of
EVIDENCE
colour
the
When sustainability stops being a look and starts requiring proof
THE GREEN SHELF
Stand in front of almost any supermarket shelf and sustainability has a recognisable appearance.
It is there in the muted greens and earthy browns, the leaves curling around a label, the recycled-paper textures and the words natural, conscious or planet-friendly. A bottle may be matte rather than glossy. A box may leave part of its cardboard unbleached. A typeface may look handwritten, a landscape may appear where a product photograph might once have been. None of these choices tells us, on its own, how a product was made. Together, they can tell us how the product would like to be read.
The judgement can happen remarkably quickly. Before we know where the materials came from, how much energy was used in production, whether the packaging can actually be recycled, or what happened along the supply chain, we may already have an impression of which product is the more responsible choice.
That impression is not incidental. Research into packaging and consumer perception increasingly shows that visual cues can shape how environmental responsibility is understood. In a 2026 study of 1,004 Italian household food purchasers, green packaging consistently increased perceived environmental friendliness across most of the product categories examined, including when it appeared alongside vague sustainability claims (Cappella et al., 2026). The colour was not evidence of better environmental performance. Yet it helped create the perception of it.
This is one of the quieter achievements of modern sustainability marketing. Long before most of us learned how to interpret a life cycle assessment, distinguish recycled content from recyclability, or ask what sits behind a carbon-neutral claim, we learned what green looked like.
There is nothing inherently deceptive about that visual language. Green is a colour. A leaf is an image. Brown cardboard may simply be brown cardboard. Design has always helped products communicate before we have had time to examine them closely.
The problem begins when appearance starts doing the work of evidence.
On 27 September 2026, that distinction became harder for businesses selling to European consumers to ignore. New rules under the EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition directive began to apply across member states, tightening the conditions under which environmental claims and sustainability labels can be used. Generic claims such as green or environmentally friendly now face much stricter conditions on when they can be used; certain sustainability labels are also more tightly regulated; and product claims of a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact cannot be based on offsetting outside the product's value chain in the ways the new rules prohibit (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
The significance of the change reaches beyond a list of words that marketers should or should not use. The directive recognises something that advertising has understood for much longer: an environmental message does not have to exist only in a sentence. It can also be pictorial, graphic or symbolic, and the legislation explicitly acknowledges that colours and images can contribute to an implicit environmental claim (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
That makes the question facing sustainable consumption more interesting than whether a particular shade of green is misleading.
For years, environmental responsibility has existed partly as an aesthetic: something that could be suggested through a package, a symbol, a texture or a carefully chosen word. Regulation is now beginning to ask what sits behind that suggestion.
Sustainability developed a visual language long before most consumers developed the tools to verify it.
And that creates a new question for both businesses and designers.
What happens when looking green is no longer enough?
WE LEARNED WHAT GREEN LOOKS LIKE
We rarely encounter a product as a collection of facts.
We encounter its colour, shape, material and typography first. We notice whether the package feels industrial or handmade, disposable or durable, clinical or natural. These impressions are formed before we turn the bottle around, search for a certification mark or begin reading the smaller print.
Design researchers sometimes describe these elements as sustainability cues: features that help people interpret the environmental qualities of a product. Some are explicit. An ecolabel, a statement about recycled content or a certification mark tells us directly what we are being asked to understand. Others are implicit. Colour, texture, material, imagery and form can suggest environmental qualities without making a specific written claim (Sierra-Fontalvo et al., 2026).
That distinction matters because implicit cues are remarkably efficient. They do not require us to understand a methodology or compare two sets of emissions data. They work through associations we already recognise.
Green has perhaps become the most obvious example. Its connection with vegetation, landscapes and the natural world makes it an intuitive shorthand for environmental responsibility. Experimental research suggests that this association can carry over to products themselves. Studies have found that changing packaging colour can alter perceptions of sustainability, while one experiment involving 737 consumers found that making a chocolate package green could increase the market share of a product presented with misleading environmental cues (Boncinelli et al., 2023). More recent research suggests that the effect can persist even when consumers are given more precise environmental information alongside it (Cappella et al., 2026).
