Greenwashing deliveries: Poland's UOKiK takes aim

Media outlets have reported this August on proceedings initiated by Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) against several companies in the courier and e-commerce sectors. The allegations concern the companies' claims about reducing their negative environmental impact, primarily by referencing low- or zero-emission deliveries.

This is just the beginning of proceedings that could have far-reaching consequences. 

Transport under scrutiny

The Polish competition authority has focused its attention on courier companies, particularly those involved in parcel transport. UOKiK has questioned these companies' claims regarding zero- or low-emission parcel transport and the use of a "green” fleet. This trend is not limited to Poland; it can be observed in other countries as well.

The transport sector is known for its high emissions, which means these companies must be particularly careful when making claims about reducing their negative environmental impact. For example, a few months ago, the Italian regulator imposed a fine on the logistics group GLS for misleading claims, and airline KLM faced similar accusations in the Netherlands.
As a result, any communications regarding environmentally friendly practices in the transport sector should be crafted with extreme caution, as they are likely to come under regulatory scrutiny.

One electric vehicle doesn't make a fleet 'green'

At the core of UOKiK's accusations is the exaggeration of the positive aspects of courier companies' operations, along with the selective presentation of aspects of their business in marketing communications.

UOKiK has accused courier companies of claiming to have a green fleet, despite the fact that their actual fleet is predominantly made up of combustion vehicles, with electric vehicles representing only a small percentage. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that claims are precise in order to avoid accusations of exaggerating environmental benefits – though such exaggeration is common in marketing communications. 

The Polish regulator has also emphasised that isolated, minor actions do not justify promoting a company as environmentally conscious: for example, bee welfare. When a company promotes its positive impact on ecosystems – whether plant or animal – it's important that they consider whether the company genuinely has a consistent policy of action in this area and follows through with it consistently, rather than just implementing a one-time initiative like placing a few beehives on a roof. 

Additionally, UOKiK points out that an environmentally friendly electric vehicle cannot be charged using energy from conventional sources, such as coal. When planning for the "green" transformation of a fleet, it is essential for businesses to consider not only the purchase or leasing of electric vehicles but also the provision of renewable energy for charging them. This involves establishing the necessary agreements for purchasing energy from renewable sources (that is, the popular power purchase agreements (PPAs) and corporate PPAs) and refining the claims made about the fleet's environmental impact.

It's not worth being baseless

The allegations made against businesses highlight the importance of adequately substantiating claims by considering the complete context of a product, its production process, or the services offered. 

A clear example of this is the accusations regarding "green" communication related to parcel lockers. UOKiK has accused businesses of promoting the ecological benefits of parcel-locker deliveries (as opposed to home delivery) without taking into account the entire journey a package makes to reach the recipient. The basis of the communication was the assumption that the users would pick up their packages by bike or on foot, which would save the courier a trip and, therefore, reduce the environmental impact of the delivery. However, this assumption overlooks the reality that many users may choose to drive rather than walk, which significantly affects the overall carbon footprint of the delivery process. 

Similarly, UOKiK reminds us that when evaluating the "eco-friendliness" of electric cars, it's essential to consider their entire life cycle. This principle applies to all products.

What do UOKiK's actions mean?

Currently, UOKiK has initiated proceedings against businesses, but no fines have been imposed yet for what is referred to as "greenwashing". In theory,  proceedings can conclude with a decision declaring the practices of entrepreneurs to be infringing on the collective interests of consumers and imposing a financial penalty on companies of up to 10% of the entrepreneur's annual turnover. 

Furthermore, UOKiK also has the authority to impose financial penalties of up to PLN 2 million on managers of companies that have contributed to the use of prohibited practices. The UOKiK is currently conducting nine parallel explanatory proceedings against companies in the clothing, retail, e-commerce and transport sectors due to suspected greenwashing. However, no formal allegation have been presented by UOKiK yet.

Entrepreneurs targeted by UOKiK can submit an application for a commitment decision, where they agree to undertake or cease specific actions aimed at resolving the infringement or mitigating its effects.  In practice, these commitments often involve monetary compensation for consumers, corrective measures regarding the actions questioned by UOKiK and the implementation of an information campaign on their websites and social media. 

A European example of this approach can be seen in two commitment decisions related to greenwashing cases issued by the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) that accepted the commitments of two leading retail and consumer businesses  including donations to environmental initiatives (€500,000 and €400,000 respectively). ACM also secured changes to both businesses misleading marketing practices. Similarly, the Competition and Markets Authority's investigations in the UK ended up with changes to the fashion businesses' undertakings around their green communication. 
The initiation of proceedings by UOKiK is a strong indication that tools to combat "eco-deception" already exist – despite the lack of implementation of the directive on empowering consumers (Polish government plans to agree on a draft act implementing the directive in the first quarter of 2026) or ongoing discussions about the European legislator potentially abandoning work on the Green Claims Directive.

Businesses would, therefore, be wise not to postpone the implementation of appropriate mechanisms for verifying their "green" claims: the risk associated with potential fines and reputational losses can materialise at any moment.

Osborne Clarke comment

To communicate or not to communicate? That is the question!
Reading UOKiK's materials might lead to the conclusion that communicating green claims is very risky and best avoided. Is that truly the case? Absolutely not.

Pro-environmental actions can benefit a company, making it worthwhile to discuss them. When crafting communication in this regard, it's important to keep the following principles — supported by the UOKiK — in mind:

• Claims must be precise and not exaggerate the benefits associated with a product, service, or company activity.
• Before making a public claim, gather evidence to support it (the more accurate and objective, the better).
• The supporting evidence should consider the entire life cycle of the product and all aspects related to the provision of the service.
• If the environmental benefit is contingent upon the actions taken by the user, ensure they are informed in a clear manner that allows their actions to produce the communicated environmental benefit.

These are just a few main principles to consider when developing such communications. Good practices for formulating "green" claims have already been established through regulatory guidelines and the oversight actions of authorities in various countries. It is beneficial to draw on this body of work, as UOKiK's approach aligns with these established practices. 

Implementing appropriate mechanisms for communicating a company's positive environmental impact not only helps avoid the risk of scrutiny from UOKiK but also fosters a positive brand image and builds customer trust as a responsible company.