Green claims on websites: what changed in Italy on September 27, 2026
A homepage promising “green” products, an ecommerce product card carrying an “eco-friendly” badge, or a corporate page describing the business as “sustainable” can look like ordinary marketing. Since September 27, 2026, however, businesses operating in Italy need to be much more precise about what those statements mean and what evidence supports them.
The simplified version currently circulating online is that words such as “eco” have become illegal. That is not accurate. The word itself is not banned. What changed is the legal treatment of environmental claims made to consumers, especially broad claims that imply environmental excellence without clearly explaining the underlying basis.
For a website owner, the practical task is therefore not a global search-and-replace. The useful question is whether a sentence, badge, label or visual element communicates an environmental benefit, what exactly that benefit refers to, and whether the business can substantiate it.
Where the new rules come from
The European framework comes from Directive (EU) 2024/825, which strengthens consumer protection against unfair commercial practices linked to the green transition, including misleading environmental claims.
Italy implemented the directive through Legislative Decree No. 30 of February 20, 2026, amending the Italian Consumer Code. The EU framework required the new provisions to apply from September 27, 2026.
Among the practices now treated as misleading in all circumstances is making a generic environmental claim when the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance that is relevant to that claim.
The rules also address two situations that are particularly important for websites:
- presenting an environmental benefit that concerns only one aspect of a product or one part of a business as if it applied to the whole product or company;
- displaying a sustainability label that is not based on an appropriate certification scheme or established by a public authority.
There is also a specific restriction on greenhouse-gas claims: a product cannot be presented as having a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions when that conclusion is based on offsetting alone.
“Eco”, “green” and “sustainable” are not banned words
The most important distinction is between a generic environmental claim and a specific, clearly qualified claim.
The directive gives examples of generic claims such as “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “ecological” and similar expressions that suggest a particularly positive environmental performance without making the basis of that statement clear.
Even a word that sounds more technical can be problematic when it appears without context. A “biodegradable” badge, for example, communicates an environmental characteristic but may not tell the user which part of the product is biodegradable, under what conditions, or according to which standard.
The legislation also provides an important practical rule for digital content. Where the specification of an environmental claim is provided clearly and prominently on the same medium, the statement is not treated simply as a generic environmental claim.
That matters on websites. A qualification hidden several clicks away, buried in a technical PDF or placed at the bottom of general terms may not communicate the same thing as an explanation shown where the user encounters the claim.
Move from marketing adjectives to verifiable information
A useful content change is to replace broad statements of environmental virtue with claims that define their scope.
| Claim to review | More precise wording | What should be verifiable |
|---|---|---|
| Eco-friendly product | Packaging contains 80% recycled material | percentage, component concerned and documentation |
| Green company | 100% of the electricity purchased for this facility comes from renewable sources | scope of the statement and source of the electricity |
| Ecological packaging | Packaging uses paper certified under the stated scheme | actual certification and its scope |
| Sustainable product | Uses 25% less plastic than the previous version | comparison method and reference product |
| Zero-impact delivery | Clear description of measured emissions and any mitigation measures | data, methodology and distinction between reductions and offsets |
These are examples of a better writing approach, not ready-made legal wording. The underlying principle is straightforward: fewer broad adjectives, more scope, measurements, standards and specific characteristics.
A specific claim can still be false or misleading. Writing “80% recycled material” does not solve the problem if the figure is wrong, unsupported, or applies only to a minor component while the page gives the impression that it describes the whole product.
When recognised environmental performance matters
The Italian decree also defines “recognised excellent environmental performance”.
The definition includes, among other cases covered by the legislation, compliance with the EU Ecolabel framework, officially recognised national or regional Type I ecolabelling schemes compliant with EN ISO 14024, or the best environmental performance established under other applicable EU legislation.
This prevents a common misunderstanding: having some form of environmental certification does not automatically justify every “green” marketing statement.
The certification has to be relevant to the claim being made. If a standard assesses one specific aspect, the logo cannot simply be turned into a broad statement about environmental characteristics that the standard does not cover.
For web teams, this means reading the scope of a certification before converting it into homepage copy, a product badge or a promotional headline.
Self-created badges deserve a separate audit
Many websites use leaf icons, green hearts, “eco choice” badges, “green product” markers or similar visual labels created internally by the brand.
From a design perspective, they may look like ordinary UI elements. From a commercial communication perspective, however, they can function as sustainability labels because they distinguish and promote products by reference to environmental characteristics.
The new framework prohibits sustainability labels that are not based on a compliant certification scheme or established by a public authority.
That is why a proper audit cannot consist only of searching the database for “eco” or “green”. It should also cover:
- badges and icons displayed on product cards;
- environmental logos in the footer;
- catalogue filters and category labels;
- promotional images containing environmental claims;
- banners, popups and sliders;
- CMS-generated text reused across groups of products;
- names of collections or product lines where the naming itself implies an environmental benefit.
