EU Directive 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition), adopted in February 2024 and effective as of September 27, 2026, prohibits generic environmental claims such as “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “climate-neutral” if based solely on emissions offsetting. It prohibits sustainability labels not based on recognized certification schemes. It prohibits claims about future environmental performance without verifiable plans. The regulation distinguishes between false, vague, and unsubstantiated claims. In public discourse, all three fall under the same term:“greenwashing.”
The term was coined in 1986 and is attributedto the American environmentalist Jay Westerveld, who used it to describe the practice of hotels asking guests to reuse their towels in the name of the environment, when the real motivation was to save on laundry costs. The original meaning was precise: presenting an economic motive as an environmental one. In current usage, the term encompasses at least three practices of varying severity: deliberately false statements (a company claiming to be “carbon neutral” without any verified offsets), unsubstantiated claims (a company stating “we are reducing emissions” without specifying the scope or baseline), and genuine efforts communicated inaccurately (a company that has reduced emissions by 30% but reports the result using wording that suggests a greater reduction).
Combining these three practices under a single label has two effects. The first is the overuse of the term: if every imperfect environmental claim is “greenwashing,” the term loses its ability to identify actual fraud. A 2020 European Commission investigation found that 53.3% of the environmental claims examined in the EU were vague, misleading, or unfounded. This finding prompted Directive 2024/825. But “vague” is not “false,” and “unsubstantiated” is not “fraudulent.” The second effect is a disincentive to communication: a company that has made real but imperfect progress risks being labeled the same way as a company that lies. The result is that communicating partial progress becomes just as risky as doing nothing.
“Corruption” can describe both a one-million-euro bribe to win a public contract and a municipal employee who accepts a free cup of coffee from a citizen seeking information. Calling both instances “corruption” makes it impossible to tailor the response: the person under investigation for the bribe might say, “Everyone is corrupt” (diluting the accusation), and the municipal employee might stop accepting coffee for fear of being accused (inhibiting normal behavior). “Greenwashing” works in the same way.
Directive 2024/825 introduced the first regulatory distinction among the practices covered by the term. Generic environmental claims (those without substantiation) are prohibited. Claims based exclusively on emissions offsetting are prohibited. Non-certified sustainability labels are prohibited. Communication of environmental performance documented with verifiable data remains permissible. The regulation seeks to do what language does not: distinguish between the varying degrees of severity that the term “greenwashing” lumps together.
In Italy, the term has entered common usage and appears in press releases from associations, media outlets, and social media. An Italian company that reduces plastic packaging by 40% and communicates this with the slogan “green commitment” receives the same label as a company that purchases unverified carbon credits and declares itself “carbon neutral.” The former has done something measurable. The latter has not. The word used to describe them is the same. Consumers cannot tell them apart based on the label.
It must be acknowledged that the term served a real political purpose. Without a word that brought to light the practice of using empty environmental rhetoric, there would have been no public attention or regulatory response (Directive 2024/825, the proposed and subsequently withdrawn Green Claims Directive). The term made a shift in public opinion and a legislative response possible. The documented problem is not that the term is useless; it is that it is applied indiscriminately, treating deliberate fraud, sloppy marketing, and imperfect communication of actual progress as equivalent.
This column explores climate-related terms whose technical meanings differ from their common perceptions. “Greenwashing” introduces a new dynamic: it is not a technical term that has lost its precision, but rather an accusatory term that lumps practices of radically different severity under a single label, leading to an inflation of accusations that weakens the charge where it is warranted and discourages communication of progress where it is genuine.
The next time you read “greenwashing” in an article or blog post, there’s one question to ask: Is the disputed environmental claim false, vague, or inaccurate? The answer determines whether it’s fraud, sloppy marketing, or communication that could be improved. Each of these three scenarios requires a different response.
