EU Pauses Anti-Greenwashing Law: What It Means for Sustainable Communications.

In a surprising move, the European Commission has announced it will withdraw the proposed Green Claims Directive, halting negotiations that would have required companies across the EU to substantiate environmental claims — like “climate neutral” or “recycled content” — with independent evidence.

Why the Law Mattered

• A 2020 Commission study found that over half of environmental claims were vague or unsubstantiated.
• The Directive aimed to tackle this by mandating independent verification and penalties for false, vague, or misleading claims.

This would have aligned with reforms passed by the European Parliament earlier this year, requiring environmental claims to be based on scientific evidence, third-party certification, and clear labelling.

Why the Rollback Happened

• The European Commission cited an overwhelming administrative burden on micro businesses if they were included in the law.
• Some lawmakers, particularly from conservative groups, argued the Directive was overly complex and costly, threatening to block the legislation unless it was withdrawn.

The Consequences

• Without the Directive, companies won’t face mandatory pre-approved verification or legal penalties for misleading environmental claims, potentially weakening enforcement.
• Trust in sustainability claims may erode further, making it harder for genuinely responsible businesses to stand out.
• Responsibility for claim-checking and accountability now falls heavily on markets, NGOs, independent watchdogs, and movements like The Anti-Greenwash Charter.

What Comes Next

• The European Commission may still pursue other consumer protection measures to address greenwashing, such as restrictions on vague offset-based claims.

• Meanwhile, credible sustainability communications have never been more important. Businesses should proactively:
  ✅ Adopt independent third-party verification
  ✅ Publish clear, specific sustainability claims
  ✅ Engage with initiatives like The Anti-Greenwash Charter to demonstrate transparency and integrity

The Bottom Line

This pause highlights how fragile regulatory progress on greenwashing can be — even in markets like the EU. Without legal enforcement, brands that care about credibility need to lead by example.

As Charlie, CEO of The Anti-Greenwash Charter, puts it:

“Regulatory setbacks only make market integrity more vital. The difference between vague claims and verified truth becomes the difference between trust and mistrust.”

For brands serious about sustainability, the message is clear: self-regulation, independent verification, and honest communications aren’t optional — they’re the foundation for long-term trust.

For a Truly Sustainable Future

If your organisation believes in doing the right thing — and telling the truth about it — we’d love to have you with us.

📢 Join us as we take this next step.
Become a signatory, shape the future, and show the world what responsible sustainability communications really look like.

Join the Charter →

Why Independent Verification Is the Backbone of Honest Sustainability Communications.

In the crowded, confusing world of sustainability marketing, words are cheap. Labels, certifications, and green claims flood product packaging, websites, and advertising—yet trust is in short supply.

Why? Because without independent verification, even the boldest sustainability statement is just that—a statement.

At The Anti-Greenwash Charter, we believe claim verification isn’t just a regulatory checkbox—it’s the cornerstone of credible sustainability communications. It’s how responsible brands prove they’re walking the talk. And it’s how consumers, investors, and regulators separate genuine action from greenwashing.

The Role of Third-Party Verifiers: Trust, Not Just Ticking Boxes

In an ideal world, all environmental claims would be substantiated, clearly communicated, and transparently backed by evidence. But in reality, too many organisations rely on vague language or internal assessments that lack rigour.

This is where independent, third-party verifiers come in.

By providing objective assessments, recognised certifications, and evidence-based validations, they bring accountability to sustainability communications. They ensure claims aren’t just legally compliant—but credible, specific, and trustworthy.

“We see claim verification as a critical layer of defence against greenwashing,” says Charlie, CEO of The Anti-Greenwash Charter. “It takes sustainability from marketing spin to measurable fact.”

Examples of Third-Party Verifiers We Respect

While the sustainability verification landscape is vast—and quality varies—not all verifiers are created equal. At the Charter, we encourage signatories to work with trusted, recognised organisations that uphold high standards for credibility.

Here are just a few we believe are making a meaningful contribution:

✅ The Carbon Trust

Respected for its rigorous lifecycle assessments and carbon footprint verification, the Carbon Trust plays a key role in demystifying emissions claims.

✅ Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

FSC certification remains one of the most recognisable—and credible—marks for responsibly sourced forest products.

✅ TÜV Rheinland & Similar Accredited Testing Bodies

Known for independent product testing, TÜV Rheinland and similar bodies provide reliable verification, particularly in manufacturing and materials.

