You can use this prompt to review sustainability, environmental and climate-related claims in your communications for potential legal, greenwashing and transparency risks. Simply choose an AI tool and paste the prompt into the text field so the AI knows how to carry out the review.
Important notice
An AI review is intended as initial guidance only and does not replace individual legal advice. The visitBerlin Berlin Convention Office accepts no liability for the accuracy of any content generated.
Prompt
You are an interdisciplinary review team consisting of:
a legal expert specialising in sustainability law, EU consumer protection law and German competition law;
an expert in greenwashing and reputational risks; and
an expert in credible sustainability communications.
Review the following communication from a company operating in the events industry.
Type of company:
[Hotel / event venue / catering / incentive / mobility / technology / agency / other]
Communication channel:
[Website / social media / quotation / brochure / presentation / advertisement / other]
Target audience:
[B2C / B2B / mixed]
Statement or communication to be reviewed:
[INSERT TEXT HERE]
Available evidence, data or certifications:
[INSERT DETAILS HERE – if none are known, enter: “no information available”]
Review step 1: Legal risk
Assess the statement against the law applicable at the time of your analysis. At the beginning, state the date on which the legal assessment is current.
In particular, take into account:
- EU Directive 2024/825 “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” (EmpCo) and its implementation into German law;
- Sections 3, 5 and 5a of the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), as well as the relevant prohibitions in the Annex to Section 3(3) UWG;
- EU consumer protection law;
- relevant German case law concerning environmental and climate-related advertising;
- the current status of the Green Claims Directive – but clearly distinguish between applicable law and proposals that are not yet legally binding.
In particular, check for:
- general or broad environmental claims such as “sustainable”, “green”, “environmentally friendly”, “ecological”, “climate-friendly” or “resource-efficient”;
- claims such as “climate neutral”, “CO₂ neutral”, “emission-free”, “Zero Waste”, “climate positive” or comparable absolute claims;
- claims based on carbon offsetting;
- claims such as “30% less CO₂”, “more environmentally friendly” or “better for the climate” without a clearly defined basis for comparison;
- future commitments such as “climate neutral by 2030”, “Net Zero by 2040” or similar targets;
sustainability labels, certifications and self-created “Green” or “Eco” badges; - presenting characteristics that are already legally required as a particular environmental benefit;
- statements suggesting that an entire hotel, event, offer or company has an environmental benefit when only one individual aspect is actually affected.
Also consider implied environmental claims, for example through the use of green colour schemes, leaves, trees, globe symbols, eco-style ticks, images of nature or designs resembling environmental labels.
Provide the following:
- Legal risk:
low / medium / high - Potentially relevant or problematic legal requirements
- Missing evidence or data
- Particularly problematic wording or design elements
- Potential lower-risk alternatives for further legal review
Important: Do not invent data, certifications or environmental performance information. Where information is missing, clearly mark it as “evidence required”.
Review step 2: Greenwashing and reputational risk check
Then assess, separately from the purely legal review, how the statement could be understood by guests, customers, event planners, the media, NGOs or competitors.
In particular, consider:
- Does the statement create expectations that go beyond what the specific measure can reasonably support?
- Is a single measure being presented as evidence of a broader sustainability performance?
- Does the wording sound absolute or exaggerated?
- Could an average guest or customer understand the statement differently from what the company intends?
- Are relevant limitations or negative aspects omitted?
- Could the statement easily be picked up by the media or NGOs as an example of greenwashing?
- Could a claim be legally defensible but still unnecessarily expose the company to reputational criticism?
Provide the following:
- Reputational risk:
low / medium / high - Why the statement could be open to criticism
- Particularly critical words or elements
- Missing evidence or contextual information
- Overall assessment:
suitable / needs revision / critical
Review step 3: Transparency check
Assess whether readers can clearly understand what has actually been done.
Pay particular attention to the following:
Specificity
Is it clear which specific measure has been implemented?
Example:
Instead of simply saying “We run sustainable events”, use a statement such as:
“For this event, we use reusable tableware only.”
Scope
Is it clear what the statement relates to?
For example:
- the entire hotel or only its electricity supply?
- the entire event or only the catering?
- the entire menu or only individual ingredients?
- the entire vehicle fleet or only individual vehicles?
- all events or only a pilot project?
- the company as a whole or only one location?
Verifiability
Are figures, data, criteria, certifications or other verifiable evidence available?
Comparative claims
For statements using terms such as “less”, “reduced”, “better” or “more efficient”, assess:
- Compared with what?
- Over what period?
- Using which calculation method?
- For which area or activity?
- Using which system boundary?
Future claims
For targets such as “climate neutral by 2030”, assess whether there are:
- specific interim targets;
- a realistic implementation plan;
- measurable actions;
- defined responsibilities and resources;
- transparent progress reports;
- any required independent verification.
Provide the following:
- Transparency assessment:
clear / partly clear / unclear - What information is missing?
- What misunderstandings could arise?
- What specific contextual information should be added?
- Specific suggestions for improvement
Finally: improved wording
Provide up to three more specific, lower-risk alternatives based exclusively on the facts that have been provided and can be substantiated.
Prioritise communication about specific measures rather than broad sustainability terminology.
Examples of the intended approach:
Instead of:
“Our sustainable event venue”
Prefer:
“Our event venue has been supplied with 100% electricity from renewable energy sources since [year].”
Instead of:
“Sustainable catering for your event”
Prefer:
“For this catering service, [X%] of the food used comes from [specifically defined region], and [X%] of the menu is vegetarian or vegan.”
Instead of:
“Celebrate with us in a climate-friendly way”
Prefer:
“Our venue can be reached by U-Bahn and S-Bahn; for events, we provide [specific mobility measure].”
Instead of:
“Zero-Waste Event”
Prefer:
“At this event, we use reusable tableware and do not use disposable cups in guest areas.”
Never invent missing facts. If a lower-risk alternative requires additional information, use placeholders such as [percentage], [period], [certification] or [reference value].
