Greenwashing? Greenhushing? Greenshining?

Fight Greenwashing

The idea behind the new EmpCo guideline is sound.

Sustainability should no longer be a meaningless marketing promise. Environmental claims should be verifiable. Consumers should be better protected. Less greenwashing. More honesty.

That sounds reasonable. And in many areas, it is.

But one thing is also clear: Whether the 180-degree shift in sustainability—from buzzword to newly protected value concept—works in reality is not decided by lawmakers, but by reality itself.

This raises some intriguing questions:

Can language even be regulated?
Can buzzwords be “de-buzzified”?
And what if regulations end up having the opposite effect of what they were actually intended to achieve?

It's normal for language to become diluted.

Sustainability has been a challenge in communication and copywriting long before the new regulations took effect. “Innovative,” “premium,” “authentic,” or even “sustainable.” Terms don’t lose their meaning because people misuse them. Rather, it’s because language works the way language works: Good words spread. They get adapted. Overused. Watered down.

And what does this mean for agencies and communication? Even now, the unspoken rule for good sustainability messages is: Say it differently, say it better, say it more concretely.

And in a way, EmpCo’s guidelines are heading exactly in this direction.

Between sensible regulation and a legal minefield

One thing is certain: the new directive will drastically change the way we communicate.

Starting in September 2026, general environmental claims will no longer suffice. Statements such as “environmentally friendly,” “green,” or “climate-neutral” will require robust evidence—evidence that is visible, verifiable, and, if possible, presented directly in the context of the statement.

This makes perfect sense.

After all, no one should be able to simply claim sustainability.

At the same time, however, a new reality is emerging: communication is becoming more legally sensitive. More cautious. More complex. “GWP value of 0 for ammonia as a refrigerant” is certainly precise. But on a trade show wall, it simply reads differently than “climate-friendly.”

And there is another problem. Because where new rules emerge, new gray areas often emerge as well. New uncertainties. New points of attack. Not just for consumer advocates—but also for actors such as warning letter firms, who view regulatory ambiguities as a business model.

Many companies are therefore already reacting defensively. Not because they are doing nothing. But because they are afraid of saying the wrong thing.

Is the age of greenwashing beginning now?

Companies are talking less about sustainability—even though they are making real progress. They would rather stay silent than risk becoming vulnerable to criticism. This, too, could be a consequence of the EmpCo regulation.

The problem with this is:

When the good actors become quieter, it doesn’t create a more transparent market. Instead, it creates a more invisible one.

And that would be exactly the opposite of what the directive actually aims to achieve.

Because sustainability requires communication. It thrives, not least, on inspiring goals—goals that cannot always be substantiated with factual figures reflecting the current state of affairs, as the new regulation demands. Yet these goals are very much sincere and deserve to be taken seriously.

Especially in the SME sector, companies are setting ambitious sustainability goals—not for advertising purposes, but out of a sense of social responsibility. This progress must remain visible. Otherwise, it loses its impact.

The real challenge for brands

For us as copywriters and strategists, EmpCo is therefore one thing above all else: a new communicative reality.

The challenge going forward is not to say less, but to say it more intelligently.

How do you express yourself precisely without sounding technocratic?
How does language remain emotional when every word must be verifiable?
How do you communicate complex sustainability achievements in a way that is understandable, credible, and true to the brand?

These are not legal questions. They are communication questions.

And that is precisely why EmpCo affects not only legal departments, but also brand management.

What this means for our work

At VON HELDEN UND GESTALTEN, we see it as our mission to keep the good things in the conversation.

Specifically, this means we conduct an EmpCo Check for our clients.

• We screen existing communications for problematic claims.
• We help build a claim inventory—a structure that links every environmental claim to the corresponding evidence.
• And we develop language that is not less expressive, but more honest.

Because we believe: Those who truly do good should be allowed to talk about it. Those who can back up what they claim have the strongest message there is.

We help you formulate it.

Want to know how robust your current sustainability communications are under the new EmpCo guidelines? We’ll run the check—clear, concrete, and without buzzwords. Let’s talk.