But colour is only one part of the vocabulary.
A rough texture can suggest less processing. Visible fibres can make a material feel recycled. Botanical imagery can place a manufactured object symbolically closer to nature. Minimal packaging can imply restraint, just as a refill pouch can make reduction itself visible. None of these meanings is fixed, and they do not work identically for every product or every consumer. Yet together they form a set of visual shortcuts through which environmental ideas can be communicated quickly.
That is not necessarily a problem.
Every form of design uses shortcuts. A red warning sign does not explain the history of danger; it asks us to recognise danger quickly. A medical package does not need to explain cleanliness before white space and controlled typography begin to communicate it. Visual language exists precisely because not everything can be explained from the beginning every time we encounter it.
The package begins to behave like a sentence
Sustainability needs visual language too.
The difficulty is that environmental performance is unusually hard to see.
A recycled-looking box can be examined, but the energy used to manufacture what is inside it cannot. A leaf can be printed on a bottle, but the agricultural practices behind an ingredient remain somewhere beyond the package. A product can appear materially simple while depending on a supply chain extending across continents. Many of the environmental characteristics that matter most exist outside the moment of purchase.
This gives sustainable design an unusual amount of communicative power.
The package does not simply contain the product. It can become a bridge between environmental processes that are largely invisible and the consumer who is being asked to make a judgement about them.
But a bridge can carry more than information. It can carry implication.
Research into sustainable product design shows why the distinction between explicit and implicit cues matters. When the two reinforce each other, they can make environmental information easier to recognise. When they point in different directions, the same visual language can create confusion or make a product appear more environmentally responsible than the evidence supports (Sierra-Fontalvo et al., 2026).
This is where the familiar vocabulary of sustainability begins to acquire another function.
Green no longer simply evokes nature. It can help frame a claim.
A recycled texture no longer simply describes a material. It can imply something about the product around it.
A leaf no longer simply decorates the package. It can quietly influence what we expect the package to mean.
The visual shortcut has begun to do something more complicated than help us recognise sustainability.
It has begun to help us infer it.
ADVERTISEMENT
WHEN THE PACKAGE MAKES THE CLAIM
If visual cues help us infer sustainability, the next question is where inference ends and a claim begins.
The distinction is less obvious than it sounds.
Imagine a bottle that says nothing about the environment. There is no eco-friendly claim printed across the front, no percentage reduction in emissions, and no statement about recycled materials. But the bottle is pale green. Leaves surround the brand name. The label has the texture of unbleached paper, and a small illustration shows a forest beneath an open sky.
What, exactly, has been claimed?
Perhaps nothing explicitly. Yet the package has still created a context in which the product is likely to be read.
This is where researchers have used the term executional greenwashing: Environmental impressions created through the execution of an advertisement or package — its colours, imagery and other nature-evoking elements — rather than through a directly stated environmental claim. Experimental research suggests that these visual elements can affect consumer perception even when the environmental qualities they appear to imply are not supported by the product itself (Boncinelli et al., 2023).
The concept complicates the familiar idea of greenwashing as simply making a false statement.
A sentence can be checked. If a company says that a bottle contains 80 per cent recycled plastic, there is a proposition that can be tested against evidence. But an atmosphere is harder to interrogate. How do we verify a forest? What evidence does a shade of green require? At what point does suggestion become specific enough to demand substantiation?
Regulators are increasingly confronting that ambiguity.
Under the EU rules that began applying in September 2026, an environmental claim is not limited to written language. The legal definition extends to representations in textual, pictorial, graphic or symbolic form. The directive also recognises that colours and images can contribute to an implicit environmental message when they accompany a claim (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
Britain approaches the issue through a different regulatory framework, but the underlying concern is similar. The Competition and Markets Authority's Green Claims Code makes clear that environmental claims must be considered in their full presentation. Words matter, but so can colours, pictures, logos, packaging and the overall impression they create (CMA, 2021).
