Written by Angus Paterson
Staying bold under claims codes and new anti-greenwashing rules
If you’re feeling like sustainability communications just got riskier overnight, you’re not imagining it.
The big shift is simple: regulators are treating “green” language like a product feature claim. That means the burden of proof sits with you, and “good intent” is not a defence.
At the same time, silence is not a strategy. Brands that stop talking lose differentiation, lose trust, and create space for louder competitors.
So the real question is: how do you stay engaging, distinctive and commercial?
What has changed (and what’s coming next)
🇪🇺 EU: the baseline just got harder
The EU’s consumer law update on greenwashing is locked in. Member States must align by 27 March 2026, and it applies from 27 September 2026. In plain terms: vagueness becomes a real liability. Labels and claims need clearer grounding, and the rules around misleading practices tighten. [Read more here]
🇪🇺 EU: (round two): explicit green claims are still in flux, but don’t relax
The Green Claims Directive remains in play, with timelines and mechanics still being contested. Expect the end point to be tougher substantiation, some form of verification, and more standardisation of how “green” claims are made and checked. [Read more here]
🇬🇧 UK: anti-greenwashing is already “always on”
The FCA’s (Financial Claims Authority) anti-greenwashing rule is live (it applies broadly across FCA-authorised firms, not just labelled products). Separately, the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) continues sharpening expectations on environmental claims across the supply chain, with fresh guidance published in January 2026. [Read more here]
🇺🇸 US: SEC climate disclosure is politically volatile (in case you hadn’t heard…)
The SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) adopted climate disclosure rules in 2024, then litigation and a change in stance followed. In March 2025 the SEC voted to end its defence of the rules, and the court process has been paused at points while the agency’s direction remains contested. Even with uncertainty, climate risk and claim substantiation remain live issues for public companies, investors, and litigators. [Read more here]
The practical risk map
Think of your risk as a combination of claim type and proof quality
Claim types that quickly increase risk
- Absolute claims: “zero impact”, “carbon neutral”, “planet positive” (especially when the mechanism is unclear or offset-heavy)
- Vague goodness: “eco-friendly”, “sustainable”, “green” without boundaries
- Future promises: targets without a roadmap, interim milestones, governance, or spend
- Comparisons: “50% greener” without a defined baseline, methodology, and scope
- Badge culture: labels that look like certifications but aren’t (or where the standard is weak)
Now add proof quality, using a transparency ladder (inspired by the way transparency indices assess credibility):
Tier 1: Narrative only
A story, a vibe, a mission. Little that could survive a challenge.
Tier 2: Internal data
Numbers exist, but they live in spreadsheets, departments, or suppliers. These can be hard to reproduce externally (often sensitive).
Tier 3: Verified
Third-party assurance, recognised methodologies, consistent boundaries, traceable sources (now the benchmark).
Tier 4: Systemised transparency
Evidence is designed to be used by teams across markets: clear scopes, data lineage, accessible methodology, repeatable reporting and claim governance.
You can be bold in Tier 3 and Tier 4 – and we can help you.
Instead, define three layers:
Define the strongest statement you can defend under challenge.
Give context on what levers you can use to substantiate the claim.
Support with measurable proof points that narrow scope and increase clarity.
Here is a quick checklist. Before you publish anything, ask:
- Could a sceptic read this and interpret it more broadly than we intend?
- If challenged, can we show evidence within days, not weeks?
- Are we mixing reductions and offsets in a way that confuses outcomes?
- Is the baseline clear (what we compare against, and what’s included)?
- Would this still be defensible if lifted out of context on social?
If any answer is “no” to any of these points, you need a tighter claim.
Where we can help:
Most agencies either sit in the world of reporting or in the world of brand storytelling. The new rules punish that split.
Magic Pencil is built to bridge both: rigorous enough to stand up to scrutiny, creative enough to create commercial advantage.
We help teams build the claim architecture, the proof system, and the narrative platform so you can speak with confidence across markets, channels, and regulators.
If you want to stay bold in 2026, don’t aim to be louder. Aim to be unarguably clear and precise in what you say.