EcoClaim Research
Live data — refreshes as new sites are scannedHow EU websites are really performing on green claims
Greenwashing statistics for 2026, measured rather than surveyed. These are anonymized averages from live scans run by EcoClaim's compliance engine against the green-claims rules in Directive 2024/825 (EmpCo / ECGT) — not a questionnaire, and nothing self-reported.
57/100
Average compliance score across every scanned site
14,000+
Environmental claims analysed across 3,700+ pages
18
Days until the directive applies (27 September 2026)
Where scanned sites actually land
An average hides the shape. Across 915 sites, this is how the latest score of each one is distributed — the median site sits at 56/100.
The distribution is polarised rather than centred: 32% of sites already score 80 or better, while 36% sit below 40 — so 68% are at one extreme or the other. The headline average describes far fewer sites than it appears to.
67%
of sites carry at least one red-severity violation — the tier that maps to an outright prohibited practice
13
flagged claims per site on average, across 11,925 findings
15%
of sites came back with no flags at all
How severe the findings are
Every one of the 11,925 findings behind this page, split by the severity our engine assigns it.
- Red — prohibited4,296
- Practices banned outright by Annex I. No substantiation can rescue them; the wording has to change.
- Amber — substantiate7,228
- Legal only with evidence to hand. A certificate linked to the claim clears it; an unsupported one does not.
- Green — advisory401
- Defensible as written, flagged so you know it was reviewed rather than missed.
Average compliance score by sector
Each site contributes its most recent completed scan. A sector appears only once at least 3 sites in it have been scanned — an average of one or two sites would be noise, not a benchmark.
| Sector | Average score | Range | Sites |
|---|---|---|---|
| General / Other | 61Medium risk | 10–100 | 720 |
| Food & beverage | 52Medium risk | 10–100 | 27 |
| Textiles & fashion | 48High risk | 10–100 | 33 |
| Cosmetics & personal care | 40High risk | 11–100 | 30 |
| Travel, tourism & hospitality | 38High risk | 10–100 | 52 |
| Industrial / B2B | 36High risk | 10–100 | 53 |
The most common violations
Share of scanned sites whose latest scan trips each rule, across 915 sites. One site counts once per rule no matter how many pages repeat the claim.
Generic environmental claims without specific, verifiable proof
High riskDirective 2024/825 Art. 1 amending Directive 2005/29/EC — Annex I point 4a (generic environmental claims without recognized excellent environmental performance); Art. 6(1) for misleading specific claims
79%of scanned sites
Misleading visual imagery or nature-evoking design
Medium riskDirective 2005/29/EC Art. 6(1)(b) — overall presentation deceiving the average consumer
58%of scanned sites
Environmental claims about entire product when only partial
Medium riskDirective 2024/825 Art. 1 amending Directive 2005/29/EC — Art. 6(2) and Annex I point 4b (environmental claim about the entire product or business when it concerns only a certain aspect)
28%of scanned sites
Misuse or imitation of certification logos and trust marks
Medium riskDirective 2005/29/EC Annex I points 2 and 4 — displaying trust marks without authorisation
26%of scanned sites
Environmental claims based solely on carbon/emissions offsetting
High riskDirective 2024/825 Art. 1 amending Directive 2005/29/EC — Annex I point 4c (claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact based on offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions)
23%of scanned sites
SITE-IMPRESSION
Medium risk
19%of scanned sites
Rule titles follow EcoClaim's ruleset derived from Directive 2024/825 and the amended UCPD. See the full list of banned and restricted terms.
The words themselves, ranked
How often each restricted term actually appears in a flagged claim, across the 680 websites in this dataset. Each links to a full analysis of that term.
| Term | Sites | Share of sites | Highest severity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Green | 423 | 62.2% | 145 |
| Sustainable | 301 | 44.3% | 190 |
| Eco | 285 | 41.9% | 181 |
| Sustainability | 209 | 30.7% | 116 |
| Natural | 197 | 29% | 84 |
| Responsible | 106 | 15.6% | 52 |
| Environmentally friendly | 80 | 11.8% | 63 |
| More sustainable | 71 | 10.4% | 40 |
| Ecological | 61 | 9% | 42 |
| Clean | 55 | 8.1% | 23 |
| Organic | 54 | 7.9% | 32 |
| Recycled | 42 | 6.2% | 24 |
| Eco-friendly | 41 | 6% | 27 |
| Conscious | 35 | 5.1% | 18 |
| Recyclable | 32 | 4.7% | 23 |
| Pure | 29 | 4.3% | 18 |
| Biodegradable | 19 | 2.8% | 15 |
| Climate neutral | 14 | 2.1% | 13 |
| Net zero | 14 | 2.1% | 9 |
| Carbon neutral | 13 | 1.9% | 10 |
| Compostable | 11 | 1.6% | 6 |
| Zero emissions | 10 | 1.5% | 9 |
| Plastic-free | 8 | 1.2% | 5 |
Every term above is drawn from the full list of 82 restricted terms — see the complete list.
How these numbers are produced
Every figure comes from EcoClaim scans of live websites. The engine crawls a site's public pages, extracts each environmental or sustainability claim, and classifies it against a rule set derived from Directive 2024/825 and the amended Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC), plus the national transposition rules of the markets the site sells into.
The compliance score starts at 100. Each high-risk finding weighs 15 points and each medium-risk finding 5, applied through a diminishing-impact curve so heavily-flagged sites remain distinguishable from one another. Compliant claims never reduce a score.
Each site contributes only its most recent completed scan, so a site that is re-scanned many times during remediation cannot weight the distribution or the violation ranking. Internal test and evaluation accounts are excluded throughout.
Nothing here identifies anyone. Every figure on this page is an aggregate — an average, a median, a count, or a share of sites. No site name, URL, claim text, customer or individual score is exposed, and any group below 3 sites is withheld entirely so a small group cannot be reverse-engineered.
Scores reflect what was publicly visible on each site at scan time. They are not a legal determination, and this page is not legal advice.
Where does your site sit?
Run a free scan and see your compliance score against your own sector's average — with every flagged claim, the rule it breaches, and a suggested rewrite.
Scan your site free