Danish Green Claims Scrutiny Meets New EU Rules

Denmark has been scrutinising green marketing claims long before anti-greenwashing became a central EU policy topic. The Danish Consumer Ombudsman has for years required environmental claims to be precise, relevant, balanced and supported by evidence, building up detailed guidance and enforcement practice in this area.

On 4 September 2026, the Ombudsman published a revised edition of Virksomheders miljømarkedsføring – Forbrugerombudsmandens anbefalinger (Environmental Marketing by Companies – The Danish Consumer Ombudsman’s Recommendations). The recommendations apply from 27 September 2026 and bring this established Danish approach into line with the new requirements introduced through the European Union’s Directive 2024/825 Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive. The Ombudsman itself has noted that the changes do not differ greatly from its existing practice and interpretation.

The update therefore combines continuity with change. It clarifies which principles were already established in Danish practice and where EU legislation now introduces firmer boundaries, automatic prohibitions and additional requirements around claims, labels and future environmental commitments.

Read the original Danish recommendations

They sit alongside the separate Vejledning om brug af miljømæssige og etiske påstande m.v. (Guidance on the Use of Environmental and Ethical Claims, etc.), published in 2014. The older guidance covers additional areas, including ethical claims, and continues to apply alongside the new recommendations where relevant. Some sections have, however, been superseded by subsequent legal developments and no longer represent the Ombudsman’s current interpretation.

Read the 2014 guidance on environmental and ethical claims

The Marketing Practices Act applies to private business activity, as well as public activity where products are offered on the market. Manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and brands whose marketing is subject to Danish law should therefore pay attention, including companies communicating environmental product performance to consumers and, where relevant, to other businesses.

Much of the foundation is already familiar

Companies that have been following the Danish Consumer Ombudsman’s previous recommendations will recognise much of the underlying approach.

Before this update, companies were already expected to:

• make climate, environmental and sustainability claims that are correct, precise, relevant, balanced and clearly formulated;

• substantiate factual claims with adequate evidence;

• make clear whether a claim concerns the whole product, part of a product, a particular activity or the company;

• consider the overall impression created by words, images, colours, symbols and other visual elements;

• favour specific, factual claims over broad environmental language where possible.

The recommendation to use concrete claims is therefore not new. What changes from September 2026 is the legal weight and precision around several of these areas. Some practices that were already risky under Danish interpretation are now addressed more explicitly by the EU-driven rules, and some become misleading in all circumstances.

So what changes?

The Consumer Ombudsman identifies six areas where the revised recommendations contain important changes or additions.

1. Documentation remains fundamental, with clearer practical expectations

The obligation to document factual marketing claims is longstanding. The update does not introduce that principle.

The revised recommendations do, however, incorporate newer Danish case law and provide more practical guidance. They reiterate that simply making a claim plausible is not enough: the evidence must substantiate it. The Ombudsman also recommends retaining supporting documentation for at least two years after the marketing has taken place.

For manufacturers, this reinforces the need to connect marketing and product evidence early. Claims about recycled content, emissions reductions, materials, circularity or other environmental properties should be built from documentation rather than developed first and substantiated afterwards.

2. The consequences of getting it wrong are made more visible

Misleading environmental marketing could already result in fines. The 2026 recommendations now give sanctions a dedicated section and explain the Danish fine model more clearly, including how company turnover and the seriousness and scale of an infringement can affect the level of a fine.

This makes the enforcement consequences of environmental marketing more visible for companies.

3. Generic green claims face firmer legal limits

Denmark was already strict on broad claims such as “green”, “environmentally friendly” and “climate friendly”. The EU-driven changes now put clearer legal boundaries around their use.

A generic environmental claim made without explanation is considered misleading unless the company can demonstrate a recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to that claim. This concept is narrowly defined around recognised schemes such as the EU Ecolabel and officially recognised ISO 14024 Type I ecolabels, or best environmental performance established under other applicable EU law.

Where a generic claim is qualified, that explanation needs to be clear and prominent on the same medium. Essential clarification cannot simply be moved behind a link, QR code or other secondary source.

The new rules also make it misleading in all circumstances to present an environmental benefit as applying to the whole product or company when it actually concerns only a specific aspect.

For product companies, scope therefore matters as much as wording. A claim may concern:

• the whole product;

• a material or component;

• the packaging;

• a particular manufacturing process;

• a specific environmental property;

• the company or one of its activities.