One example in the CMA guidance is particularly revealing. It describes a shampoo presented in a bamboo case, with the word natural written in green. Inside the bamboo exterior sits a plastic container that the consumer cannot see before purchase. The individual elements may each be factually describable, but their combination can create a broader environmental impression that requires scrutiny (CMA, 2021).
The significance of examples like this is not that regulators are about to police every leaf printed on a cereal box.
It is that environmental communication is being judged less by its individual components and more by the meaning those components produce together.
That changes the question.
Instead of asking only:
Is this statement true?
We also have to ask:
What is this design asking me to believe?
This distinction matters because visual communication rarely works one element at a time. A green background may be insignificant on its own. So might a botanical illustration. So might a word such as natural. But combine them with a recycling symbol, an earthy texture and a broad environmental phrase, and the resulting message can become much stronger than any individual element.
The package begins to behave like a sentence.
Not because every visual choice carries a fixed environmental meaning, but because design creates relationships between signs. Colour supports language. Imagery frames interpretation. Material appearance reinforces expectation. What remains vague in one element can become surprisingly coherent when several elements point in the same direction.
This is why greenwashing can be difficult to locate. Sometimes there is no single dramatic lie waiting to be exposed. The environmental promise may exist instead in the distance between what has technically been said and what the consumer has reasonably been encouraged to conclude.
And that distance is where evidence becomes essential.
If a company wants a product to be read as environmentally responsible, the question is no longer only whether each individual word can survive scrutiny. Increasingly, the broader impression has to survive it too.
Greenwashing does not always need a sentence. Sometimes the suggestion is already in the design.
THE GREEN MAZE
If colour can suggest too much, perhaps the answer is to look for something more concrete.
A label. A certification mark. A symbol backed by a standard rather than an aesthetic.
In principle, this is exactly what an environmental label is meant to provide: a shortcut with evidence behind it. Instead of asking a consumer to investigate how a product was made, a trusted scheme can translate a set of environmental criteria into something recognisable at the point of purchase.
The idea is powerful because the problem it tries to solve is real. Most of us cannot stand in a supermarket and independently verify where a material was sourced, how much energy was used to process it, whether a supply chain met a particular standard or whether an environmental improvement has been measured consistently. A credible label can compress some of that complexity into a mark small enough to fit on a package.
But the shortcut only works if we know what the mark represents.
Over time, the landscape of environmental labels has become crowded. European Commission research has identified hundreds of sustainability labels operating across the EU, with considerable variation in the transparency and verification behind them. Beyond Europe, a 2024 review examined 456 ecolabel programmes across 199 countries and found that, despite their potential as tools for environmental communication and policy, evidence of their effectiveness remains limited and uneven (European Commission, 2023; Nakaishi and Chapman, 2024).
The problem is not simply the number of symbols.
Two labels that look equally official may represent very different things. One might be based on criteria established by an independent certification scheme. Another might belong to an industry initiative. A third may have been created by the company selling the product. Some assess a narrow characteristic; others consider a broader set of impacts. Yet on a crowded package, those differences can be difficult to see.
The consumer is therefore presented with a peculiar task: use labels to reduce complexity, but first understand the system of labels well enough to know which ones can be trusted.
The consumer has been asked to behave a little like an auditor, without being given an auditor’s access
The shortcut begins to require homework.
This is one reason the EU's new rules do not stop at broad claims such as green or environmentally friendly. They also restrict the use of sustainability labels that are not based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities (European Parliament and Council, 2024). The distinction matters because a symbol can borrow the visual authority of certification without necessarily carrying the independent verification that consumers may assume sits behind it.
A circle, a leaf and a reassuring word can look remarkably official when arranged in the right way.
But looking like a certification is not the same as being one.
This does not make ecolabels useless. On the contrary, credible schemes can help make complex environmental information more accessible. The difficulty is that a label has to perform two jobs at once. It must communicate something meaningful about the product, and it must give the consumer reason to trust the system making that judgement.
