition Act) in the case of "green" claims — actionable by competitors and associations via cease-and-desist letters.
What EU legislation adds on top
The EmpCo Directive (EU) 2024/825 tightens the situation further: from September 27, 2026, generic environmental claims such as "environmentally friendly" or "eco" without recognized excellent environmental performance are just as impermissible as climate neutrality advertising based solely on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. The complementary Green Claims Directive with detailed substantiation and verification requirements is still in the EU legislative process — its final requirements are therefore not yet settled.
Wording: risky vs. defensible
- Risky: "climate neutral", "CO₂ neutral", or "net zero" without explanation — after the BGH ruling only with clarification directly in the advertisement, and in the future not at all where based on pure offsetting
- Risky: generic terms such as "environmentally friendly", "green", or "sustainable" without a specific, substantiated basis
- Defensible: specific, measurable claims — such as "packaging made from 95% recycled material" or "production with 100% renewable electricity" — with available evidence
- Defensible: transparent offsetting statements such as "We support certified climate protection projects", clearly separated from reduction claims
How to make your communications litigation-proof
Take inventory of all environmental claims on your website, packaging, and advertising materials and assign evidence to each claim — or remove it. Replace generic terms with specific, verifiable statements and strictly separate reduction from offsetting. The Green Claims Scanner supports the systematic review; which fines and cease-and-desist risks loom is shown in the overview Greenwashing: sanctions at a glance.
Frequently asked questions
After the BGH ruling, may I still advertise with "climate neutral" at all?
Currently only if you explain directly in the advertisement itself whether climate neutrality is achieved through emission reduction or through offsetting — a link or QR code is not enough. From September 27, 2026, climate neutrality advertising based solely on offsetting is generally impermissible under Directive (EU) 2024/825. Many companies are therefore already switching to specific reduction claims.
Who can send me a cease-and-desist letter over greenwashing?
Entitled to act are above all competitors, business associations such as the Wettbewerbszentrale, and qualified consumer associations. They can demand an injunction, reimbursement of the cease-and-desist costs, and, in repeat cases, contractual penalties. A lost injunction case also means packaging and advertising materials must be changed at short notice.
Do the requirements also apply to B2B communications?
Yes. The UWG also protects other market participants, and misleading environmental claims toward business customers are equally actionable. On top of that: larger customers increasingly request substantiated environmental data as part of their own sustainability reporting — unsubstantiated claims are exposed there at the latest in the supplier audit.
What evidence should I keep on file for environmental claims?
For each claim, a documented chain of evidence: measurement data, certificates from recognized bodies, life cycle assessments, or expert opinions, each with a date and scope of validity. The evidence must support the claim in its specific wording — a certificate for green electricity procurement does not substantiate a claim about the overall product. Keep the evidence in a way that lets you respond within days if a cease-and-desist letter arrives.
Related articles
The cancellation button under § 312k BGB: Common mistakes
A missing or misplaced cancellation button makes contracts vulnerable. The typical pitfalls.
HR & VerbraucherCalculating the gender pay gap: How to determine your pay gap correctly
Median or mean, which pay components, which comparison groups? The methodology of pay gap calculation, step by step.