The communication needs to make that distinction clear.

4. Product climate claims based on offsetting face a clear prohibition

The revised rules draw a particularly firm line around carbon compensation.

A product cannot be marketed as having a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse gas impact when that claimed benefit results from greenhouse gas compensation outside the product’s value chain. This includes product-level claims such as “climate neutral” or “CO₂ neutral” where the underlying benefit comes from external offsetting.

Actual greenhouse gas reductions within the product value chain may still be communicated when they can be properly documented.

For companies, the distinction between actual reductions, compensation and future ambitions therefore needs to remain visible in the claim.

5. Sustainability labels need credible structures behind them

One of the most significant changes for product manufacturers concerns sustainability labels.

Under the new rules, sustainability labels used in consumer marketing must either be established by a public authority or be based on a qualifying third-party certification scheme.

The scheme must meet criteria including:

• publicly available requirements;  

• transparent, fair and non-discriminatory conditions;  

• requirements developed with relevant experts and stakeholders;  

• procedures for dealing with non-compliance, including suspension or withdrawal of the label;  

• objective monitoring by a competent and independent third party.  

This creates a clearer distinction between a self-created green badge and an independently verified certification.

Established third-party certification programmes such as Cradle to Cradle Certified® illustrate this type of structured approach, with a public standard, accredited assessment bodies and independent conformity assessment processes.

Importantly, using a credible certification does not automatically justify a broad claim such as “green” or “sustainable”. The claim still needs to reflect what has actually been assessed and certified.

For example, a certification covering one defined aspect of a product should not be presented as evidence for every aspect of the product’s environmental performance.

6. Future claims need a credible pathway, not just a target

Future environmental claims also receive firmer requirements.

Claims about future environmental performance need to rest on:

• clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments;  

• a detailed and realistic implementation plan;  

• measurable and time-bound targets;  

• the actions and resources required to implement the plan;  

• regular review by an independent third-party expert;  

• conclusions from that review made available to consumers.  

This is particularly relevant to manufacturers communicating future climate-neutrality, emissions-reduction or other environmental targets. Aspirational language can also fall within the rules when it creates a concrete environmental promise.

In practice, companies should:

• check that every environmental claim can be supported by adequate evidence;

• review whether the overall impression of the communication matches that evidence;

• specify whether a claim concerns the whole product, one material or component, packaging, production or another defined aspect;

• revisit generic terms such as “green”, “environmentally friendly”, “climate friendly” and “sustainable”;

• keep important qualifications directly connected to the claim;

• separate actual emissions reductions from compensation and future targets;

• check sustainability labels, badges and certification references against the new requirements;

• review future environmental commitments against the requirements for measurable plans and independent verification;

• keep documentation supporting claims organised and accessible;

• consider robust third-party certification where independently assessed product performance can provide a stronger basis for specific claims.

The programme offers three certification routes, allowing the scope of certification to reflect the product performance a company wants to assess and verify:

• C2C Certified® Material Health focuses on the chemicals and materials used in a product and their implications for human and environmental health. It can provide an independently assessed foundation for specific communication around material health and safer product chemistry.

• C2C Certified® Circularity focuses on product circularity, including material sourcing, circular design, circular systems, packaging and material health. It can provide a solid foundation for specific claims linked to circular product performance and keeping products and materials in circulation.

• C2C Certified® Full Scope provides the broadest assessment. It evaluates performance across Material Health, Product Circularity, Clean Air & Climate Protection, Water & Soil Stewardship and Social Fairness. By verifying performance across all five areas, Full Scope certification can provide evidence for a wider range of product and manufacturing claims rather than focusing on an individual category.

Explore the Cradle to Cradle Certified® standard and certification options

Across all three routes, the same principle applies: the claim should remain within the scope of the evidence and certification result behind it.

The Danish guidance reinforces a direction that has been developing for years and is now becoming more firmly embedded in European rules: environmental claims are moving towards greater precision, stronger documentation and closer alignment between what a company says and what its product evidence can demonstrate.

For manufacturers, that makes substantiation more than a final marketing check. Building reliable product evidence early can support better product development, stronger certification outcomes and more credible communication. Vugge til Vugge supports companies from assessing current product performance and identifying improvement opportunities through to Cradle to Cradle Certified® certification, providing a verified foundation from which specific and substantiated product claims can be developed.