The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has issued a clear warning to banks, investors, insurers, and pension providers to significantly ameliorate the way they communicate sustainability-related information. In a move that signals tougher nonsupervisory oversight ahead, the Netherlands-grounded controller said it'll pay redundant attention to sustainability claims, ESG exposures, greenwashing, fiscal regulation, and climate impartiality claims in its administrative conditioning throughout 2026. The advertisement follows a detailed review that sets up that, despite progress, numerous claims made by fiscal institutions still warrant clarity, delicacy, and proper validation.

The AFM’s enterprises stem from a study conducted over 2024 and 2025, which assessed how fiscal request actors are applying the controller’s Guidelines on Sustainability Claims, released in 2023. While the study conceded that enterprises are decreasingly apprehensive of the guidelines and are making efforts to follow them, the controller concluded that sustainability communication across the sector remains uneven and, in several cases, potentially misleading for consumers and investors.

Background to the AFM Sustainability Claims Guidelines

The AFM introduced its sustainability claims guidelines in response to growing enterprises that environmental, social, and governance messaging in the fiscal sector was getting decreasingly vague and promotional. As sustainable finance products expanded fleetly, so did the threat that enterprises might overdo their positive impact or present picky information. The guidelines were designed to ensure that sustainability claims made by banks, insurers, investment enterprises, and pension providers are correct, clear, and not misleading.

These prospects apply to a wide range of dispatches, including product descriptions, marketing accoutrements , websites, and investor exposures. The AFM emphasized from the onset that sustainability claims should help consumers make informed opinions, not confuse them with broad or unwarranted pledges.

Findings from the 2024–2025 Review

In its rearmost assessment, the AFM stated that utmost fiscal institutions are using the guidelines as a reference point when shaping their sustainability messaging. Still, the controller linked recreating sins that undermine the trustability of these claims. One of the most prominent issues was a lack of particularity. Numerous claims were framed in general terms, making it delicate for consumers to understand what sustainability actually means in practice for a particular institution or product.

Another crucial concern was the difficulty of changing supporting information. In several cases, validation was buried deep within reports or external documents, limiting its utility to the average anthology. The AFM stressed that translucency isn't only about having data available but also about making that information easy to detect and understand.

Crucial Areas Where Enhancement Is Demanded

The controller outlined several areas where fiscal enterprises must raise their norms. Sustainability claims must be factually accurate and representative of the overall impact of a product or institution, including both positive and negative goods. The AFM advised against emphasizing minor sustainability benefits while playing down or ignoring material downsides.

The authority also stressed the need for clearer explanations. Enterprises are anticipated to explain what a claim actually means, whether it relates to an association’s operations, its investment strategy, or a specific fiscal product. Special attention was drawn to claims related to climate impartiality, ESG conditions, and impact investing, which frequently warrant sufficient environment or explanation.

Avoiding Vague and Unwarranted Messaging

The AFM advised fiscal institutions against using broad or nebulous language that creates an imprint of sustainability without substantiation. Terms similar to “green,” “responsible,” or “sustainable” shouldn't be used unless they're easily defined and supported by data. Claims that can not be substantiated should be avoided entirely.

For long-term commitments like climate impartiality, enterprises are anticipated to explain how these pretensions will be achieved, over what timeframe, and using which concrete measures. Also, when representing ESG markers or scores, institutions should clarify what these conditions represent, who provides them, and what their limitations are.

Impact Claims Under the Microscope

Impact-related claims received particular attention in the AFM’s findings. The controller stressed that enterprises should only make impact claims if there's clear substantiation of fresh, purposeful, and measurable positive issues. Simply investing in sustainable means doesn't automatically justify claims of real-world impact. According to the AFM, overdoing impact misleads investors who are seeking to align their capital with meaningful change.

Increased Supervision Planned for 2026

Looking ahead, the AFM blazoned that sustainability claims will be a crucial focus of its administrative work in 2026. This will include near monitoring of fiscal dispatches and the launch of another study to assess whether request actors have improved their practices. The controller made it clear that sustainability in the fiscal sector isn't a side issue but a strategic precedence.

In a statement, the AFM said it expects request actors to further ameliorate their sustainability claims where necessary. By strengthening oversight and setting clearer prospects, the controller aims to enhance trust in sustainable finance and ensure that consumers and investors admit information that's dependable, meaningful, and transparent.