For years, calling something “eco-friendly,” “green,” or “sustainable” was a low-risk communications choice. It signalled good intentions without requiring proof. That changed on 27 September 2026, when Directive 2024/825 came into force across the EU. Vague environmental claims aren’t just imprecise anymore. They’re a legal liability.
The directive covers packaging, websites, social media, advertising and printed materials. Four categories matter most to anyone communicating about green energy or ocean restoration.
The Terminology
Vague claims are the first. Terms like “eco-friendly hydrogen,” “green shipping” or “sustainable ocean solutions” are high-risk without specific evidence. The rule requires the environmental benefit to be stated clearly and verified. If you can’t say what is green about it, you can’t say it is green.
Carbon-offset-based neutrality claims are the second. Statements like “carbon neutral” or “net-zero” that rely on offsetting are now restricted. Direct emissions reductions and offsetting contributions must be shown separately. Bundling them into one clean claim is no longer compliant.
Self-made sustainability labels are the third. Badges your organisation created in-house to signal environmental credentials carry compliance risk. Labels need to come from a credible certification scheme or a public authority.
The fourth is future commitments without plans. Announcing a net-zero target for 2040 now requires a public implementation plan with time-bound milestones and independent verification. Aspirations without architecture are in scope.
Here’s the opportunity: specificity was always better communications. “Our electrolysis process uses 100% renewable electricity from wind generation in the North Sea” is more credible than “green hydrogen.” “We restored 14 hectares of seagrass meadow in the Adriatic, verified by the Mediterranean Science Commission” lands harder than “we are restoring the ocean.” The claim that’s legally safe is also the one readers actually believe.
For EU-funded projects, the reputational stakes are especially high. Public funding brings public scrutiny. Being first to communicate with the precision the directive requires isn’t just a compliance exercise. It’s a way to stand apart in a crowded field.
Before reviewing your materials, work through five questions. Can you point to a specific, measurable outcome for every environmental claim you make? Do your neutrality claims separate what is reduction, what is offset and what is still a goal? Are any labels you use backed by an external certification or public body? Do your future commitments have a published plan with dates and a verification process? And if your funding is EU-sourced, do your communications accurately reflect what has actually been achieved, not just what is planned?
The organisations that work through these questions now won’t just avoid enforcement risk. They’ll have communications that hold up, which in a field full of green claims is worth more than any badge.