On this page
Germany: when is “klimaneutral” lawful after Katjes?
Status
In force as unfair-competition law, not as a labelling statute. The leading case is BGH, 27 June 2024, I ZR 98/23 (Katjes). The holding is about advertising with an ambiguous environmental term. It was a trade-magazine advertisement, not an on-pack panel. The explanation-in-the-advertisement rule is the part that travels to packaging. EmpCo’s offset blacklist applies in Germany from 27 September 2026 as Union law.
klimaneutralPrescribed, banned or litigated wording — not production artwork
Seit 2021 produziert [X] alle Produkte klimaneutralPrescribed, banned or litigated wording — not production artwork
Wording lock-ups record prescribed, banned or litigated phrases for identification and commentary. They are not production artwork and do not grant permission to print.
No Green Guides: a court
Germany polices environmental claims through the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG), principally § 5 (misleading commercial practices) and § 5a (withholding essential information), enforced in the German style by competitors and by the Wettbewerbszentrale rather than by a specialised greenwashing agency. There is no ACCC guide and no AGEC word-list. What there is, as of 27 June 2024, is a Federal Court of Justice judgment that tells advertisers what “klimaneutral” requires on the face of the advertisement itself.
The BGH’s press release states the holding in one sentence: advertising with an ambiguous environmental term (here: “klimaneutral”) is as a rule only permissible if the advertising itself explains the specific meaning attributed to that term — “Die Werbung mit einem mehrdeutigen umweltbezogenen Begriff (hier: ‘klimaneutral’) regelmäßig nur dann zulässig ist, wenn in der Werbung selbst erläutert wird, welche konkrete Bedeutung diesem Begriff zukommt” (BGH, 2024). Clarifying hints outside the environmental advertising are not sufficient. A QR code linking to ClimatePartner was not sufficient.
What the Katjes advertisement actually was
The claimant was the Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs. The defendant makes fruit gums and liquorice sold through retail, kiosks and filling stations. The claim “Seit 2021 produziert [die Beklagte] alle Produkte klimaneutral” appeared in a food-industry trade magazine, with a “klimaneutral” logo and a QR code to ClimatePartner (BGH, 2024). The manufacturing process was not CO₂-neutral; the defendant supported climate-protection projects through ClimatePartner. The claimant’s case, under UWG §§ 8, 3, 5 and 5a, was that consumers understand “klimaneutral” as a statement about the production process, or at least that they must be told if neutrality is reached only by compensation.
The Court’s reason for requiring an on-the-spot explanation is not a taste for footnotes. Reduction and compensation are, in the Court’s account, not equivalent for climate protection; reduction is prioritised; consumer interest in environmental claims is heightened; and the term is ambiguous between those two operations (BGH, 2024). An advertisement that leaves the consumer to guess which operation is being claimed is misleading even if some other document, reachable by code, would have said “offset”.
Two limits follow, and they are easy to over-read. First, the judged object was a magazine advertisement, not a pack. The holding is about “the advertising itself” (in der Werbung selbst). A pack is advertising. The explanation-on-the-same-medium rule is the part that travels; a millimetre table is not, because none was litigated. Second, the Court did not ban the word. It banned the unexplained word. That is a different architecture from EmpCo Annex I point 4c, which from 27 September 2026 blacklists offset-based product climate-neutral claims in the Union whether or not they are explained. After that date, a German pack that explains “klimaneutral, via offsets” on the panel still makes a point 4c practice if the claim is product-level and offset-based. The BGH rule and the EmpCo blacklist will stack; they do not substitute.
What a printer should take
| Field | Rule |
|---|---|
| Governing law | UWG §§ 5 and 5a, as applied by BGH I ZR 98/23 (27 June 2024). Not a labelling statute. |
| Ambiguous environmental terms | Must be explained in the advertising itself. “Klimaneutral” is the Court’s example, not an exhaustive list. |
| Where the explanation sits | On the advertisement. A QR code, a website, or a compensator’s landing page is not the advertisement. |
| Reduction vs compensation | Not treated as equivalent. If neutrality is reached by offsets, that fact is the meaning that must be stated. |
| Union overlay from 27 Sep 2026 | EmpCo Annex I point 4c blacklists offset-based product climate-neutral claims. An explanation does not cure a blacklisted practice. |
| Enforcement style | Competitor and Wettbewerbszentrale injunctions, not administrative turnover fines of the CMA/DGCCRF kind. |
Traps
The first trap is citing Katjes as an on-pack judgment. It is not; it is an advertising judgment whose same-medium rule applies to packs because packs are advertising. The second is treating a ClimatePartner, Carbon Trust or similar mark as the explanation the BGH required. The mark in the judged advertisement was the problem’s vehicle, not its solution. The third is assuming that because Germany has no specialised greenwashing statute, unexplained climate-neutral claims remain a grey area. They have been a named unfair practice in the BGH’s own words since 27 June 2024, and they become a Union blacklist for offset-based product claims fifteen months later. Generic environmental claims more broadly are treated in the generic-claims article; this article is the German climate-neutral slice of that problem.
References
Bundesgerichtshof (2024) Pressemitteilung Nr. 138/2024: Bundesgerichtshof entscheidet zur Zulässigkeit von Werbung mit dem Begriff “klimaneutral”, 27 June (I ZR 98/23).. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 22 August 2026).
Directive (EU) 2024/825 OJ L, 2024/825, 6.3.2024.. Available at: Open source (Accessed: 22 August 2026).
Note on sources and verification
The holding, the German key sentence, the magazine-advertisement facts, the ClimatePartner QR code, the reduction/compensation distinction and the “in der Werbung selbst” requirement are from the BGH press release of 27 June 2024 as retrieved. The full judgment text was not retrieved for this article; where the press release is silent (for example on a millimetre or on-pack specification) nothing is invented. EmpCo’s application date and point 4c are from Directive (EU) 2024/825. This article does not treat Blue Angel or other Type I marks; those sit in Theme 3.
Last verified: 22 August 2026.