Poland’s Consumer Watchdog Accuses Bolt, Tchibo, & Zara of Greenwashing

Key Takeaways

• Green Claims Face Heightened Scrutiny in Poland: The Polish consumer authority has brought formal charges against Bolt, Tchibo, and Zara over environmental marketing claims it says may have misled consumers.
• Scope and Scale Matter: UOKiK is focusing on whether broad slogans such as “zero-emission,” “eco-friendly,” and “sustainable” were presented without clear information on their limitations, lifecycle coverage, or operational reach.
• Certification and Recycling Claims Under the Microscope: Product labels, recycling assurances, and energy sourcing statements are being assessed for whether they relied on technical qualifiers or certificates that were not adequately explained to consumers.
• Significant Financial Exposure: If the allegations are upheld, each contested practice could result in fines of up to 10 percent of a company’s turnover.

Deep Dive

Poland’s consumer protection authority has launched proceedings against Bolt, Tchibo, and Zara, alleging that each company may have misled consumers through environmental claims that were vague, incomplete, or presented without sufficient context.

The cases were announced by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), Tomasz Chróstny, who said the authority is examining whether “green” slogans and sustainability messaging used by the three brands gave consumers an inflated or inaccurate impression of their environmental impact. If the allegations are upheld, the companies could face fines of up to 10 percent of turnover for each challenged practice.

At issue is not the use of environmental claims in itself, but how they are framed. Words such as “sustainable,” “eco-friendly,” “zero-emission,” or “better for the planet,” UOKiK argues, can strongly influence purchasing decisions. That influence carries responsibility, particularly in Poland where consumers tend to place greater trust in environmental claims than the EU average.

“Eco” has become one of the most powerful words in modern marketing, capable of tipping the scales when consumers choose a delivery option, select a product, or pay more for what they believe is a greener alternative. According to UOKiK, that makes precision essential. Environmental claims must clearly explain what applies, to what extent, and under what conditions, without omissions that could materially affect consumer decisions.

Chróstny said slogans such as “100 percent,” “emission-free,” or “recyclable” cannot function as shortcuts. If companies use them, they must be backed by data and framed in a way that an average consumer can realistically understand.

Bolt and the Limits of “Zero-Emission”

In Bolt’s case, the authority is scrutinizing how the company presents the environmental profile of its services, including ride-hailing, food delivery, car rental, and micro-mobility.

UOKiK’s concerns centre on messaging around “zero-emission vehicles” and initiatives such as “Project Zero.” While these statements may be factually correct in narrow technical terms, the authority says they could leave consumers with the impression that Bolt’s services are largely provided by electric vehicles, or that zero-emission rides dominate its operations. In reality, the vast majority of rides are still carried out using internal combustion engine vehicles, with electric vehicles making up only a limited share.

The authority also points to the risk of misunderstanding around the term “zero-emission” itself. Without clarification, consumers may interpret it as covering the full life cycle of a vehicle, rather than emissions during the driving phase alone. Similar doubts apply to claims that Bolt uses “100 percent renewable energy” in offices, warehouses, and charging stations, where the figure may rely primarily on energy certificates rather than direct sourcing. If those nuances are not clearly explained, UOKiK says, the overall message may be misleading.

Tchibo’s “Eco-Friendly” Labels

The proceedings against Tchibo focus on how products in its online shop and mobile app were labelled as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable,” often accompanied by green symbols such as leaf icons.

According to UOKiK, consumers were not given clear information about what those labels actually meant, how products qualified for them, or what criteria were applied. The authority also questioned the thresholds used, noting that items largely made from synthetic, fossil-fuel-derived materials could still carry “eco” labels. In some non-textile categories, products containing as little as 10 percent recycled material were reportedly presented as environmentally friendly.

A separate strand of the case concerns Cafissimo coffee capsules and claims about their recyclability. Marketing messages suggested that the capsules “return to the material cycle” after disposal, which could be understood as a universal and unconditional process. However, limitations stating that this applied only in Germany and Austria appeared only on packaging, in English and German. Polish consumers purchasing online may not have been adequately informed, particularly given that, in practice, unemptied capsules in Poland are often not recycled at all.

Zara’s “Join Life” Under Examination

Zara’s case centers on its “Join Life” section, where the brand outlines its environmental ambitions and sustainability-related initiatives.

UOKiK alleges that broad claims about renewable energy use, “zero waste,” “net zero emissions,” biodiversity protection, and alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals were presented without sufficient detail about their scope or limitations. As a result, consumers could reasonably conclude that these standards applied across Zara’s operations, or that buying Zara products directly supported those environmental outcomes.

The authority highlighted examples where slogans such as “zero waste in our own facilities” may, in Poland, have applied to only a small fraction of stores, even as similar claims were presented in general terms on the company’s website. Concerns were also raised about product cards and certification labels, which show percentages and certification abbreviations without clearly explaining how much of a product actually meets a given standard or what the certification guarantees.

Part of a Broader Crackdown

The cases against Bolt, Tchibo, and Zara are the latest in a wider series of actions by UOKiK targeting suspected greenwashing, sometimes referred to by the authority as “eco baloney.” In recent months, proceedings have also been launched against companies including Allegro, DHL, DPD, and InPost, where environmental claims were found to rely on incomplete data, apply only to limited parts of a business, or include conditions that were not clearly communicated.

UOKiK has consistently stressed that environmental marketing is not prohibited, but that it must be precise, transparent, and verifiable. When green claims become vague promises or selectively framed slogans, the authority says, they risk misleading consumers and attracting regulatory scrutiny.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.