✅ The Soil Association & Organic Certifiers

In agriculture and food, certification bodies like the Soil Association offer clear, third-party standards for organic claims.

✅ B Lab (B Corp Certification)

While broader than individual claim verification, B Corp’s assessment framework drives meaningful scrutiny across social and environmental performance, including marketing integrity.

What Makes a Good Verifier?

When assessing third-party organisations, we look for:

✔ Independence: Are they truly impartial?
✔ Transparency: Are their methodologies and standards publicly available?
✔ Global Recognition: Do regulators, NGOs, and consumers respect their work?
✔ Rigour: Do they demand measurable, evidence-based substantiation?
✔ Ongoing Scrutiny: Do they adapt to evolving best practices?

Not every verifier meets these standards. Some are little more than “pay-to-play” green labels. That’s why brands must be selective—and why we’re committed to championing verification partners that uphold integrity.

Collaboration is Key: Let’s Strengthen the System Together

At The Anti-Greenwash Charter, we’re actively exploring how we can align more closely with respected third-party verifiers. Our aim? To create a stronger, more transparent ecosystem where responsible brands, verification bodies, and consumer expectations all move in the same direction.

In the coming months, we plan to:

🔹 Reach out to leading verification organisations to explore partnership opportunities
🔹 Develop clearer guidance for signatories on selecting credible verifiers
🔹 Celebrate brands that use robust third-party verification to substantiate their claims

“Sustainability isn’t a self-assessment exercise,” says Charlie. “We need independent voices—scientists, auditors, experts—helping brands get this right.”

The Future of Sustainability Communications Is Verified

Greenwashing thrives in the absence of scrutiny. But when brands embrace independent verification, they don’t just comply with regulations—they build trust.

We see claim verification as a vital part of the Anti-Greenwash Charter’s future—and the future of responsible sustainability communications as a whole.

If you represent a verification body aligned with these values, we’d love to connect. Because building credibility isn’t a solo project—it’s a movement.

For a Truly Sustainable Future

If your organisation believes in doing the right thing — and telling the truth about it — we’d love to have you with us.

📢 Join us as we take this next step.
Become a signatory, shape the future, and show the world what responsible sustainability communications really look like.

Join the Charter →

The ESG Blind Spot: Why Communications Integrity Matters.

When we talk about ESG, we talk about carbon emissions and energy transitions. We talk about human rights policies, supply chains, governance structures, and sustainable finance.

But we don’t talk nearly enough about language—about how sustainability is communicated to the world.

And that’s a problem. Because in a world where trust is fragile, the most dangerous thing a company can do is overpromise and under-explain.

This is the blind spot at the heart of ESG.

It’s not the numbers that break trust—it’s the words. The vague packaging claims. The carbon-neutral taglines that don’t stand up. The purpose-led storytelling that dodges real scrutiny.

And it’s exactly why The Anti-Greenwash Charter exists.

The Gap Between What Companies Do—and What They Say

Across industries, ESG has grown into a complex web of targets, disclosures, and scorecards. You can track emissions, report diversity figures, and align with science-based targets.

But none of that guarantees the way those efforts are communicated is fair, clear, or honest.

And right now, too many sustainability claims are designed to impress—not inform.

“What you say about your impact can be more powerful than the impact itself,” says Charlie, CEO of The Anti-Greenwash Charter. “It can shape perception, drive purchasing, influence policy—and if it’s not true, it can do serious damage.”

The Only ESG Movement Focused on Communications Integrity

B Corp, CDP, SBTi, ISSB—there are plenty of frameworks that assess what businesses do. But The Anti-Greenwash Charter is the only initiative focused on how businesses talk about what they do.

That makes it uniquely powerful—and urgently needed.

At a time when regulators are cracking down on greenwashing, consumers are calling out false claims, and trust in corporate sustainability is faltering, the Charter offers a new kind of standard:

🟢 One that’s built around communications
🟢 One that addresses how claims are made, not just what’s in the data
🟢 One that turns marketing from a risk into a responsibility

“The Charter doesn’t certify whether you’re sustainable—it holds you accountable for whether you’re being honest,” Charlie explains. “And that’s what makes it radical.”

Why Communications Must Be Treated as an ESG Risk

If a business overstates its emissions reductions or oversimplifies its sustainability impact, that’s not just bad marketing. That’s a governance failure, a reputational risk, and increasingly, a legal exposure.

With laws like the UK’s Green Claims Code and the EU’s Green Claims Directive, companies that once used green buzzwords with impunity are now facing real consequences.

