Environmental and Sustainability Claims in Influencer Marketing: What Danish Law Requires

Short answer: yes, and the rules tighten sharply from 27 September 2026

When an influencer states that a product is "sustainable," "climate-friendly" or "green" as part of a paid or gifted collaboration, the claim is subject to the same documentation requirements as any other marketing — because influencer content involving a commercial benefit falls under the Danish Marketing Practices Act, the same principle behind the general ad-disclosure duty. Today, the Consumer Ombudsman (Forbrugerombudsmanden) assesses case by case whether an environmental claim is documented well enough, per its October 2024 recommendations. From 27 September 2026, that changes materially: an amendment to the Marketing Practices Act (passed by the Danish Parliament as bill L147 on 20 May 2025, implementing the EU's "Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition" directive) makes a defined set of environmental claims automatically misleading — with no case-by-case assessment required.

This is practical guidance from Make Influence, not legal advice. Use it to understand what changes, and when — get the specific legal assessment of any environmental claim from a lawyer.

Why this applies to influencer content, not just a brand's own website

The Marketing Practices Act doesn't distinguish based on where a claim appears. It applies to any commercial practice aimed at consumers — an Instagram story is covered exactly like a brand's own product page. The same principle behind the ad-disclosure rules (a commercial benefit triggers the Marketing Practices Act, regardless of channel) applies here: if an influencer mentions an environmental or climate characteristic of a product as part of a collaboration involving a commercial benefit, the claim carries the same documentation burden as if the brand had put it on its own packaging or website. There's no separate, looser standard for the influencer channel.

The rules today: the Consumer Ombudsman's 2024 recommendations

Forbrugerombudsmanden published updated recommendations for businesses' environmental marketing on 24 October 2024, replacing an earlier, shorter guide from 2021. The recommendations interpret Sections 5, 6 and 13 of the Marketing Practices Act — the general provisions on misleading and aggressive marketing — specifically as they apply to claims about climate, environment and sustainability, and include the Ombudsman's own enforcement practice and worked examples of both legal and illegal green marketing.

At the core is a documentation requirement: a business using a claim about climate, environment or sustainability must be able to document it with solid, relevant evidence — such as a life-cycle analysis. General statements like "sustainable" or "CO2-neutral" may only be used if they can be substantiated concretely, and comparative claims (e.g. "less environmentally harmful than other products on the market") require documentation for the comparison itself, not only for the product's own impact.

Forbrugerombudsmanden already actively enforces this: per DAKOFA's reporting, the authority investigated 162 cases of potentially misleading environmental marketing in 2024 alone, and has signalled tightened oversight of the area going forward.

What changes on 27 September 2026: the blacklist expands

The amendment implements EU Directive 2024/825 on "Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition" (the ECGT/EmpCo directive) into Danish law. EU member states had to transpose the directive into national law by 27 March 2026, and its provisions start applying from 27 September 2026. In Denmark, the implementing bill (L147) was presented to Parliament and passed on 20 May 2025, amending the Marketing Practices Act, the Consumer Contracts Act and the Consumer Complaints Act — the Consumer Complaints Act changes already took effect in July 2025, while the Marketing Practices Act and Consumer Contracts Act changes take effect on 27 September 2026.

The central change is that the Marketing Practices Act's Annex 1 (bilag 1) — the list of practices considered automatically misleading, with no case-by-case assessment required — is expanded with several new, climate- and environment-related items. Per Forbrugerombudsmanden's own 1 July 2026 press release, the following become automatically misleading from 27 September 2026:

Beyond Annex 1, the amendment also adds two new assessment factors to Section 5(2) of the Marketing Practices Act: a claim about a future environmental improvement (e.g. "climate-neutral by 2030") must, from 27 September 2026, be a clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitment with a detailed implementation plan, a measurable timeline and regular, independent third-party monitoring (item 12) — and it's misleading to highlight an environmental benefit that's actually irrelevant to the product's real characteristics (item 13).

Forbrugerombudsmanden's press release states the authority will revise its 2024 recommendations to reflect the new rules, with publication expected in late August 2026 — as of this article, the revised recommendations have not yet been published.

Comparison: today vs. from 27 September 2026

Practical: how to brief a creator on an environmental or sustainability claim

• Write the exact, documented wording into the brief — don't let the creator freely phrase a "green" claim on their own.
• Have the documentation (life-cycle analysis, certification) ready before the claim is used in the content, not as an afterthought if someone asks.
• Be cautious with the word "sustainable" alone — it covers more than the environment (it implies social factors too) and is therefore harder to substantiate fully than a narrow, specific claim.
• Check whether a sustainability label you plan to display is third-party certified or set by a public authority — a self-designed "green" icon is automatically misleading from 27 September 2026.
• If the campaign involves a future climate pledge (e.g. "CO2-neutral by 2030") → confirm a published implementation plan exists before the creator mentions it.
• Remember the ad-disclosure duty still applies alongside this — see the disclosure rules for that part.
• Add environmental claims as a standing check in your brand safety checklist, not something reviewed only if it's questioned.

