Greenwashing PR: 4 Climate Claims Regulators Challenged

Four climate claims drew regulator action: Volkswagen's "Clean Diesel," Shell's "The UK is READY for cleaner energy," BMW and MG's "Zero Emissions," and Eni's "Green Diesel." Each sounded defensible to the brand that wrote it. Each failed the same test: the claim described one part of the story, and the audience heard the whole. Here is what each said, what the record shows, and what a cleantech or electric vehicle (EV) brand can copy.

By Kyle Porter. Last updated October 22, 2026.

What is in this article?

• What are the four claims at a glance?

• What did Volkswagen claim with "Clean Diesel"?

• What did Shell claim with "READY for cleaner energy"?

• Why did "Zero Emissions" fail for BMW and MG?

• What happened to Eni's "Green Diesel" fine?

• What do the four cases have in common?

• What changed in the European Union on September 27, 2026?

• How can a climate brand check a claim before it runs?

• Frequently asked questions

What are the four claims at a glance?

The four claims came from carmakers and oil majors, were challenged by regulators in the United States, the United Kingdom and Italy, and ended in very different ways.

ClaimBrandRegulatorYearOutcome

"Clean Diesel"VolkswagenUS Federal Trade Commission (FTC)2016More than $9.5 billion repaid to car buyers "The UK is READY for cleaner energy"ShellUK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)2023Ads banned as misleading "Zero Emissions"BMW and MGUK Advertising Standards Authority2024Ads ruled likely to mislead "Green Diesel"EniItalian competition authority20205 million euro fine, later overturned in 2024

What did Volkswagen claim with "Clean Diesel"?

Volkswagen marketed more than 550,000 diesel cars in the United States as "Clean Diesel," and the FTC said the cars carried defeat devices that cheated emissions tests. The FTC sued in March 2016, charging that the campaign falsely claimed the cars were low-emission, environmentally friendly and compliant with emissions standards.

The numbers explain why this case still anchors every conversation about green claims. According to reporting on the FTC's original complaint, the cars were sold between 2008 and 2015, and in non-government tests two popular models exceeded federal nitrogen oxide limits by up to 4,000 percent. The FTC later told the court that Volkswagen and Porsche repaid more than $9.5 billion to car buyers, the largest consumer redress program in US history.

A claim built on a number the product cannot reproduce is not a public relations (PR) problem, it is a legal one. The headline "clean" only worked until someone measured the cars on the road.

What did Shell claim with "READY for cleaner energy"?

Shell ran poster, TV and YouTube ads in the UK promoting renewable power and EV charging under the line "The UK is READY for cleaner energy," and the UK advertising regulator ruled in June 2023 that the ads misled. The Advertising Standards Authority found the campaign gave the impression that low-carbon energy was a significant share of what Shell invested in and sold in the UK in 2022.

The complaint came from the campaign group Adfree Cities. The ASA's reasoning was about omission, not falsehood. The individual facts in the ads were not the problem. Reuters reported that about two thirds of Shell's global $25 billion budget the previous year went to oil and gas, while $4.3 billion went to renewables, biofuels, hydrogen and EV charging. Ads that foreground the small slice without context create the wrong picture of the whole.

Shell said it strongly disagreed with the decision. The ASA told the company to make sure future environmental ads do not exaggerate or leave out material information about the share of its business that is lower-carbon. The same day, the regulator also upheld complaints against Repsol, over a claim about biofuels and synthetic fuels "to achieve net zero emissions," and against Petronas, over a net zero 2050 ad.

Why did "Zero Emissions" fail for BMW and MG?

BMW and MG ran paid Google ads in August 2023 using the phrase "zero emissions," and the ASA ruled in February 2024 that the unqualified phrase was likely to mislead. BMW's ad read "Zero Emissions Cars," and MG's ad paired "Zero Emissions" with an offer on several models.

According to coverage of the rulings, the ASA accepted the claim was true while driving but found it misleading because cars still produce emissions when manufactured and, depending on the power source, when charged. The ASA said any such claim must make clear that it refers to emissions while driving.

In a later ruling, the ASA decided a Ford ad that said "Zero-emissions driving" did not mislead. The regulator noted the phrase was immediately followed by references to fast charging and driver assistance tech, so it was unlikely to be read as a claim about the vehicle's whole life cycle. Ford also agreed to change the wording to "zero-emissions while driving."

The same true fact passed in one ad and failed in two others. Context and one qualifying phrase decided the outcome.

What happened to Eni's "Green Diesel" fine?

Italy's competition authority fined Eni 5 million euros, the maximum, over its "Diesel+" campaign, and Italy's top administrative court overturned that decision in April 2024. This is the one case in the group where the regulator lost on appeal, which makes it the most honest guide to how contested these claims are.

