Goodbye Greenwashing: How the EU and COP30 Are Raising the Bar for Data Transparency in 2026

Are your emissions data robust enough to withstand an audit in 2026?

While COP30 pushes forward international agreements to tackle climate misinformation, the message for European companies is far more concrete. The quality and traceability of environmental data will face increasing scrutiny.

In a context of new sustainability reporting regulations and growing oversight of greenwashing, being unable to justify where each CO₂ data point comes from can quickly become both a regulatory and reputational risk.

‍

COP30 opened a new climate front: the battle for information integrity

During COP30, governments and international organisations endorsed the Declaration on the Integrity of Information on Climate Change, promoted by UNESCO. The text recognises that the manipulation of scientific data, coordinated disinformation campaigns and narratives that distort the impacts of global warming represent a structural risk for climate action.

This is not a sanctioning instrument. It does not create new legal obligations. However, it establishes a clear political framework: protecting the information ecosystem is part of the global climate architecture.

The initiative is part of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, a programme designed to strengthen transparency, scientific evidence and accountability in public communication about climate issues.

‍

Why disinformation has become a strategic problem

Climate disinformation has evolved. Today it does not always deny global warming outright; instead, it often shifts the debate towards more subtle narratives:

• Selective exaggeration of the costs of the transition
• Distortion of scientific studies
• Systematic questioning of experts
• Presenting climate policies as economic threats

The effect is cumulative. Polarisation increases, social support fragments and political decisions become more fragile. At a time when countries must accelerate the implementation of their climate commitments, that fragility has real consequences.

‍

What the declaration proposes

The declaration adopted within the COP30 framework aims to strengthen several fronts:

• Active promotion of information based on scientific evidence
• Protection of journalists, researchers and science communicators
• Promotion of media and climate literacy
• Greater institutional transparency
• Collaboration with digital platforms to reduce the amplification of false content

It is not enough to debunk misinformation. The goal is to strengthen the information infrastructure that supports public debate.

‍

The role of the European Union

The European Union backed the declaration in line with its dual agenda of climate leadership and digital regulation. But beyond international agreements, the debate in Brussels has a very concrete implication for companies: the quality of the climate data they report.

In 2026, thousands of European companies are already reporting environmental information under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), using the ESRS standards. This means that data such as CO₂ emissions, climate risks, or transition plans must be properly documented and ready to be verified.

At the same time, the European Commission is reviewing parts of this framework to make it more manageable. Initiatives such as the Omnibus package aim to simplify the application of the rules without removing the requirement for transparency. In parallel, national regulations such as Spain’s Royal Decree 214/2025 reinforce the obligation to measure and register carbon footprints.

‍

What this means for companies

All of this has a clear consequence for companies. Environmental data is no longer just a matter of communication or reputation; it is part of regulatory compliance. And when an auditor or regulator asks for explanations, what matters is not only the final emissions figure, but being able to show where each data point comes from.

And this is where another growing risk appears: greenwashing.

It is not always deliberate. Sometimes it arises from incomplete metrics, weak estimates or marketing messages that oversimplify complex realities. But in a context of amplified disinformation, any inconsistency can erode the trust of investors, customers and regulators.

In this scenario:

• Data traceability becomes not only technical but reputational
• Consistency between corporate narrative and verifiable metrics is essential
• Auditability becomes a mechanism of protection

For this reason, beyond formal compliance with frameworks such as the CSRD, companies need data infrastructures that ensure precision and consistency — not only to report, but to sustain credibility in an environment where information (and disinformation) directly affects business.

Technological solutions such as Manglai, designed to structure, automate and verify environmental data, help reduce margins of error and protect climate communication from greenwashing risks, whether intentional or not.

The ecological transition is technological, financial and regulatory. But it is also informational. In 2026, protecting the integrity of data has become a new front in global climate policy. And in an increasingly regulated and scrutinised business environment, trust is built — or lost — through solid information.

‍