Back in late 2023, the ACCC published its greenwashing internet sweep findings: 57% of businesses reviewed were making potentially misleading environmental claims. At the time, a lot of organisations treated that as a warning shot. Something to note, maybe review a few marketing brochures, and then move on.

Two years later, the landscape looks very different. Both the ACCC and ASIC have moved from warnings to enforcement, and the consequences are real. If your organisation is making sustainability claims---whether you’re a listed company, a social enterprise, or a nonprofit with ESG reporting obligations---this matters.

The ACCC’s Enforcement Record

The ACCC has brought enforcement actions across energy, consumer goods, automotive, and financial services. The penalties have escalated: multi-million dollar fines, court-enforceable undertakings, and mandatory compliance programs that run for years.

What’s changed isn’t just the frequency. It’s the specificity. Early cases focused on obviously false claims---companies slapping “100% green” labels on products with no basis. Recent cases target subtler conduct: selective disclosure, misleading carbon neutrality claims built on poor-quality offsets, and sustainability language that sounds reassuring but means nothing concrete.

The ACCC is also being proactive now, scanning marketing materials, websites, and social media rather than waiting for complaints. Their compliance priorities for 2025-26 explicitly list environmental claims as a focus area.

ASIC Steps Into ESG Territory

The bigger shift has been ASIC’s involvement. While the ACCC focuses on consumer-facing marketing, ASIC is concerned with what companies tell investors. Since mandatory climate-related financial disclosures came into effect for large entities in Australia, the stakes have risen considerably.

ASIC targets fund managers and listed companies making sustainability claims in investment documents and annual reports. Several fund managers have been caught out---funds marketed as fossil-fuel-free that held indirect exposures, or ESG funds with screening criteria so loose they excluded almost nothing.

For the social impact sector, this matters because impact investors, DGR-endorsed charities, and social enterprises are increasingly expected to report on ESG metrics. The standards applied to listed companies inevitably trickle down, particularly for organisations seeking institutional investment or government procurement contracts.

Three Things That Genuinely Changed

The evidentiary bar is higher. Regulators expect specific, quantifiable, current evidence. “We’re committed to sustainability” is no longer safe marketing copy---it’s an enforcement target if you can’t explain what it means in concrete terms.

Carbon offset claims are under serious scrutiny. Claims of carbon neutrality that rely on offsets now face questions about integrity, additionality, and permanence. Several enforcement actions have targeted organisations whose claims rested on offsets later found to be low quality or poorly verified.

Data verification is becoming expected. Regulators are asking how organisations verify their environmental data. Self-reported figures without independent verification are treated with scepticism. Some organisations are now working with AI consultants in Sydney and other specialists to build automated systems that track and verify ESG metrics in real time, rather than relying on annual manual audits prone to error and cherry-picking.

What This Means for Social Enterprises and Nonprofits

Social enterprises and nonprofits might assume this is a big-company problem. That assumption is risky.

If your organisation makes environmental claims in grant applications, impact reports, or marketing materials, those claims are subject to Australian Consumer Law. The ACCC has been clear that its guidance applies regardless of size or sector. For organisations receiving government funding tied to environmental outcomes, agencies are starting to verify rather than take applicants at their word.

The practical steps are straightforward.

Audit your claims. Identify every environmental or sustainability claim across your materials. For each one: can you prove it? Is the evidence current?

Drop vague language. Replace “sustainable” and “eco-friendly” with specific, verifiable statements. “We diverted 85% of our operational waste from landfill in FY2025” is a claim. “We’re committed to environmental sustainability” is not.

Keep records. Document the data, methodology, and sources behind every claim. When a regulator, grant assessor, or journalist asks for proof, you need to respond quickly and completely.

Update regularly. Environmental claims based on outdated data are a common enforcement trigger. If your last lifecycle assessment was three years ago, it’s time for a new one.

The Bigger Picture

There’s a tension worth naming. Many organisations genuinely want to communicate their environmental performance but worry that the crackdown will make them too cautious---that they’ll stop talking about sustainability altogether rather than risk getting it wrong.

That would be a poor outcome. The point of enforcement isn’t to stop environmental communication. It’s to make it honest. Organisations doing good work should talk about it. They just need to talk about it accurately.

The regulators have been clear: make claims you can back up, be specific, and keep your evidence current. For organisations genuinely doing the work, that shouldn’t be a problem. For those coasting on aspirational language, the window has closed.