Benchmarks
Greenwashing statistics 2026: what can actually be measured
Every number on this page is derived from the lexicon and the scoring function themselves. There is no survey behind it, because there is no dataset behind it — see the note at the bottom.
Why there are no aggregate scan statistics here
A page like this usually opens with something like “79% of EU shops still make banned claims”. We do not have a number like that, and we are not going to invent one.
Scans are not stored. Text is analysed in memory and discarded when the response is sent, which is the right default for a tool people point at their own unpublished copy — and it means there is no corpus to aggregate. That trade is deliberate, and we would rather have the privacy than the chart.
If aggregate benchmarking is ever added, it will be opt-in, it will say what is retained, and the sample size will be printed next to every figure derived from it.
The rule behind these numbers: the Green Claims Directive itself (2024/825).
Coverage
Where the restricted vocabulary concentrates
Two categories carry half the lexicon between them. That is not an artefact of how we grouped things — it reflects where the Directive's blacklist additions actually landed.
Scoring
Why the score curves instead of subtracting
A linear penalty hits zero after seven critical findings, and then stops telling you anything. A decay curve keeps the bottom of the range informative.
| Critical findings | Score | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100 | Compliant |
| 1 | 76 | Needs work |
| 2 | 58 | Needs work |
| 3 | 44 | Non-compliant |
| 4 | 34 | Non-compliant |
| 6 | 19 | Non-compliant |
| 8 | 11 | Non-compliant |
| 12 | 4 | Non-compliant |
A critical finding costs 15 points, a reviewable one costs 6, and a substantiated one costs nothing. Those points feed an exponential decay rather than a subtraction, so the score falls steeply at first and then flattens out instead of running off the bottom of the scale.
The practical effect: a shop with six critical findings and one with twelve are still different numbers, so fixing three claims on a bad site visibly moves it. Under a linear penalty both would read zero and nothing you did would show. The displayed score does bottom out — past 20 critical findings it rounds to 0 — and beyond that the finding count tells you more than the number does.
Bands are drawn at 85 and 55. Above 85 nothing critical was found and at most one item needs review; below 55 there is structural work to do, not wording to tweak.
Severity
What moves a finding up or down
A term match is the start of the assessment, not the end of it.
Escalates
- Offsetting language in the same sentence as a climate claim — point 4c of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC (as amended) leaves no room to argue.
- An absolute qualifier with nothing behind it: “100% sustainable”, “completely natural”.
De-escalates
- A recognised scheme named in the same sentence: EU Ecolabel, GOTS, FSC with a licence number.
- A standard or method: ISO, EN, an EPD, a named verifier.
- A measured comparison with a disclosed baseline.
Deliberately ignored
- Evidence in a neighbouring sentence. Proximity is not substantiation.
- A bare percentage attached to a vague adjective — that strengthens the claim rather than supporting it.
- Nothing the review model says. It may mark a finding as commentary, but it cannot change the score — its verdict is a hint printed next to the finding.
What it costs
Maximum fines by market
Statutory ceilings per infringement, from primary sources, with the date each was last checked on its country guide.
| Market | Statutory maximum | Who enforces |
|---|---|---|
| 🇩🇪 Germany | €50,000 | Wettbewerbszentrale, consumer associations and competitors |
| 🇫🇷 France | €300,000 | DGCCRF |
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands | €900,000 | ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt) |
| 🇪🇸 Spain | €1,000,000 | Regional consumer authorities and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs |
| 🇮🇹 Italy | €10,000,000 | AGCM (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato) |
| 🇪🇪 Estonia | €400,000 | Tarbijakaitse ja Tehnilise Järelevalve Amet (TTJA) |
| 🇫🇮 Finland | 4% of turnover | Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto (KKV) |
| 🇸🇪 Sweden | 4% of turnover | Konsumentverket / Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) |
Ceilings, not typical outcomes. Germany’s figure applies only to coordinated cross-border cases; domestically the practical risk is an injunction from a competitor, often within weeks. Finland and Sweden set no fixed euro ceiling at all — 4% of turnover is the ordinary domestic maximum there.
Get a score for a real page
It takes about 396 milliseconds and nothing is kept.