Understanding the Framework of the UCPD
In the third paragraph of point 4.1 of the document Communication from the Commission — Guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, it states:
"The UCPD does not lay down specific rules on environmental claims."
This statement can be misleading if one does not grasp the exact scope of the directive.
In concrete terms, this means that the UCPD:
- Contains no dedicated technical chapter on environmental claims;
- Offers no ecological normative framework;
- Defines no specific terminology (such as the terms “sustainable,” “neutral,” “organic,” etc.).
This lack of a technical framework may have led to the mistaken belief that, regarding environmental claims, there were neither rules nor explicit prohibitions. However, the legal reality is quite different.
Environmental claims are indeed governed by Articles 5 to 12 as well as Annex I of the directive, which list misleading, unfair, or prohibited commercial practices.
As such, any claim is subject to five fundamental requirements:
- Truthfulness and accuracy of the information provided;
- Clarity and unambiguity in wording;
- Availability of verifiable evidence;
- No exaggeration of environmental benefits;
- Actual relevance of the claim concerning the product's impact.
In practice, European and national authorities interpret these principles with increased rigor when it comes to environmental claims. This heightened requirement is explained by several factors:
- The sensitive and ethical nature of environmental issues (climate, pollution, biodiversity);
- The consumer's vulnerability to “green” promises;
- The weight of these arguments in purchasing decisions.
Key takeaway:
| The UCPD does not contain... |
...but it allows for sanctions on |
- Specific ecological criteria
|
- Any misleading environmental claim
|
- A list of authorized labels
|
- Misuse or vague use of any label
|
- A legal definition of “sustainable”
|
- Any vague or exaggerated wording
|
|
|
- Any practice that does not comply with the principles of fairness, clarity and verifiability of information
|
In essence, the UCPD grants brands the freedom to express themselves but imposes a duty of justification. It is thus possible to claim that a product is “sustainable,” provided that one can explain what this means, prove its truthfulness, and articulate it clearly. This is the subtlety of the text: the directive does not set mandatory wording, but any claim that misleads can be sanctioned as a deceptive practice.
To help brands stay within the framework, eight major principles derived from the UCPD anchor environmental communication that is both compliant, fair, and operational. They form a vigilance grid to integrate into your validation, proof, and dissemination processes.
Principle #1 - Every environmental claim must be true, specific, clear, and non-misleading
Regulatory focus
According to Article 6 of the UCPD:
A commercial practice is considered misleading if it contains false information or, even in the absence of falsehood, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, leading them to make a commercial decision they would not have otherwise taken.
For environmental claims, this implies that:
- The information must not contain factual errors (e.g., stating "zero emissions" if not measured).
- The claim must not be vague or general: it should be specific, contextualized, and understandable without excessive interpretation.
- It must be accurate regarding scope and subject: the product concerned, lifecycle stage, actual benefit...
The directive adds that even factually correct formulations can be considered misleading if they suggest an exaggerated positive impact or conceal other significant aspects.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
Use concrete and measurable terms:
- "Contains 60% GOTS-certified organic cotton"
- "According to data provided by our supplier, it consumes 30% less water in the dyeing stage compared with the model produced in 2022. This data can be consulted here (insert link to supplier data)."
Always specify the scope:
- "Made with 100% renewable electricity (excluding transport and finishing)"
- "Biodegradable in industrial composting according to EN 13432", and specify the standard's context
Use accessible and neutral language, avoiding emotive or subjective terms:
- Prefer: "15% reduction in COâ‚‚ emissions compared to the 2023 version"
- Avoid: "conscious," "respectful," "good for the planet," "green"
Support every claim with quantified and precise elements, and mention the source:
- Is the claim based on an internal study, external audit, standardized test, certification? Always mention which and its validity period.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
- Referring to a "sustainable product" without specifying what that means: does sustainability concern the product's lifespan, durability, environmental impact?
- Using "carbon neutral" without mentioning that it relies on offset credits, nor explaining how they work.
- Employing iconography (tree, green globe, leaves) that creates an exaggerated perception of eco-responsibility, while the product's overall impact is neutral or negative.
- Communicating on a single positive point (e.g., % of recycled material included in the product) while hiding others (uncontrolled chemical treatment, long transport, etc.).
