Standfirst: Review the claim, its evidence and the visitor experience together. A technically accurate sentence can still mislead when its context implies more than the evidence supports.
Environmental communication involves decisions about what to show, what to omit and what a visitor is likely to understand. A large “net-zero” banner, a sustainability-themed gift and an event sponsorship can create a collective impression that differs from the individual sentences printed on the wall. Before COP31 materials go into production, subject that overall impression to a structured challenge.
1. Inventory the claims people will actually encounter
Collect banners, presentation decks, videos, product labels, website text, speaker notes, sponsorship descriptions, promotional merchandise and interactive scripts. Include visual symbols and implied messages, not just words. Assign an owner to each material.
2. Test six dimensions
| Dimension | What to ask | Common warning sign |
|---|---|---|
| Specificity | What exactly is claimed? | “Green”, “clean” or “sustainable” with no qualification |
| Evidence | Is there accessible, relevant proof? | A large claim supported only by a general commitment |
| Scope | Which product, site, operation or emission boundary is covered? | A project outcome represented as company-wide performance |
| Time | Is this current performance or a future target? | 2030 pledge displayed as already achieved |
| Comparison | Is a baseline and method clear? | “50% better” without saying better than what |
| Overall impression | Do visuals, partnerships and giveaways imply something stronger? | A sustainability narrative contradicted by visible practices |
3. Grade findings by action, not by theatre
Use a simple register:
- Stop / substantiate: Prominent claim appears unsupported or materially misleading; pause publication pending evidence and specialist review.
- Revise: The claim may be supportable, but its wording, scope, comparison or visual context is unclear.
- Explain: Evidence exists; readers need a qualification, methodology link or prominent context.
- Keep with record: Claim has appropriate evidence, boundaries and approvals, subject to any required legal or technical checks.
For every finding, record material, exact wording, evidence requested, owner, recommended action and deadline. Avoid unsupported pronouncements that an organisation is “greenwashing”; describe the identifiable communications risk.
4. Look beyond the banner
Ask whether gifts are necessary and usable, whether the material and sourcing claims can be documented, how equipment is reused, whether temporary build elements are discarded, and what visitors experience. A plastic giveaway does not automatically prove greenwashing, just as a recycled-content claim does not automatically make a giveaway sustainable. The question is whether the complete presentation is proportionate, honest and evidenced.
5. Apply relevant rules carefully
The EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EU) 2024/825 strengthens rules against misleading environmental marketing and has applied since 27 September 2026, according to the European Commission. Its scope and national enforcement need checking for the activity concerned. A separate EU Green Claims Directive remains a legislative proposal as of this guide's editorial check; do not refer to it as binding adopted law. B2B claims, consumer-facing advertising, financial reporting and public-policy statements can be subject to different frameworks. For consequential claims, obtain legal and specialist assurance advice where needed.
6. Run a 30-minute challenge meeting
Invite one person from communications, one from the project or sustainability team and a colleague not involved in the campaign. Ask them to identify the three strongest claims, the evidence and the three easiest ways a journalist or visitor could misunderstand them. Agree whether to publish, revise or escalate each point. Repeat the test after final graphics are designed.
Checklist before printing or publishing
- [ ] All explicit and implied claims have been collected.
- [ ] Baselines, scopes, dates and methodologies are documented.
- [ ] Targets and proposals are not presented as completed results.
- [ ] Visuals and giveaways are considered within the overall impression.
- [ ] Third-party marks and labels have been checked for authorisation and meaning.
- [ ] Sensitive claims have legal/technical review when necessary.
- [ ] Unresolved questions have named owners and a decision deadline.
Important limitation: This article is not legal advice, certification, emissions verification or a guarantee that a communication cannot be criticised. Rules vary by jurisdiction and use.
Sources for verification: European Commission — sustainable consumption; Directive (EU) 2024/825; European Commission — Green Claims proposal/status. Checked 9 October 2026.
Support from SICI: Social Institute of Change and Impact (SICI) offers evidence-based communication credibility reviews, risk registers and revision recommendations; not certification or legal assurance. Discuss your COP31 plans