Advertising that uses the term "climate neutral" must be transparent.
The facts
In the "Lebensmittelzeitung", Katjes advertised its products with the statement "Katjes has been producing all products climate-neutrally since 2021". The term "climate neutral" was also used on the packaging of the fruit gums. The QR code next to it referred to the Climate Partner website, where it was explained that the climate neutrality of the product was achieved through offsetting measures such as trading in CO2 certificates.
The Central Office for Combating Unfair Competition objected to the advertising as misleading. Consumers could wrongly assume that no CO2 emissions were produced during the production of the fruit gums. The information on the website that climate neutrality is achieved through offsetting is not sufficient.
Advertising with "climate neutral" requires explanation
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled that the term "climate neutral" is ambiguous. It could mean actual CO2-free production as well as mere compensation. Consumers should not be forced to do research in order to understand the exact meaning.
The BGH therefore ruled that advertising with an ambiguous environmental term (here: "climate neutral") is only permissible if the advertising itself explains the specific meaning of this term.
Katjes should therefore have made it clear directly on the packaging how climate neutrality is achieved, especially if this is only achieved through compensation measures. The risk of misleading is particularly high with environmentally-related advertising. In addition, offsetting is often not perceived as equivalent to CO2-neutral production. Transparent and clear information for consumers is therefore necessary.
Stricter EU requirements from 2026
As part of the "Green Deal", the EU is planning stricter regulations from 2026. The advertising of products as "climate-neutral" or "CO2-reduced" is to be banned if the production is actually harmful to the climate and the environmental impact is only compensated for. This is to ensure that consumers are not deceived by misleading environmental promises.
Conclusion
The BGH ruling tightens the requirements for advertising with environmental promises. Companies must ensure that their climate neutrality claims are transparent and comprehensible in order to avoid accusations of "greenwashing". These requirements can be seen as a step towards even stricter EU regulations from 2026.
It remains to be seen whether these strict EU requirements are sufficiently far-sighted. This applies in particular to products that cannot technically be manufactured in a CO2-neutral way. Companies should be given the incentive to at least contribute to reducing their environmental impact by offsetting CO2 emissions.