Principle #2 - Every environmental claim must be supported by solid evidence, available at the time of publication, and ready to be provided to authorities
Regulatory focus
Article 12 of the UCPD stipulates that:
Control authorities may require the professional to provide evidence of the accuracy of their claims. If such evidence is not provided or deemed insufficient, the claim is considered inaccurate.
This concretely means that:
- The brand bears the burden of proof.
- The evidence must be:
- In the brand's possession from the moment the claim is used.
- Understandable to a competent authority (you cannot merely offer a technical table or a link to a supplier's website).
- Independent: ideally validated by a third party (audit, test, certification, LCA...).
- Verifiable and kept up to date as long as the claim is used.
In the absence of sufficient evidence, the claim may be presumed misleading, even if factually correct.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
Prepare an evidence dossier from the claim's development:
- The covered scope
- The calculation or evaluation method
- The measurement or certification date
- The name of the certifier or laboratory
- Any limitations or assumptions
Use solid and recognized sources (specifying their scope):
- Tests according to ISO standards (14040, 14067, etc.)
- Certification audit (GOTS, EU Ecolabel...)
- Life cycle assessment (LCA) with available report
- Evaluations from public bodies or independent third parties
Plan for centralized and durable storage of this evidence:
- Keep your product dossier in your traceability solution or PLM
- Ensure easy access for legal, CSR, or marketing personnel
Periodically review the evidence:
- If the claim remains published on the website, in a brochure, or on the product, the evidence must always be valid.
- In case of changes in production, supplier, process, it must be updated.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
- Presenting a claim based on an unverified supplier promise, and settling for an email or commercial description.
- Using an unsigned or undated Excel file as the sole evidence of an LCA or environmental impact calculation, without guaranteeing the integrity, method used, or traceability of source data.
- Mentioning specific environmental performances (like “biodegradable,” “low carbon,” “climate-friendly”) without providing associated test, standard, or protocol, nor specifying validation conditions (industrial vs. home compostability, measured CO₂ scope, etc.).
- Publishing a figure or quantified commitment (“70% fewer emissions”) without indicating the calculation method, comparison basis, or assumptions made.
Principle #3 - Any claim based on a label, logo, or certification must be transparent, justified, and accompanied by accessible and verifiable information
Regulatory focus
The UCPD considers that labels, logos, or certifications used in an environmental context constitute claims in their own right. Their use is acceptable only if:
- They do not mislead the average consumer about the actual scope of the environmental benefit.
- The professional specifies what the label covers (e.g., material, process, packaging…).
- It is indicated who issues the certification (public or private body, independent third party or not).
- The label's awarding criteria are clear, discriminating, public, and accessible.
- The label or symbol does not create confusion with an official system if it is private.
- The consumer has direct access to information (e.g., via QR code, link, tooltip) to understand the label's meaning and scope.
The UCPD also specifies that affixing a label or logo alone does not suffice to prove the validity of a claim: it must always be explained.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended Best Practices:
- Clearly specify:
- What the label covers: raw material, manufacturing step, entire product?
- Who issued it: public authority, private body, self-certification?
- Validation criteria: traceability, impact reduction, environmental audit?
- Whether third-party verification was conducted, by whom, and using which method.
- Make information accessible:
- Provide a direct link to the page detailing the label's criteria.
- Add an explicit note near the claim or logo (e.g., "Label applies only to the main material – excludes finishes").
- Avoid acronyms or symbols that are incomprehensible without explanation (e.g., "GRS certified" without clarification).
- Ensure message clarity and fairness:
- Choose robust, recognized labels (e.g., EU Ecolabel, Blue Angel, GOTS).
- Verify that criteria are up-to-date, truly distinctive, and appropriate for the product.
- Refrain from using visuals that could be mistaken for official labels if they are not.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common Non-Compliance Cases:
- Displaying a "GOTS" logo on a finished product when only the fiber is certified, without clarification.
- Mentioning "sustainable cotton" or "responsible material" without indicating the system or standard used, nor providing a link to associated criteria.
- Displaying a fabricated or internal private label (e.g., "Eco approved" or "Green Certified") without a public standard, third-party audit, or verification possibility.
- Using green pictograms, leaves, or stamps visually similar to official labels, creating intentional or unintentional confusion for the consumer.