That second task is easy to overlook.
When we see a familiar mark, we are rarely reading the methodology behind it. We are delegating part of our judgement to whoever created the standard, tested the product or authorised the symbol.
In that sense, an environmental label is not simply information.
It is a small act of trust.
And trust becomes harder when the visual field is crowded with competing symbols, claims and assurances, all asking to be read in a few seconds.
Perhaps the problem, then, is not that consumers need another symbol telling them which product is better.
Perhaps they are already being asked to interpret too much.
A symbol is useful only when we understand what stands behind it.
ADVERTISEMENT
THE CONSUMER WAS NEVER AN AUDITOR
The modern consumer is expected to know a remarkable amount.
In front of a supermarket shelf, choosing the more sustainable product can appear to be a simple act of comparison. Read the label. Check the materials. Look for a certification. Avoid unnecessary packaging. Choose recycled where possible. Pay attention to where something was made.
But follow almost any environmental claim far enough, and the simplicity begins to disappear.
A bottle made with recycled plastic raises questions about how much of it is recycled, where that material came from and whether the bottle can be recycled again. A lower-carbon product raises questions about what was measured, which emissions were included and what it was compared with. A responsibly sourced ingredient leads towards farms, fisheries, forests, certification systems and supply chains that may stretch across several countries.
The closer we look, the further away the evidence seems to move.
This is not because consumers are incapable of understanding environmental information. It is because much of the information required to evaluate a product exists somewhere they cannot directly observe.
The company knows who its suppliers are. It has access to information about which materials entered production, how a product was manufactured, what standards were applied and which calculations sit behind an environmental claim. The person encountering that product in a shop sees something very different: a package, a price, perhaps a label, and whatever information the company has chosen to place around them.
That difference matters.
A large international OECD study involving around 37,000 consumers across 40 countries found limited understanding of many environmental sustainability claims and substantial variation in the degree to which consumers trust them (OECD, 2025a). Other OECD analysis has highlighted particular difficulty around concepts such as carbon neutrality and offsetting — terms that can compress complicated accounting and environmental questions into a few reassuring words (OECD, 2025b).
Yet much of the language surrounding sustainable consumption continues to place responsibility at the point of purchase.
Choose better.
Buy responsibly.
Look for the right label.
There is value in all of these things. Consumer choices can matter. But they also create the impression that the environmental quality of a purchase is something an attentive individual should be able to determine if only they read carefully enough.
Often, they cannot.
A shopper cannot independently reconstruct a product's supply chain from a label. They cannot measure the emissions generated in a factory they have never seen. They cannot establish whether an agricultural practice protected biodiversity by looking at the ingredient list. Even when environmental information is provided, assessing its significance may require knowing the methodology, the baseline, the scope of the claim and who verified it.
The consumer has been asked to behave a little like an auditor, without being given an auditor's access.
That is the deeper problem behind the green shelf.
Environmental characteristics are often invisible at the moment when the purchase is made. Unlike the size of a bottle or the taste of a food, many cannot be confirmed simply by using the product. The environmental history remains elsewhere — embedded in extraction, manufacturing, transport, energy systems, land use and decisions made long before the product reached the shelf.
This is why the debate over green claims cannot be reduced to better consumer education.
Education helps. Clearer labels help. Greater environmental literacy helps. But none of them eliminates the underlying imbalance between the organisation making a claim and the individual being asked to believe it.
The more important question is therefore not simply whether consumers can learn to recognise trustworthy environmental information.
It is who should carry the burden of proving it.
That question changes the direction of responsibility.
Instead of asking a shopper to investigate whether environmentally friendly really means environmentally friendly, regulation can ask the company why it used the phrase in the first place. Instead of expecting the consumer to determine whether a sustainability symbol represents a meaningful standard, rules can require that the symbol be backed by a certification scheme. Instead of asking someone at the shelf to untangle the meaning of carbon neutral, the claim itself can be required to withstand scrutiny before it reaches them.
This does not remove consumer responsibility. It relocates some of the responsibility that never reasonably belonged there.
