The ECGT’s message is clear: sustainability claims that reach consumers must be specific, representative and substantiated. If they are not, there is a risk of reputational damage, legal proceedings, enforcement measures and a loss of trust amongst participants and stakeholders.

Why greenwashing should be on the agenda now

Organisations often underestimate the complexity of the risks associated with greenwashing, whereby companies present themselves as more sustainable than they actually are. Sustainability statements are found across policy documents, annual reports, websites, pension schemes, factsheets and communications to participants. And by ‘participants’, we refer in particular to consumers who purchase products from financial institutions. These consumers must not be misled by claims about sustainability – whether environmental or social – that cannot be substantiated or backed up.

The scope of the ECGT is broad: any communication that may come to a consumer’s attention may contain a claim to which the Directive applies. Such claims must be assessed against the ECGT, which tightens the rules set out in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive regarding sustainability claims, as well as against the guidelines issued by the ACM and the AFM. The likelihood of sustainability claims coming under scrutiny is increasing all the time.

Both the AFM and the ACM are explicitly positioning themselves as active regulators in the field of greenwashing and sustainability claims. In several publications, the AFM provides examples of misleading claims, such as a bank stating that it will be climate-neutral by 2050, whilst failing to explain when this will be achieved, how that goal will be reached, and what the current status is.

In recent years, the ACM has taken several companies to task for using vague, general or insufficiently substantiated sustainability claims. For example, a food manufacturer has undertaken to stop using claims such as ‘sustainably grown peanuts’, ‘sustainably grown vegetables’ and ‘sustainable packaging’, as these were not sufficiently clear to consumers.

The fact that this focus is not waning is also evident from the AFM’s ESG Update No. 3 of January 2026. In this publication, the regulator shares the findings of an investigation into sustainability claims made by financial market participants in 2024 and 2025, following the publication of the AFM Guidance on Sustainability Claims.

In the publication, the AFM addresses the most important areas for improvement identified by the research; in short: claims must be representative and specific, supporting evidence must be accessible, and claims regarding climate neutrality, ESG ratings and impact must be accompanied by the necessary explanations.

For this year, the AFM has indicated that it will monitor sustainability claims more closely and also expects market participants to review their claims and refine them where necessary.

This presents a challenge for organisations: regulations and guidelines are changing rapidly. What was perfectly acceptable wording last year may already be misleading today. And what about responsibilities? These are often spread across several teams: investments, communications, compliance, legal, and external parties. This quickly leads to inconsistencies, with no one having a complete overview.

What will change with the ECGT?

A number of key changes resulting from the introduction of the ECGT:

• Generic environmental claims, such as ‘climate-friendly’ or ‘energy-efficient’, will be prohibited if you cannot demonstrate recognised outstanding environmental performance for the product.
• Forward-looking claims, such as that a climate target will be achieved by 2030, must be supported by an implementation plan with interim targets and independent verification.
• Climate claims for a product based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions outside the company’s own value chain will be prohibited.
• Statements that appear to relate to the entire product but in fact apply only to a part of that product will be prohibited.
• You may no longer use private quality marks or labels, unless the mark has been verified by an independent body in accordance with a certification programme.

Given all these new obligations, as a director you will want to be able to demonstrate at any time that your organisation’s sustainability communications are accurate, consistent and compliant. An annual review is no longer sufficient. The ECGT is based on continuous monitoring.

Work to be done for directors

There is therefore work to be done, particularly now that the directive has also been implemented in the Civil Code. Please note that the guidelines issued by the AFM and ACM have not yet been aligned with the ECGT’s requirements. This calls for vigilance on the part of companies and directors. When drafting sustainability claims, it is therefore advisable to keep the ECGT to hand.

Compliance pays off, as evidenced by previous greenwashing cases both at home and abroad. The risks of non-compliance are considerable. For instance, the Advertising Code Committee, NGOs, consumers and regulators may intervene, which could lead to heavy fines and the mandatory amendment or removal of claims. And all this takes place under the scrutiny of the media, which regularly covers this topic.

Now that the ECGT has come into force on 27 September 2026, this trend is expected to intensify further. The new rules provide regulators with a clearer framework for assessing sustainability claims and impose stricter requirements on the evidence supporting them.

With the ECGT, the question therefore becomes even more pressing: can you actually substantiate the sustainability claim you are making and, where necessary, have it verified by an independent third party?

From insight to assurance

To gain better control over greenwashing risks and to establish a structured approach to compliance, it is important to work in phases. Four steps can help with this:

1) Insight and assessment

Start by drawing up an assessment framework based on legislation and regulations, supervisory expectations and legal interpretations. It is not just the letter of the law that counts, but also how regulators apply it in practice.

2) Analysis supported by AI

Next, systematically analyse selected documents using artificial intelligence. Whereas a manual review of dozens of documents would take weeks, AI provides a complete, structured overview within days. Furthermore, you can easily repeat the analysis periodically. This gives you ongoing insight into your risk profile, rather than a one-off snapshot. In this way, you ensure compliance with the continuous monitoring obligation and manage your greenwashing risks.

3) Risk insight and prioritisation

Record all points for attention in a structured overview, including an assessment of the greenwashing risk (low, medium, high). This enables you to prioritise effectively, make responsible choices and follow up on improvement measures effectively.

4) Strengthening governance and processes

Use the findings to strengthen your governance, processes and internal controls relating to sustainability communication. This might include more rigorous reviews, clearer responsibilities and a periodic assessment cycle. In this way, you ensure compliance in a sustainable and demonstrable manner, and you, as a director, can be confident that you are fulfilling your responsibilities.

Conclusion

The ECGT makes sustainability claims verifiable and enforceable. Directors who establish a structured process now – from an assessment framework to continuous monitoring – reduce their risk and strengthen the confidence of participants and stakeholders.
 

Read the article in the digital magazine