Principle #4 – Carbon neutrality claims must be substantiated and verifiable
Regulatory focus:
The UCPD states that carbon neutrality claims are acceptable provided they:
- Specify the method: which part of the life cycle is considered? (production? transport? usage?)
- Distinguish between actual reductions and offset mechanisms.
- Justify the quality of carbon credits used: additionality, traceability, transparency, audit.
- Do not use carbon neutrality to mask a lack of direct reduction efforts.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended best practices:
- Specify the calculation basis:
- Which emissions are measured?
- Which emissions are reduced? Which are offset?
- Provide understandable information on:
- The offset project (type, location, method)
- The amount of emissions offset
- The direct link to the product
- Avoid generalities:
- Ban vague slogans such as: "carbon neutral," "good for the planet."
- Prefer: "Emissions related to textile production are offset by 30% through the implementation of [project X] certified by [label X]," and specify the label's framework.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common non-compliance cases:
- Claiming carbon neutrality of a product or activity without any explanation of the calculation method, the scope covered (scope 1, 2, 3?), or distinction between reduced and offset emissions.
- Announcing carbon offsetting directly on packaging or in an advertisement, without mentioning the offset project, its certification level, or the life cycle stages concerned (production, transport, usage…).
- Using "voluntary" carbon credits from projects with low environmental integrity (non-additional, unverified, or difficult to trace), without transparency on their real impact or external audit proof.
- Highlighting offsetting as a central marketing argument, while no significant effort has been made to directly reduce emissions in the value chain, effectively diverting the concept of carbon neutrality for image purposes without structural commitment.
Principle #5 – Environmental comparisons must be fair, consistent, and verifiable
Regulatory focus:
According to the UCPD and Directive 2006/114/EC on comparative advertising, an environmental comparison is acceptable if it meets four cumulative requirements:
- It must not mislead the consumer (per Articles 6 and 7 of the UCPD).
- It must compare products or services that meet the same needs or are intended for the same purpose.
- It must be based on objective, verifiable, and representative criteria.
- It must rely on a consistent and reproducible assessment method.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended best practices:
- Clearly state:
- What the comparison refers to (product, stage, impact)
- The scope and methodology used (e.g., LCA, standards)
- The source of comparative data (e.g., independent, internal)
- Use relative rather than absolute phrasing:
- Prefer: "30% less COâ‚‚ compared to our 2023 version."
- Avoid: "The cleanest on the market."
- Verify reproducibility:
- Any comparison must be reproducible (and auditable) under the same rules.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common non-compliance cases:
- Comparing non-equivalent products in terms of use or target (e.g., comparing a dress shoe with a sports sneaker, or a child's jeans with adult trousers), which distorts the perception of relative impact.
- Using a non-coherent or non-comparable measurement method between analyzed products: different evaluation scopes, heterogeneous input data, misaligned assumptions, or lack of transparency on the method used.
- Making an environmental comparison without being able to provide verifiable or accessible proof, such as a publication, working document, or third-party analysis result, making verification impossible for the consumer or authorities.
- Basing the comparative claim on outdated or non-representative data, for example, comparing a current product with a competitor's version that is no longer on the market or has since been improved, creating an unfounded illusion of advantage.
Principle #6 – Environmental claims must concern a significant impact and be assessed across the entire product life cycle.
Regulatory Focus
The directive states that environmental claims must:
- Address the product's most significant impacts;
- Not divert the consumer's attention to a minor benefit;
- Take into account the entire product life cycle: sourcing, production, transport, usage, end-of-life.
It explicitly prohibits unjustified impact shifting: an improvement in one area cannot be used to conceal a worsening elsewhere, unless the net environmental impact is demonstrably improved (e.g., via LCA).
Highly polluting industries are expected to be especially cautious: they are encouraged to use relative claims (e.g., "less harmful to the environment") rather than absolute ones (e.g., "environmentally friendly").
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended best practices:
- Conduct a full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to substantiate key claims (e.g., low carbon, impact reduction).
- Clearly define the scope:
- Which stages are included? (Raw materials? Manufacturing? Transport? Packaging?)
- Which methodology is used? (LCA, PEF, etc.)
- Align the claim with the assessed scope:
- Prefer: "Product made with 40% recycled polyester, not traceable across the full life cycle."
- Avoid: "15% net emissions reduction (including scopes 1 to 3)."
