header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 November 2024 / Paige Coulter , Julianne Hughes-Jennett
Issue: 8094 / Categories: Features , ESG
printer mail-detail

Warning—the greenwashing threshold may be lower than you think

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
196799
Paige Coulter & Julianne Hughes-Jennett map out the risky landscape of greenwashing regulation
  • In 2024, the FCA and CMA in the UK have both demonstrated an increased focus on greenwashing.
  • A rise in interest in legal actions concerning allegations of greenwashing can be expected.
  • Businesses and practitioners should be aware of the risks in making any claim that could be construed as a sustainability or environmental claim, as available guidance suggests a low threshold for greenwashing.

Greenwashing refers to the practice of publishing misleading information about the environmental or sustainability characteristics of a good, service or business. The term has gained increasing attention in the past few years from regulators in the UK. In addition to the heightened regulatory risks, businesses should be aware of the potential for litigation founded on greenwashing principles, including under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000) and the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006).

Regulatory framework

The regulatory framework governing greenwashing claims is multi-faceted. The Financial Conduct

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
NLJ this week: Do Mandelson and Mountbatten-Windsor meet the misconduct bar?
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
NLJ this week: Supreme Court unlocks ‘lost years’ windfall for injured children
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
NLJ this week: Finality trumps freedom in arbitration showdown
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll