More and more financial institutions are placing sustainability firmly on the agenda. From sustainable investment funds and green mortgages to climate ambitions and ESG strategies, sustainability is playing an increasingly prominent role in communications with customers.
But how can you ensure that a sustainability claim actually stands up to scrutiny?
From 27 September 2026, European rules on sustainability claims will be further tightened. The objective is clear: to better protect consumers against greenwashing and to ensure that sustainability claims do not merely sound appealing, but can also be demonstrably substantiated.
For financial institutions, these rules are not entirely new. Misleading sustainability communications, or greenwashing, were already prohibited. However, the new Dutch Implementation Act for the Directive on Better Sustainability Information for Consumers (the “Implementation Act”) makes the rules against greenwashing more specific and easier for the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) to enforce. As a result, the importance of properly substantiated sustainability communications is increasing further.
For years, the AFM, ACM and ESMA have expected sustainability claims to be:
The Implementation Act does not fundamentally change these principles. However, various types of sustainability claims will now be explicitly regulated or even prohibited under all circumstances. This makes it clearer which claims are always prohibited and what additional information is required for certain claims to be permitted.
1. Broad environmental claims require stronger substantiation
Financial institutions regularly use terms such as:
These types of ‘general’ claims will no longer be permitted without further substantiation.
An environmental claim is a voluntary commercial statement that states or suggests that a product, brand or organisation is better for, or less harmful to, the environment. Anyone making a generic environmental claim must be able to demonstrate ‘recognised excellent environmental performance’. In addition, the substantiation of a claim must be clearly visible alongside the claim itself. A general claim made on social media that is only explained in more detail on a website will therefore no longer be sufficient.
Practical example
An asset manager describes a fund on LinkedIn as ‘sustainable’. Without an immediate explanation of the basis for this qualification, this statement will be prohibited under all circumstances.
2. Ambitions alone are not enough
Many financial institutions communicate targets such as:
Such sustainability ambitions will remain possible. However, the bar will be raised.
Organisations must be able to demonstrate:
This means that sustainability communications will become increasingly closely linked to governance, data quality and reporting.
3. Comparisons must be fully transparent
Comparisons between sustainable products can help consumers, but only if it is clear how the comparison was made.
Comparison tools must therefore provide transparency on:
Practical example
A comparison website that ranks investment funds based on sustainability will have to explain the assessment methodology used. Simply displaying a score will no longer be sufficient.
4. Proprietary labels will become more difficult to use
Many organisations develop their own internal labels or badges to make sustainable products easier to identify.
Examples include:
Under the new rules, such sustainability labels may only be used if they are part of a recognised certification scheme or have been established by a public authority.
This means that financial institutions should critically review their existing communications and determine whether the labels or similar designations they use are certified by an independent third party.
5. Carbon offsetting does not equal climate neutrality
Claims relating to carbon offsetting are also changing.
A product may not be presented as climate neutral solely because emissions are offset elsewhere, for example through carbon credits.
Offsetting projects may, of course, still be mentioned, but they cannot be used as evidence that the product itself no longer has a climate impact.
Practical example
A fund that invests in carbon credits cannot claim that the fund is therefore climate neutral. It may, however, explain that investments in offsetting projects are made separately alongside the fund.
6. One sustainable product does not make the entire organisation sustainable
Another important change concerns the scope of sustainability claims.
Does an organisation offer one sustainable product?
It must then avoid creating the impression that the entire organisation or all of its products are sustainable. This requires careful wording in campaigns, websites and brochures.
7. Legal obligations are not a competitive advantage
Some sustainability-related features are simply legal requirements that apply to all providers. They therefore cannot be presented as a unique advantage over competitors.
For example, an investment firm cannot present itself as particularly sustainable solely because it asks clients about their sustainability preferences when providing investment advice. This is a legal requirement for all investment firms that provide investment advice or portfolio management services.
8. Not every sustainable initiative makes a product sustainable
Finally, the new rules explicitly address irrelevant sustainability benefits.
A sustainable office, solar panels on a head office or carbon-neutral business operations do not make the financial product itself sustainable.
If such corporate initiatives are used to make a product appear more sustainable than it actually is, this may constitute misleading communication.
For many organisations, the biggest changes do not lie in entirely new obligations, but in stricter requirements regarding the substantiation and presentation of sustainability claims. It is no longer sufficient for a claim to be broadly defensible. Organisations must be able to demonstrate in advance what the claim is based on, which part of the product or organisation it relates to, and which current and verifiable information supports it.
This affects not only marketing and communications, but also compliance, legal, product development and governance.
As sustainability claims increasingly need to be supported by verifiable data, clear definitions and independent verification, collaboration between these disciplines will become increasingly important.
The new rules demonstrate that sustainability communications can no longer be regarded solely as a marketing and communications issue.
A credible claim starts with high-quality underlying data, clear governance and demonstrable implementation.
For financial institutions, this is therefore a good time not only to review existing sustainability claims, but also to critically assess the processes and documentation that underpin them.
Ultimately, one simple rule applies:
“A sustainability claim is only credible if it is accurate, clear and substantiated.”
Would you like to understand what the new rules mean for your sustainability communications and business operations? Or would you like an existing claim to be reviewed? Please feel free to contact us.
For a more detailed legal analysis, we refer you to Dinand Jansen’s article in Tijdschrift Financieel Recht in de Praktijk (FRP 2026/306).