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common non-compliance cases:
- Presenting a product as "sustainable" based solely on a single material (e.g., organic cotton) without assessing real durability (lifespan, reparability, etc.) or other stages of the life cycle.
- Highlighting a marginal environmental benefit (e.g., waterless dyeing, recycled packaging) while the overall process remains carbon-intensive.
- Making a claim based only on marketing intuition or a supplier statement without any structured LCA or quantified analysis across the full value chain.
Principle #7 – Any visual element (name, color, image, symbol, logo) may constitute an environmental claim.
Regulatory Focus
The UCPD considers that:
- A claim can be implicit and misleading, even without words;
- Visuals such as green colors, leaves, trees, animals, or natural imagery can mislead consumers if not substantiated;
- Product or collection names like "Greenline", "EcoSoft", or "Sustainable Series" are subject to the same rules as textual claims;
- The same applies to icons, pictograms, graphic logos, or "eco" stamps.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended best practices:
- For every visual element used in an environmental context (websites, labels, social media):
- Ensure it is substantiated by evidence;
- Contextualize it with an explanatory note nearby;
- Ensure the visual's prominence reflects the product's actual impact.
- If a collection or brand name carries environmental connotations:
- Either the claim must be true for all products in the range;
- Or it must be accompanied by an explicit disclaimer.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common non-compliance cases:
- Using evocative icons (leaves, trees, planets, water droplets, green tones) without justification or evidence, leading to exaggerated perceptions of sustainability.
- Naming a collection with an ecological term (e.g., "Greenline") when it only contains a low proportion (e.g., 15%) of recycled or certified materials, without explanation.
- Designing a product label with dominant green color or "nature" themes without supporting evidence or explanation.
Principle #8 – Even in constrained formats, environmental claims must be understandable and not misleading.
Regulatory Focus
The directive acknowledges that some formats (labels, stories, product pages, ads) have limited space, but still require:
- Clear and specific language;
- Avoidance of vague terms without immediate clarification;
- Easy access to additional details (e.g., QR code, direct link, popup).
It is considered misleading to make the consumer dig through multiple pages to understand an environmental claim.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended best practices:
- Use appropriate formats for each medium:
- Packaging: link to full explanation via QR code
- Social media: share explanatory carousels
- E-commerce: include tooltips or expandable content for full details
- Embed necessary clarifications directly:
- e.g.: "Certified recycled cotton: more information via QR code."
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common non-compliance cases:
- Using strong environmental terms ("green", "eco", "bio") on packaging, product sheets, or labels without any clarification or source.
- Optimizing product titles or URLs for SEO (e.g., "eco hoodie") while the actual product page contains no environmental substantiation.
- Publishing a promotional visual with a claim like "carbon neutral" or "responsible" without clickable access to supporting documentation.
- Using a constrained medium (label, ad insert, social media post) without any link or reference for further details.
Principle #9 – Misleading or unsubstantiated claims can lead to sanctions by national authorities.
Regulatory Focus
Article 12 of the UCPD allows national authorities to request supporting documentation at any time. If the evidence is deemed insufficient, the claim is presumed false.
Annex I of the directive lists practices that are banned in all circumstances, including:
- Falsely displaying a label or certification;
- Claiming adherence to a code of conduct without proof;
- Presenting legal obligations (e.g., banned substances) as product benefits.
Authorities can impose:
- Suspension or removal of a product or campaign;
- A ban on further advertising;
- Administrative fines (e.g., DGCCRF in France);
- Civil actions in case of harm to consumers or competitors;
- Reputational damage from public disclosure.
‍
âś“ Recommended best practices
+
âś“ Recommended best practices:
- Maintain a central, up-to-date archive of substantiating evidence, ready for disclosure.
- Set up an internal audit procedure to regularly review claims and visuals across all channels.
- Monitor regulatory developments, guidelines from the CPC, and national case law.
âś— Common non-compliance cases
+
âś— Common non-compliance cases:
- Being unable to provide documented evidence for a claim in a timely manner after a complaint or request by authorities.
- Using official labels (e.g., EU Ecolabel, Nordic Swan, Blue Angel) without authorization or on products not covered by certification.
- Promoting a regulatory requirement as a voluntary commitment (e.g., "free from banned substances" or "REACH compliant").