The problem with sustainable consumption is not simply that consumers need better information. It is that they are being asked to evaluate things they often cannot independently see or verify.
And few environmental claims demonstrate that problem more clearly than one of the most familiar of all: carbon neutral.
BEHIND THE CLAIM
The information a package cannot always show — but a claim may still depend on.
CARBON NEUTRAL — BUT WHERE?
Few environmental claims sound as complete as carbon neutral.
The words suggest a balance that has already been achieved. Carbon was emitted; something countered it; the equation returned to zero. Printed on a package, attached to a delivery option or placed beside a company logo, the phrase can make an extraordinarily complicated environmental calculation feel settled.
But neutral where?
The question exposes how much information two simple words can conceal.
A product can generate greenhouse-gas emissions at many stages of its life: when raw materials are extracted or grown, when components are manufactured, when electricity powers a factory, when goods are transported and, eventually, when the product is used or discarded. Calculating its climate impact therefore depends not only on numbers but also on boundaries. What has been included? What has been left outside the calculation? Which period is being measured? And what exactly is the claim describing — a product, a package, a delivery, or an entire company?
Then comes another distinction: reducing an emission is not the same as compensating for one.
A manufacturer might lower emissions by changing an industrial process, using less energy or switching to a lower-carbon source. Those interventions alter emissions within the activity itself. Offsetting works differently. Emissions may still occur, while credits are used to represent reductions or removals taking place elsewhere.
For climate accounting, that distinction can involve complex methodologies. For someone choosing between two products, it can disappear almost entirely inside the word neutral.
Research suggests that the terminology is far from intuitive. In a series of three studies involving a total of 2,300 participants in the United States, researchers found strikingly low baseline understanding of net-zero and carbon-neutral targets. In the first study, a representative sample of 300 participants was asked to identify differences between the two types of climate pledge without being given additional information. None was able to do so (Battocletti et al., 2025).
Providing an explanation helped — but only to a point.
When participants considered a single product, concise disclosures improved their understanding of climate pledges. But when the researchers moved to a more realistic setting, with multiple products and competing pieces of information, those gains disappeared. The disclosures attracted considerable attention without improving understanding, while the more visually salient, colour-coded format was associated with increased misconceptions (Battocletti et al., 2025).
The finding reveals an uncomfortable limit to the familiar demand for transparency.
Information can be available without becoming understandable.
A methodology can be published. An offset can be disclosed. A qualification can sit beneath the headline claim. But if the strongest message remains carbon neutral, the consumer may still encounter the conclusion before they encounter the conditions that produced it.
This is precisely where European regulation has become more restrictive.
Under the rules applying from September 2026, businesses cannot claim, on the basis of greenhouse-gas offsetting, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions. The directive specifically identifies expressions such as climate neutral, CO₂ neutral certified, carbon positive and climate net zero when such product-level claims are based on offsetting outside the product's value chain (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
The distinction is important. The EU has not simply prohibited the words carbon neutral, nor has it prohibited carbon markets or every form of offsetting. It has targeted the use of offsetting to support particular claims about the climate impact of a product.
Britain has taken a different regulatory route, but similar questions have emerged. The Advertising Standards Authority has warned that consumers may not understand the basis of carbon neutral and net zero claims and advises advertisers to make clear whether, and to what extent, they rely on offsetting rather than reductions in emissions (ASA, 2026).
What both approaches recognise is a problem larger than terminology.
A claim can be technically qualified and still communicate something much simpler than the system behind it.
Carbon neutral sounds like a property of the object in front of us. The emissions it describes may belong to a chain of activities spread across places, companies and years. The balancing mechanism may exist somewhere else again.
The phrase compresses all of that distance into two words.
That compression is useful. Sustainability communication would become impossible if every environmental statement required a life cycle assessment to be printed beside it. But compression also creates responsibility. The simpler the claim becomes, the more careful we have to be about what complexity has disappeared in making it simple.
Perhaps this is why carbon neutral offers such a clear example of the problem facing environmental communication.
