Goodbye greenwashing: how the EU and COP30 are raising the bar on data transparency in 2026

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

While COP30 drives forward international agreements against climate misinformation, the message for European companies is far more concrete: the quality and traceability of environmental data will face ever closer scrutiny.

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

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

During COP30, held in Belém (Brazil) in November 2025, governments and international organisations endorsed the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change, led by UNESCO, the UN and the Government of Brazil. 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.

It is not a sanctioning instrument. It does not create new legal obligations. But it does set 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 the climate.

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 need to 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.
• Support for media and climate literacy.
• Greater institutional transparency.
• Collaboration with digital platforms to reduce the amplification of false content.

Debunking hoaxes is not enough. The goal is to strengthen the information infrastructure that underpins public debate.

The role of the European Union

The European Union and several Member States, including Spain, backed the declaration in line with their dual agenda of climate leadership and digital regulation. But beyond the international agreements, in Brussels the debate has a very concrete translation 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. 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 part of this framework to make it more manageable. Initiatives such as the Omnibus package aim to simplify how the rules are applied without removing the transparency requirement. In parallel, national rules in Spain reinforce the obligation to measure and register the carbon footprint.

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 a regulator asks for explanations, what matters is not only the final emissions figure, but being able to demonstrate where each data point comes from.

And here another growing risk appears: greenwashing.

It is not always deliberate. Sometimes it stems 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 stops being merely technical and becomes reputational.
• Consistency between the corporate narrative and verifiable metrics is key.
• Auditability becomes a mechanism of protection.

That is why, beyond formal compliance with frameworks such as the CSRD, companies need data infrastructures that guarantee accuracy and consistency. Not only to report, but to sustain their credibility in an environment where information (and disinformation) has a direct impact on the business.

Technological solutions such as Manglai, designed to structure, automate and verify environmental information, help reduce the margin of error and protect climate communication from greenwashing risks, whether intentional or not. You can explore in more depth how to communicate your decarbonisation strategy without falling into greenwashing.

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 exposed business environment, trust is built (or lost) through solid information.