But long before a regulator steps in, customers are already switching off. Because people know when they’re being sold something too good to be true.

“We’re not asking brands to be perfect,” Charlie says. “We’re asking them to be honest. To own the grey areas. To say, ‘Here’s what we’re doing—and here’s what still needs work.’”

A Movement for Brands That Lead With Integrity

The Charter isn’t a passive pledge. It’s a working standard—backed by a growing community of brands committed to doing better.

Signatories of the Charter commit to:
✅ Publishing a Green Claims Policy
✅ Participating in independent campaign reviews
✅ Substantiating every claim with evidence and clarity
✅ Continually improving their communications practices

And in doing so, they send a message—not just to their audiences, but to their industries:

“We will not contribute to the erosion of trust in sustainability.”

“When a brand joins the Charter, they’re not just signing a document—they’re choosing a side,” Charlie says. “They’re choosing to be part of the solution.”

This Is the Moment to Fix the Blind Spot

Sustainability is a story. And like any story, it’s only powerful if it’s credible.

We’ve spent years building tools to measure impact. Now it’s time to build systems that ensure that impact is communicated responsibly.

Because if we lose trust in the claims, we lose faith in the progress. And if the planet can’t afford delay, it certainly can’t afford deception.

For a Truly Sustainable Future

If your organisation believes in doing the right thing — and telling the truth about it — we’d love to have you with us.

📢 Join us as we take this next step.
Become a signatory, shape the future, and show the world what responsible sustainability communications really look like.

Join the Charter →

“This Is a Turning Point”: Why Taking a Stand on Corporate Misinformation Is a Strategic Opportunity.

We’re living through a misinformation emergency, one that’s quietly undermining the fight against the climate crisis. Behind the glossy campaigns and net zero pledges, a quieter truth is being buried: that environmental claims are too often used to delay, distract, and deceive. For Charlie, CEO of The Anti-Greenwash Charter, the issue is not just urgent—it’s structural.

“Corporate misinformation isn’t just greenwashing gone rogue,” Charlie says. “It’s a system failure. And unless we confront it, we can’t build a future based on real progress.”

That’s the rationale behind The Charter: a collective commitment to dismantling misinformation and replacing it with something more powerful—integrity.

Misinformation: The Crisis Behind the Crisis

The problem is bigger than a few bad apples. From misleading climate targets to selective storytelling, the marketing machine often outpaces the science—and the substance. This is not just an ethical failing. It’s a strategic one.

“Misinformation dilutes ambition,” Charlie explains. “It gives cover to inaction. It tells a story of progress that’s not real—and in doing so, it robs us of the urgency and clarity we need.”

According to recent research, over half of consumers feel misled by environmental claims. Regulators are responding—from the EU’s Green Claims Directive to the UK’s crackdown on “greenhush” and greenwash alike. But legislation alone won’t be enough.

“The damage is already being done—in public trust, in policy delays, in misallocated capital,” Charlie says. “We need more than compliance. We need a cultural shift inside organisations—starting with those who control the message.”

Activism, Redefined

That’s where the opportunity lies. Not in waiting to be regulated—but in choosing to lead. The Anti-Greenwash Charter reframes transparency not as a burden, but as a differentiator. A way for organisations to align their voice with their values—and stand out for the right reasons.

“Activism doesn’t just happen in the streets,” Charlie says. “It happens in strategy meetings, marketing briefs, ESG reports. Every time someone inside a business says: ‘We’re not going to fudge this,’ that’s a stand.”

This is not about perfection. It’s about principles. The Charter offers a framework for honest, evidence-based communication—backed by peer accountability and clear expectations. It empowers those inside organisations to say: we can do better, and we want to.

“The Charter exists because people inside businesses are lacking confidence in their messaging,” Charlie explains. “They want a way to tell the truth—and be recognised for it.”

The Future Belongs to the Transparent

In a climate-constrained world, authenticity will be non-negotiable. But the first movers—the brands and agencies that embrace openness now—have a chance to shape that future. Not out of fear, but out of leadership.

“Taking a stand against corporate misinformation isn’t just a defensive play,” Charlie insists. “It’s a strategic one. It builds trust. It attracts talent. It creates resilience. And it sets the standard others will have to follow.”

The Charter is more than a pledge. It’s a community of doers—marketers, strategists, communicators—who are reclaiming their influence and using it for good.

“We don’t need more climate slogans,” Charlie says. “We need courage. We need consistency. And we need people willing to rewrite the rules of communication, not just reword the copy.”

For a Truly Sustainable Future

If your organisation believes in doing the right thing — and telling the truth about it — we’d love to have you with us.

📢 Join us as we take this next step.
Become a signatory, shape the future, and show the world what responsible sustainability communications really look like.

Join the Charter →

Why the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Is a Reckoning for Corporate Sustainability.

In an era defined by environmental emergency and economic anxiety, the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 arrives not as a footnote to consumer protection, but as a structural intervention into the informational integrity of markets themselves. Behind its bureaucratic name lies a profound shift: a legal recognition that the stories corporations tell—especially about sustainability—are not peripheral to commerce. They are commerce.

For years, consumer trust has been undermined by what economists might call “credence asymmetry”: companies possess all the information; consumers are left to trust—or guess. Nowhere has this asymmetry been more exploited than in environmental claims, where “net zero” promises are rarely backed by verifiable pathways, and “sustainable” products often carry invisible carbon costs.

The 2024 Act is an attempt to recalibrate that imbalance. And it changes everything.

A New Architecture of Accountability

The most significant provision in the Act is also the least headline-grabbing: it grants the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) direct enforcement powers, allowing it to impose fines of up to 10% of global turnover without requiring a court decision.

This is not incremental policy. It is structural enforcement.

Where previous regulations relied on slow, case-by-case litigation, the Act now gives regulators the capacity to act quickly—and decisively—against misleading practices. And while the scope of the law is broad, its implications for environmental claims are particularly stark.

Companies that mislead consumers on sustainability—through exaggeration, omission, or ambiguity—now face not just reputational risk, but existential financial exposure.

False Urgency, Manufactured Scarcity, and the Illusion of Ethics

In effect, the Act criminalises one of the most manipulative aspects of green consumerism: the illusion of ethical choice. Through fake countdown timers, carefully worded packaging, and influencer partnerships that mimic authenticity, corporations have been engineering a world in which doing the right thing feels both easy and urgent—even when the underlying products remain unchanged.

But urgency is not virtue, and ease is not ethics.

Under the new legislation, those tactics become legally precarious. The Act prohibits misleading urgency cues, bans fake scarcity, and targets undisclosed paid endorsements. In doing so, it moves closer to what behavioural economists have long called for: regulation that accounts for how people actually make decisions—under pressure, with limited information, and amid competing narratives.

From Compliance to Legitimacy

What does this mean for brands?

First: a compliance programme is no longer a safeguard. It is a minimum requirement. The deeper question now is not whether a claim is legally defensible, but whether it is socially legitimate—and verifiably true.

Second: the era of plausible deniability is over. The CMA and other regulators are explicitly prioritising green claims in fashion, cosmetics, home goods and travel—sectors where consumer desire meets high carbon intensity and low transparency.

Third: this is only the beginning. The UK is aligning itself with a broader global pattern—visible in the EU Green Claims Directive, the US SEC’s climate disclosure rules, and increasing litigation over ESG misrepresentation. The informational environment in which sustainability narratives operate is being redrawn.

Where the Charter Fits In

At The Anti-Greenwash Charter, our mission has never been reactive. It is anticipatory. We exist because enforcement alone is insufficient. What’s needed is a cultural and institutional shift in how marketing operates—away from image management, toward evidence-based accountability.

We offer:

• Claim audits rooted in science, not spin.

• Guidance on disclosure that aligns with the Act’s language and intent.

• Tools for teams navigating the grey zones between aspiration and accountability.

• Public standards that make marketing integrity visible—and verifiable.

What This Moment Demands

The Act doesn’t just create new penalties. It redefines the stakes. It asks businesses to answer a harder, more consequential question: What happens when you’re held accountable for the stories you tell?

In climate terms, the answer is existential. Marketing doesn’t just shape perception—it shapes demand, investment, legitimacy. And when marketing distorts the truth, it doesn’t just mislead consumers. It delays action. It defers responsibility. It permits inaction behind a facade of progress.

This is the terrain on which the greenwash battle is now being fought—not in slogans, but in systems. The law is catching up. And the market, finally, is being asked to do the same.

For a Truly Sustainable Future

If your organisation believes in doing the right thing — and telling the truth about it — we’d love to have you with us.

📢 Join us as we take this next step.
Become a signatory, shape the future, and show the world what responsible sustainability communications really look like.

Join the Charter →