The consumer sees the conclusion.
The evidence lives somewhere behind it.
And between the two sits the claim.
WHEN GREEN MEETS THE LAW
By the time a product reaches the shelf, its environmental story has already been edited.
A supply chain becomes a sentence. A manufacturing process becomes a percentage. A certification becomes a symbol. Years of emissions can become two words printed on the front of a package.
This compression is unavoidable. No label could contain everything there is to know about a product. The question is what happens when simplification becomes so broad that the evidence behind it can no longer be recognised.
On 27 September 2026, new rules implementing the EU's response began to apply across member states.
The rules introduced through the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition directive amend existing EU consumer law rather than creating an entirely separate system for environmental marketing. Their significance lies in drawing clearer boundaries around the ways environmental responsibility can be communicated — not only what businesses say, but also how broad a claim can be, what sits behind a sustainability label and when an environmental advantage is being presented as larger than it really is (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
Some of the most familiar language of green marketing now faces a much higher threshold.
Generic environmental claims such as environmentally friendly, eco-friendly, green, nature's friend, ecological and climate friendly cannot be used without demonstrating the recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. The directive itself illustrates the difference between a broad phrase such as climate-friendly packaging and a specific statement such as 100% of the energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
The difference is small on the page but substantial in meaning.
One asks the consumer to accept an impression.
The other tells them what happened.
The same logic reaches sustainability labels. A company can no longer simply create a reassuring green badge and allow its appearance to borrow the authority of certification. Under the new rules, displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities is prohibited (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
The rules also address another familiar shortcut: taking an environmental advantage that belongs to one part of a product and allowing it to describe the whole. A benefit relating only to the packaging, for example, cannot be presented in a way that suggests that the entire product shares that benefit (European Parliament and Council, 2024).
Again, the underlying question is one of scope.
Which part?
Compared with what?
Verified by whom?
Based on which evidence?
These are not particularly romantic questions. They do not fit as comfortably on the front of a package as a leaf or the word green. But they begin to reveal what the environmental claim actually describes.
A useful glimpse of what this shift can look like in practice appeared even before the new rules began applying.
Following a coordinated action by the European Commission and national consumer authorities, online fashion retailer Zalando agreed in 2024 to change the way environmental information appeared on its platform. Sustainability flags and environmental icons such as leaves and trees were removed from product pages. The broad term sustainability was replaced in relevant contexts with information under Product standard, while environmental attributes were communicated more specifically — including percentage figures where recycled materials were involved (European Commission, 2024).
The change is visually modest.
Conceptually, it is enormous.
A leaf becomes a specification.
A suggestion becomes information.
The product is no longer simply invited to look sustainable; the interface has to say what characteristic is actually being described.
The next challenge may be making evidence legible
Britain sits outside this EU regime, but not outside the argument. The Competition and Markets Authority's Green Claims Code similarly requires environmental claims to be truthful, clear, unambiguous and supported by evidence. It also asks businesses to consider the full life cycle of a product where relevant and makes clear that words cannot be separated from the colours, images, logos and overall presentation surrounding them (CMA, 2021).
The legal mechanisms differ, but the direction is recognisable.
Environmental responsibility is becoming harder to communicate as atmosphere alone.
That does not mean vague language will disappear overnight or that regulation can remove ambiguity from every sustainability claim. Marketing adapts. New terminology emerges. Evidence itself can be selective, difficult to interpret or presented in ways that still favour the seller.
Nor does regulation solve the deeper environmental question of whether a product should exist, how much of it should be consumed or whether improving one characteristic makes the whole system sustainable.
What it can do is narrow the distance between a claim and the evidence required to support it.
And that may change more than the wording on a package.
For designers, marketers and businesses, the challenge is no longer simply how to make environmental responsibility visible. It is how to make it visible without allowing the image to promise more than the evidence can carry.
That leaves sustainability design with an interesting problem.
If green can no longer do all the talking, what should take its place?