Decision framework: is a specific environmental claim safe to use?

IF the claim is generic ("green," "environmentally friendly," "climate-friendly") → require documentation of recognised excellent environmental performance (e.g. an official ecolabel), or drop the claim.

IF you want to display a sustainability label → confirm it's third-party certified or set by a public authority, or it's automatically misleading from 27 September 2026.

IF the claim only covers one part of the product → say so explicitly ("the fabric is made from recycled polyester"), rather than letting the impression stand that the whole product or company is green.

IF you're using carbon offsetting → state clearly that it's offsetting, not a reduction in the product's own footprint.

IF you're promising a future environmental improvement → have a published, verifiable implementation plan ready before the creator mentions the pledge.

Hypothetical worked example

This is a fabricated example for illustration — not a real Make Influence customer. A clothing brand briefs a creator to call a new collection "sustainable" because it's made from a fabric containing 30% recycled polyester. Without further documentation, that claim would already risk being found misleading under Forbrugerombudsmanden's current recommendations — and from 27 September 2026, it would be automatically misleading under Annex 1, § 4b, because the claim reads as covering the entire collection, while only one material is actually documented as greener. A wording that holds up instead confines itself to the documented, specific aspect: "The collection's fabric is made from 30% recycled polyester (source: supplier's material certificate)" — a claim precise enough to stand on its own, without implying anything about the rest of the product or the company.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, environmental claims are the area where a brief most often moves too fast: a brand asks a creator to mention that a product is "sustainable" or "CO2-friendly" without anyone checking whether the claim can actually be documented to Forbrugerombudsmanden's standard. We recommend treating any environmental or climate claim in a brief as its own approval step — on the same footing as ad disclosure and the rest of what belongs in the contract — and requiring the specific documentation in writing before the wording reaches a creator's brief. From 27 September 2026, the consequence of skipping that step gets sharper: a defined set of these claims become automatically misleading, with no case-by-case assessment first.

FAQ

Do the rules apply even if the creator picks the wording themselves, without the brand's instruction?

Yes. As with ad disclosure, it's the commercial benefit in the collaboration that triggers the rules — not who specifically phrased the claim. Both the creator and the brand that commissioned the content can be held responsible.

Is the word "sustainable" banned outright?

No, the word itself isn't banned, but it's risky to use alone. "Sustainable" covers more than the environment — it implies social factors too — and is therefore harder to substantiate fully than a narrow, specific claim about one documented characteristic.

Is a self-designed "green" logo or badge a problem?

Yes — from 27 September 2026, displaying a sustainability label that isn't based on a third-party certification scheme or set by a public authority is automatically misleading (Annex 1, § 2a), no matter how well-intentioned the badge is.

What's the difference between "CO2-neutral" and "CO2-neutral through offsetting"?

That's exactly the distinction Annex 1's new § 4c addresses. A claim of neutral, reduced or positive CO2 impact is misleading if it's actually based on climate offsetting outside the product's own value chain — you have to be explicit that it's offsetting, not an actual reduction in the product's own footprint.

Do the new rules apply to posts that are already live before 27 September 2026?

That isn't settled in the sources this article draws on, and needs a specific legal assessment — particularly for content that remains publicly accessible after the date. Talk to a lawyer if you have older, still-active content with environmental claims you're unsure about.

When will Forbrugerombudsmanden publish updated recommendations for the new rules?

Forbrugerombudsmanden's 1 July 2026 press release states revised recommendations are expected in late August 2026. As of this article, they haven't been published yet — check forbrugerombudsmanden.dk for the updated guidance.

Do these rules apply on top of the three regulated industries (alcohol, finance, pharma)?

Yes, in addition to, not instead of. See influencer marketing in regulated industries: alcohol, finance and pharma in Denmark for the industry-specific rules — an environmental claim about a product in one of these industries has to satisfy both rulebooks at once.

Is this the same rule that applies to a reused testimonial claiming a specific result?

Yes, it's the same underlying documentation requirement (§ 13), applied here to environmental claims specifically. See using influencer content as a testimonial: what Danish law requires you to document for how the same duty applies when a brand reuses an influencer's post as a testimonial about an effect, a result or a comparison.