Directive 2024/825 – the European Union’s response to greenwashing

19 May 2026 | Knowledge, News, The Right Focus

Greenwashing poses one of the most significant challenges to the consumer protection framework in the European Union. As customers become increasingly environmentally conscious, brands are ever more inclined to leverage this interest by invoking the language of environmental protection, sustainable development and climate neutrality. Yet these claims do not always reflect the actual characteristics of their products or services. The EU has sought to bring systemic order to this area by clarifying the information obligations of traders and broadening the list of practices deemed unfair.[1] We consider what these changes mean for businesses in practice.

Will we finally see a definition of greenwashing?

Although the concept of greenwashing is widely used, both in everyday language and in legal practice, neither EU nor national law provides a precise definition of the term.

The Directive identifies specific practices which, by their very nature, are likely to mislead consumers as to the environmental impact of their products or services. This is because EU legislators have linked greenwashing to the regime governing unfair commercial practices.

One of the key changes is the expansion of the list of the main characteristics of a product. This category now encompasses information on environmental and social characteristics, as well as circularity aspects, such as:

  • durability
  • reparability
  • recyclability

As a result, claims relating to these characteristics cease to serve a purely marketing function and become subject to legal scrutiny in terms of their accuracy and influence on consumer decision-making.

‘Environmentally friendly’ and ‘climate neutral’ products

The Directive pays particular attention to generic environmental claims.

The use of broad and evaluative slogans suggesting that a product is environmentally friendly or climate-neutral has been deemed unacceptable, unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance in relation to the product as a whole.

Such claims have been expressly added to the blacklist of unfair practices that are prohibited in all circumstances.

At the same time, the Directive permits the use of specific claims, provided that they are clear, precise and verifiable.

Lower CO2 emissions? Prove it

The Directive also addresses forward-looking claims. Claims suggesting that specific climate or environmental targets will be met are subject to individual assessment. Their admissibility depends on the existence of:

  • clear, publicly available commitments
  • a realistic plan for their implementation
  • independent verification mechanisms

Failure to satisfy these conditions may result in the practice being deemed misleading.

The Directive takes a particularly strict approach to claims based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions.

Claims suggesting that a product has a neutral or positive impact on the climate solely on account of offsetting mechanisms have been unconditionally prohibited.

The EU legislature took the view that such claims could mislead consumers into believing that the given product itself has no adverse environmental impact throughout its entire life cycle.

‘Made in eco’ under the microscope

The new rules also cover sustainability labels and certifications.

The Directive prohibits the use of labels that are not based on a credible certification scheme or that have not been established by a public authority. As a result, a significant proportion of private ‘green’ labels may be found to be non-compliant with consumer law if they fail to meet minimum conditions of transparency, independence and oversight.

Directive 2024/825 is of particular importance from the perspective of national legal systems, including Polish law.

Until now, efforts to combat greenwashing have relied on a patchwork of regulations addressing unfair competition, unfair market practices, and the protection of competition and consumers. The implementation of the Directive will require national legislation to be clarified and may lead to a strengthening of the powers of supervisory authorities in assessing the marketing communications of domestic businesses.

The Directive sets a standard of accountability for the information provided in business-to-consumer relations, shifting the boundary between lawful promotion and unlawful misleading practices.

In practice, this means that marketing strategies, compliance procedures, and the way ESG-related activities are communicated will all need to be reassessed.

The Directive not only brings order to the market in legal terms, but also reinforces the role of reliable information as a tool supporting the green transition.

Any questions? Contact us

[1] Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024

Latest Knowledge

Banking sector overview | Banking today and tomorrow | June 2026

According to a statement published by GPW Benchmark, the reference rate administrator, and the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), which oversees the administrator, 31 December 2036 will be the last day on which the WIBID and WIBOR rates will be provided for all key fixing periods: 1 month (1M), 3 months (3M) and 6 months (6M).

How to correctly calculate length of service from 1 May 2026

New rules for calculating length of service have applied to private sector employers since the beginning of May 2026. With companies continuing to express concerns about the new framework, the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Policy has addressed the most common questions. We look at the issues that are (still) troubling employers and how we can help.

Tax settlement agreement: A new tool in the General Tax Code

A draft bill amending the General Tax Code (No. UDER110) has been submitted for consideration by the Council of Ministers. The bill introduces the tax settlement agreement, a new form of amicable dispute resolution between taxpayers and the tax authority. The draft is open for inter-ministerial review and public consultation until 19 June, with the proposed date of entry into force being 1 January 2028. Below, we examine who may apply for a settlement agreement, when, and on what terms, and how the process may work in practice.

A revolutionary reform of Poland’s capital market – ETFs and the Qualified Investment Fund

Poland’s capital market is on the cusp of one of the most significant reforms in recent years, which will fundamentally reshape the regulatory framework for ETFs and introduce an entirely new investment vehicle: the Qualified Investment Fund (QIF/KFI). This is a response to market demands and presents an opportunity for Poland to close the gap with countries such as Luxembourg and Ireland, with the overarching objective of boosting competitiveness and stemming the outflow of investment capital abroad. The new regulations aim to deliver greater flexibility for investors and fund managers alike, while also aligning with current market trends and European standards. We examine what is changing in practice and what it means for all market participants.

GLI – AI, Machine Learning & Big Data 2026: The Polish perspective on artificial intelligence law

Global Legal Insights (GLI) is a series of international publications by the Global Legal Group (GLG), authored by legal practitioners from around the world. It offers an up-to-date and highly practical guide to the applicable regulatory landscape, complemented by expert commentary on specific areas of law across different jurisdictions. In short: legislation and actionable know-how in one place.

Banking sector overview | Banking today and tomorrow | May 2026

“The end of the dream of free housing” – this is how the Polish Bank Association (Związek Banków Polskich) has characterised Thursday’s judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases concerning whether the claims of financial institutions against CHF mortgage borrowers have become time-barred.

Return deposits like VAT? The elephant in the room: the risks of the deposit-return system

The deposit-return system was supposed to be simple. Eco-friendly. Leak-proof. Tax-neutral. However, it took just a few months for serious doubts to emerge. The first loopholes are no longer just theoretical, they are in plain sight. The mechanisms for abuse can be described quite precisely, and the scale of potential losses may be much greater than anticipated. Below, we examine where the system is losing control and how this can be addressed.

Contact us:

Joanna Barbrich

Joanna Barbrich

Associate / Chief Sustainability Officer

+48 728 432 408

j.barbrich@kochanski.pl