ADVERTISEMENT
AFTER GREEN
So what happens to sustainable design when looking sustainable is no longer enough?
The obvious answer might be more information.
Replace eco-friendly with a measurable claim. Replace the leaf with a recognised certification. Replace better for the planet with a percentage, a material, a defined improvement or a clearly stated comparison. If vague environmental language created the problem, specificity appears to offer the solution.
In many ways, this is the direction the new rules encourage.
An adjective becomes a specification.
A promise acquires a scope.
A symbol points towards a standard.
An environmental benefit has to explain what, exactly, became better.
This may make sustainability communication more precise. It does not necessarily make it easier to understand.
A package covered in percentages, certification marks, emissions figures, technical terminology and QR codes can be more transparent than one carrying a single green leaf and still leave the person holding it unsure what matters most. Information can accumulate faster than understanding.
The research on carbon-neutral claims makes this problem particularly visible. As we have seen, providing consumers with additional explanations can improve comprehension in controlled circumstances, yet those gains may weaken when the same information has to compete for attention in a more realistic choice environment (Battocletti et al., 2025). Research into sustainability cues similarly suggests that explicit and implicit information can support one another when they are coherent but can create confusion when they point in different directions (Sierra-Fontalvo et al., 2026).
The challenge, then, is not simply to replace imagery with data.
It is to design the relationship between them.
Here, graphic design becomes particularly important.
Design has always organised complexity. Hierarchy tells us what to read first. Scale tells us what matters. Typography separates explanation from qualification. Icons allow information to be recognised across languages. Layout can reveal relationships that would be difficult to understand in a paragraph of text.
Those tools do not become less useful when environmental claims require stronger evidence. They become more important.
The question is what they are being used to clarify.
A sustainability claim supported by evidence still requires decisions about what appears on the front of a package, what sits in smaller text, what can be communicated through a symbol and what requires explanation elsewhere. Digital interfaces add another layer: a physical label might lead to a QR code, a product page, a certification database or a more detailed account of how a figure was calculated.
The evidence may be extensive.
The encounter with it will still be designed.
ANATOMY OF A CLAIM
What if environmental evidence were designed to be as visible as the claim itself?
That creates an opportunity to imagine sustainability communication differently.
Perhaps the future is not packaging stripped of colour, imagery or emotion. A sustainable product does not need to look like a spreadsheet. Nor would replacing every leaf with a number necessarily make environmental choices clearer.
The more interesting possibility is a visual language in which suggestion and substantiation are no longer separated.
A colour can attract attention, but the claim beside it explains why.
A symbol can simplify complexity, but the standard behind it can be identified.
A percentage can provide specificity, but its scope can be made clear.
A beautiful package can still tell a story, but the story should lead somewhere beyond the surface.
This would require a subtle shift in what sustainable design is trying to achieve.
For years, much environmental communication has been concerned with making sustainability visible.
The next challenge may be making evidence legible.
That distinction matters because evidence alone does not communicate. A life cycle assessment can be rigorous and still be inaccessible to the person making a decision in a supermarket. A certification methodology can be robust and still mean little if nobody recognises the mark. A percentage can be accurate and still mislead if the comparison behind it remains unclear.
Precision is not the opposite of design.
It is something design can help people navigate.
And perhaps this is where the tightening of environmental claims becomes more interesting than a restriction on marketing language. It creates pressure not simply to say less, but to communicate better: to decide which environmental information deserves prominence, how claims relate to evidence and how complexity can be reduced without turning reduction into distortion.
That is a harder design problem than choosing the right shade of green.
It is also a more useful one.
The next challenge for sustainable design may not be how to provide more information but how to make better evidence understandable.
THE COLOUR OF EVIDENCE
Return to the shelf.
The green bottle is still green. The cardboard still feels rough beneath the fingers. Leaves still curl around labels, landscapes still appear on packages, and words such as natural and responsible have not suddenly lost their ability to shape what we see.
Nor should they.