UCPD – Key points summary
| Principle |
Best Practices |
Common Non-Compliance Cases |
| All claims must be true, specific, clear, and not misleading. |
- Use concrete and measurable terms
- Specify the scope
- Use accessible, neutral language
- Support each claim with quantified, sourced data
|
- Using “sustainable product” without defining sustainability
- Claiming “carbon neutral” without explanation
- Exaggerating impact through green visuals
- Highlighting one benefit while masking others
|
| All claims must be backed by evidence available upon publication. |
- Prepare a structured, time-stamped evidence file
- Use robust sources (ISO, LCA, audits, labels)
- Store proof in an accessible system
- Regularly update the documentation
|
- Relying on unverified supplier claims
- Using only an unsigned Excel as proof
- Making claims without tests, standards, or protocols
- Publishing a figure without method or reference baseline
|
| Labels, logos, and certifications must be transparent, justified, and verifiable. |
- Specify what the label covers (material, stage, product)
- Indicate the certifying body
- Make criteria accessible (link, QR code)
- Choose recognized and verifiable labels
|
- Using a “GOTS” logo when only the fiber is certified
- Using a fictitious private label with no public reference
- Employing icons resembling official labels
- Omitting validation criteria
|
| Carbon neutrality claims must be rigorous, explained, and verifiable. |
- Specify the basis: measured, reduced, and offset emissions
- Describe offset projects (type, location, method)
- Avoid vague slogans like “carbon neutral”
- Justify credit quality and certification
|
- Vague neutrality claims with no method or scope
- Mentioning offsets without project or certification
- Using low-integrity or unverifiable credits
- Using offsets as central marketing argument
|
| Environmental comparisons must be fair, consistent, measurable, and verifiable. |
- Specify what is compared and how
- Compare equivalent products
- Use relative wording (e.g. “30% less than…")
- Ensure reproducibility and proof
|
- Comparing non-equivalent products
- Using inconsistent or non-transparent methods
- No proof or publication to back up the claim
- Comparing with outdated or unrepresentative products
|
| Claims must relate to significant impacts across the life cycle. |
- Base major claims on full life cycle assessment
- Specify covered stages: material, transport, use, etc.
- Avoid highlighting minor or isolated benefits
|
- Emphasizing marginal improvements
- Claiming “durable” without proof of longevity or use
- Making a claim based on intuition or supplier statements
|
| Any visual presentation may constitute an environmental claim. |
- Justify every icon, color, or image used
- Contextualize with nearby text or link
- Limit green visuals to what is demonstrably supported
|
- Using nature-related icons with no justification
- Naming a line “green” when only 15% of the product qualifies
- Using green backgrounds or planet icons without clarification
|
| Even in constrained formats, environmental claims must be understandable and not misleading. |
- Use QR codes, tooltips, or explainer carousels
- Provide key clarifications directly or via one click
|
- Using vague slogans with no supporting info
- Mismatch between product name and actual content
- No access to proof on social media or packaging
|
| Authorities may inspect, sanction, or withdraw misleading or unsubstantiated content. |
- Keep an updated, accessible proof register
- Conduct regular audits of published materials
- Implement legal monitoring
|
- Unable to provide proof upon request
- Displaying labels without official certification
- Presenting legal obligations as voluntary commitments
|
Conclusion: A false sense of leeway
While waiting for the Green Claims Directive, many brands believe they are operating in a grey area.
The absence of a specific, technical framework creates the impression that there’s still some leeway, that avoiding excesses or staying “within the spirit” of responsible communication is enough.
But in reality, this margin is much narrower than it seems.
Because a legal foundation already exists. The UCPD allows authorities to sanction any claim deemed misleading, vague, unsubstantiated, or poorly worded — even when made with sincere intentions.
And this isn’t just theoretical. In France, the DGCCRF is actively conducting enhanced inspections, including on environmental claims. In 2024 alone, over 21,000 warnings and 2,300 fines were issued across all sectors, and greenwashing is clearly on the regulator’s radar.
In other words: Just because there are no “positive” rules yet doesn’t mean rigor is optional. And just because a brand isn’t lying doesn’t mean it’s compliant.
The UCPD doesn’t only target blatant abuses: it also applies to vague statements, shortcuts, and flattering yet unclear wording.
And for all brands committed to greater transparency, it offers a clear and already applicable framework, provided it's implemented today.
.jpg)
.png)