The authority's original findings were specific. Eni called the vegetable-oil component of Diesel+ "Green Diesel." S&P Global reported that the fuel contained 15 percent hydrotreated vegetable oil, and that claimed benefits of up to 40 percent lower emissions, 5 percent lower carbon dioxide on average and up to 4 percent lower consumption were not confirmed by the preliminary findings. During the investigation, Eni halted the campaign and committed to stop using "green" for automotive fuels.

Eni appealed. A regional court upheld the fine in November 2021. Then, according to law firm Peters & Peters, the Council of State ruled in April 2024 that Eni did not engage in an unfair commercial practice, rejecting the idea that a word like "green" cannot be tied to a product that has some environmental impact.

Eni was not cleared in any sense that helps other brands. The campaign still ran under a regulator's investigation for years, and Eni stopped using the word before the case ended.

What do the four cases have in common?

All four brands made a true or arguable statement about one component and let the audience apply it to the whole product or company. The pattern shows up in every case:

• Volkswagen used the word "clean" for cars whose road-test results said otherwise.

• Shell promoted renewables and charging that made up a small share of its portfolio.

• BMW and MG advertised zero tailpipe emissions and left out manufacturing and charging emissions.

• Eni named a fuel "green" when the renewable component was 15 percent of it.

The headline claim also carried more weight than the footnote. Regulators read ads the way a skeptical customer would, from the top line down, not from the fine print up.

For more examples of how climate technology brands handle their own claims, see four cleantech PR campaigns compared and the Tesla Semi launch claims versus deliveries timeline.

What changed in the European Union on September 27, 2026?

The European Union's Empowering Consumers Directive began applying on September 27, 2026, banning generic environmental claims and offset-based neutrality claims in consumer marketing. Directive (EU) 2024/825 prohibits generic environmental claims such as "environmentally friendly," "eco-friendly" and "green" unless the trader can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.

It also targets "climate neutral" style labels. ClimatePartner's summary notes that product-level claims such as "climate neutral" or "climate positive" are prohibited when they rest on greenhouse gas offsets. The rules apply to business-to-consumer communication, and they apply to any seller marketing to consumers in the European Union, wherever the seller is based.

Two of the four cases above, "Green Diesel" and "Zero Emissions," would sit squarely in the territory this directive was written for. A brand with European customers can no longer treat a vague green word as a safe default.

How can a climate brand check a claim before it runs?

Test every climate claim against the whole product and the whole company before it runs, not just against the facts of the part being promoted. A simple pre-launch check:

• Write down what the claim is true about, then what share of the product or business that represents.

• Add the qualifier to the claim itself. "Zero emissions while driving" survived where "Zero Emissions" did not.

• Check the number against an independent test. If a regulator, journalist or customer measured it, would the result match?

• Show the headline to someone outside the team and ask what it promises.

• Remove "green," "clean" and "neutral" unless the same ad defines them. The European Union now requires this for many claims.

• Keep the evidence file ready. A claim that cannot be documented within an hour is a claim to cut.

What should a climate brand take from these cases?

Volkswagen, Shell, BMW and MG, and Eni each learned the same lesson at different prices: climate credibility is built by saying what is true, in proportion. A brand that leads with the small true part and buries the large inconvenient part will eventually have a regulator, a campaign group or a reporter do the proportioning for it. Climate brands can avoid that outcome by testing each claim against the whole business before it runs. Brands planning a launch can start from the cleantech PR agency overview.

Frequently asked questions

What is greenwashing in PR?

Greenwashing in PR is communication that makes a product or company look more environmentally friendly than the evidence supports. It often works by emphasizing one true, small fact, such as a renewable component or zero tailpipe emissions, while leaving out larger impacts.

Which regulators challenge greenwashing claims?

Consumer and advertising regulators handle most cases. The four examples here involved the US Federal Trade Commission, the UK Advertising Standards Authority and Italy's competition authority. In the European Union, the Empowering Consumers Directive now sets common rules across member states.

Can an electric car be advertised as "zero emissions"?

Only with care. In February 2024, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled that unqualified "zero emissions" ads from BMW and MG were likely to mislead, because manufacturing and charging produce emissions. The authority said such claims must make clear they refer to emissions while driving.

Did Eni's greenwashing fine stand?

No. Italy's competition authority fined Eni 5 million euros in 2020 over its "Green Diesel" claims. Italy's Council of State overturned the decision in April 2024, ruling that Eni had not engaged in an unfair commercial practice.

Are "carbon neutral" claims banned in the EU?

Product-level carbon neutral claims that rely on offsets are banned in European Union consumer marketing from September 27, 2026 under Directive (EU) 2024/825. Companies can still invest in offsets, but the claim itself has to change.

How do I make a climate claim safely?

Name exactly what the claim covers, add that qualifier to the claim itself, back it with an independent test or document, and keep the evidence ready. If the claim only holds for one part of the product, say so in the same sentence.