A website can contain no visible use of the word “ecological” and still include elements that need review.
Do not extend one environmental benefit to the whole product
Another common problem occurs when a true statement is communicated with a scope that is too broad.
Imagine a product sold in packaging made from recycled material. “Packaging made from recycled material” clearly limits the claim to the packaging. Describing the entire product as “made from recycled material” can create a different impression.
Directive 2024/825 addresses this type of situation directly. A claim about the product as a whole should not rely only on one specific aspect of the product.
The same reasoning applies to businesses. A company should not describe its entire operation using an environmental characteristic that actually concerns only one facility, one production line or one isolated project.
This is partly a copywriting issue, but it is also an information architecture issue. Headings, badges, imagery and content placement all shape what the user understands before they read any technical qualification.
Carbon-neutral and offsetting claims require extra care
The amended consumer rules also address statements that present a product as having a neutral, reduced or positive impact in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions when that conclusion is based on offsetting.
This distinction can disappear quickly in marketing copy.
“We offset the emissions associated with X” and “X has zero emissions” do not communicate the same thing. The second statement can lead a consumer to understand that the environmental characteristic is intrinsic to the product or its production process.
Pages dealing with carbon neutrality, compensated shipping, carbon credits or offset projects therefore deserve a separate review rather than being treated as ordinary sustainability copy.
How to audit environmental claims on a website
A serious review can begin with a content scan, but it should not end there.
The first pass can search for terms and variants such as “eco”, “green”, “ecological”, “sustainable”, “environmentally friendly”, “zero impact”, “carbon neutral”, “biodegradable” and similar phrases.
The next step is to reconstruct the context of every occurrence.
For each claim, it is useful to record:
- URL and placement: homepage, product page, category page, landing page, blog, footer or global component;
- subject of the claim: whole product, packaging, process, facility, service or company;
- practical meaning: what a reasonable consumer is likely to understand from the wording;
- available evidence: certificate, technical specification, measured data, standard or supplier documentation;
- scope of the evidence: does it actually cover everything the page appears to claim?
- visibility of the qualification: is the explanation shown in the same context or hidden elsewhere?
- expiry and maintenance: is the supporting information still current?
This approach avoids a cosmetic fix where “eco-friendly” is replaced with “responsible” while the underlying communication remains just as vague.
What about SEO?
Changing environmental claims can affect titles, meta descriptions, category copy and product pages, so businesses may worry about search visibility.
The answer depends on the page, but one principle should be clear: a keyword should not determine a commercial claim that the business cannot substantiate.
If a page receives traffic for a query such as “eco-friendly products”, that does not mean the phrase has to remain as a broad marketing promise. The page can explain what materials are used, which components contain recycled content, what certification applies, what the limits of the claim are and how the information was measured.
From an SEO perspective, specific information can also describe the product more effectively. Materials, percentages, standards, production characteristics and disposal conditions provide search engines and users with more concrete entities and facts than a sequence of generic green adjectives.
There is another trap to avoid: adding large blocks of technical language merely to preserve a keyword. The qualification needs to be readable, relevant and placed where it helps users understand the offer.
Add environmental-claim review to the publishing workflow
From now on, websites that regularly use environmental marketing should include a claim check before content goes live.
A short set of questions is usually enough:
- are we communicating an environmental benefit?
- is it clear which product, component or activity the claim refers to?
- do we have current evidence supporting it?
- are we turning a limited characteristic into a general quality?
- are we using a badge that could be interpreted as a certification?
- does any certification actually support this specific statement?
- is the necessary qualification visible where the claim appears?
If one of those answers remains vague, adding an asterisk is unlikely to solve the underlying problem.
Website compliance quickly becomes a governance problem
For many companies, the harder issue appears after the first audit. Different people update the website, product descriptions come from suppliers, marketing creates campaigns, ecommerce platforms reuse product attributes and badges, while certificates and technical specifications are stored somewhere else.
At that point the question is no longer simply “which wording can we use?”. The organisation needs to connect published content, supporting evidence and responsibility for keeping the information current.
A CMS can help by separating fields for the claim, source, certification, expiry date and scope of the statement. Even a simple maintained inventory is more reliable than a one-off manual review triggered only when legislation changes.
At Perseo, we normally treat content and website structure as part of the same system. Once a commercial statement is repeated across dozens or hundreds of pages, correcting it is no longer only an editorial task. It becomes a template, data and publishing-workflow problem.
Official sources
- Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj/eng
- Italian Legislative Decree No. 30 of February 20, 2026: https://www.normattiva.it/eli/id/2026/03/09/26G00047/CONSOLIDATED
- Italian Ministry of Enterprises and Made in Italy, implementation materials for Directive (EU) 2024/825: https://www.mimit.gov.it/it/normativa/notifiche-e-avvisi/avviso-armonizzato-ed-etichetta-di-durabilita-armonizzata
This article is for general information only and does not replace legal advice on a specific case.