Sustainability does not need to become visually colourless in order to become credible. Design will continue to use association, emotion and shorthand because that is part of what design does. A package has seconds to communicate in an environment crowded with competing products, prices, claims and images.
What is changing is the amount of responsibility those signals can be asked to carry on their own.
A colour cannot tell us where a material came from.
A leaf cannot explain a supply chain.
A recycled texture cannot measure emissions.
And a reassuring phrase cannot substitute for the evidence required to support it.
For a long time, environmental marketing benefited from the distance between what sustainability looked like and what sustainability could actually be verified to mean. That distance allowed broad claims to coexist with complex realities that remained largely invisible behind the package.
It is becoming harder to leave that distance unexplained.
The regulatory changes now taking effect in Europe are part of that shift, but they are not its endpoint. Rules can restrict misleading claims and demand stronger substantiation. They cannot decide how environmental evidence should be communicated, nor can they make complicated environmental systems simple.
That task remains partly a design problem.
The opportunity is not to remove the visual language of sustainability but to make it more accountable to what sits behind it.
Perhaps green will become less powerful as a shortcut. Perhaps environmental communication will become more specific, more measurable and occasionally less elegant. Perhaps the familiar leaf will survive perfectly well — but with a clearer explanation of what it is actually asking us to recognise.
That would not represent the end of sustainable design.
It might represent its maturation.
Because the most credible environmental communication will not be the one that asks us to choose between beauty and evidence. It will be the one capable of bringing the two closer together — allowing design to attract attention, organise complexity and make environmental information understandable without asking appearance to stand in for proof.
The shelf will still be full of colour.
The question is what that colour can honestly tell us.
Green may remain a colour. It can no longer be the evidence.
REFERENCES
Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) (2026) ‘Environmental claims: Carbon offsetting and carbon neutral’, ASA AdviceOnline. Available at: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/environmental-claims-carbon-offsetting-and-carbon-neutral.html (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
Battocletti, V., Desiato, A., Romano, A., Sotis, C. and Tröger, T. (2025) ‘Climate pledges and greenwashing: Information provision does not work’. SSRN Electronic Journal. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5233205 (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
Boncinelli, F., Gerini, F., Piracci, G., Bellia, R. and Casini, L. (2023) ‘Effect of executional greenwashing on market share of food products: An empirical study on green-coloured packaging’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 391, 136258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136258.
Cappella, A., Caracciolo, F., Caso, D. and Vecchio, R. (2026) ‘How green packaging and sustainability claims influence consumers’ perceptions: The role of product category’, Food Quality and Preference, 139, 105948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2026.105948.
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) (2021) Green Claims Code: Making environmental claims. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims/environmental-claims-on-goods-and-services (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
European Commission (2023). Green claims. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/circular-economy-topics/green-claims_en (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
European Commission (2024) ‘Zalando commits to remove misleading sustainability flags and environmental icons displayed next to products offered on its platform’, Sustainable consumption actions. Available at: https://commission.europa.eu/topics/consumers/consumer-rights-and-complaints/enforcement-consumer-protection/coordinated-actions/sustainable-consumption-actions_en (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
European Parliament and Council (2024) Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information. Official Journal of the European Union, L 2024/825, 6 March. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
Nakaishi, T. and Chapman, A. (2024) ‘Eco-labels as a communication and policy tool: A comprehensive review of academic literature and global label initiatives’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 202, 114708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.114708.
OECD (2025a) How do consumers interact with environmental sustainability claims on food? Evidence from 40 countries. OECD
Publishing, Paris. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/how-do-consumers-interact-with-environmental-sustainability-claims-on-food_0587c663-en.html (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
OECD (2025b). Protecting and empowering consumers in the green transition: Misleading green claims. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Available at: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/protecting-and-empowering-consumers-in-the-green-transition_12f28e4f-en.html (Accessed: 29 September 2026).
Sierra-Fontalvo, L., Berni, A. and Borgianni, Y. (2026) ‘Sustainability cues in users’ perception and consumption: A product design-oriented systematic literature review’, Design Science, 12, e1. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2025.10046.
