The AFM urges financial firms to enhance transparency and accuracy in their sustainability statements, signalling a shift from guidance to enforcement in 2026 to combat misleading claims.
The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has signalled a sharpened enforcement posture on sustainability claims by financial firms, warning that supervisory scrutiny this year will move beyond guidance and into tangible action where statements fall short. According to the AFM, market participants must tighten the precision and transparency of their sustainability messaging or risk regulatory measures during 2026.
The regulator’s assessment of 43 claims from 20 banks, insurers, investment firms and pension providers found that many assertions lack sufficient clarity or evidential grounding. Vague language and broad promises, for example, statements that express general support for sustainability or refer to investments “taking society into account”, frequently fail to explain what is being promised, how it is achieved, or what outcomes are intended. The AFM says such formulations can create unrealistic expectations for clients and other stakeholders.
To help firms make improvements, the AFM has set out four priority areas. Firms should: ensure claims accurately reflect activities and results and are representative of the product or institution; clearly define what a claim means in practical terms for the entity or product; make supporting evidence readily accessible to consumers rather than burying it deep in lengthy documents or behind multiple clicks; and supply explicit explanations for assertions about climate neutrality, ESG ratings and impact. The AFM also emphasises that impact claims should be reserved for cases where there is an additional, intentional and measurable effect, and that both positive and negative consequences must be communicated honestly.
The watchdog highlights persistent problems with substantiation: in many instances the material intended to back up sustainability statements is either absent, hard to locate or remote from the consumer-facing claim. The AFM does note, however, that many firms are taking steps to improve their communications.
European supervisory bodies have been moving in the same direction. According to the European Securities and Markets Authority, it published four principles to help investment firms avoid unclear or misleading sustainability messaging, accompanied by thematic notes on ESG credentials and ESG strategies. The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority has issued equivalent principles for insurers and pension schemes, while the European Banking Authority’s final report on greenwashing sets out general standards that echo those priorities.
Beneath the AFM’s practical checklist sits an implicit demand for cultural change: sustainability claims must be verifiable, contextualised and presented in a way that does not overstate either present performance or future promises. For market participants, that means reworking wording, improving signposting to evidence, and, where necessary, refraining from making claims that cannot be credibly supported.
The AFM has warned that it will repeat its review of claim quality during 2026 and that enforcement tools will be used against entities that persistently fail to meet the regulator’s principles for fair sustainability communication. The guidance therefore represents both a roadmap for compliance and a clear signal that supervisory tolerance for ambiguous or unsupported sustainability statements is diminishing.
- https://www.blenheim.nl/en/blog/stricter-afm-supervision-of-sustainability-claims-brings-enforcement-closer/ – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.afm.nl/en/sector/actueel/2026/jan/sb-esg-update-3 – The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified four key areas for improvement in sustainability claims: ensuring accuracy and representativeness, specifying the meaning of claims for market participants or products, making substantiation easily accessible, and providing necessary explanations for claims related to climate neutrality, ESG ratings, and impact. The AFM expects market participants to refine their sustainability claims to comply with these guidelines, with enforcement actions anticipated in 2026 for those failing to adhere to the principles of fair sustainability claims.
- https://www.afm.nl/en/sector/actueel/2026/jan/sb-esg-update-3 – The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified four key areas for improvement in sustainability claims: ensuring accuracy and representativeness, specifying the meaning of claims for market participants or products, making substantiation easily accessible, and providing necessary explanations for claims related to climate neutrality, ESG ratings, and impact. The AFM expects market participants to refine their sustainability claims to comply with these guidelines, with enforcement actions anticipated in 2026 for those failing to adhere to the principles of fair sustainability claims.
- https://www.afm.nl/en/sector/actueel/2026/jan/sb-esg-update-3 – The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified four key areas for improvement in sustainability claims: ensuring accuracy and representativeness, specifying the meaning of claims for market participants or products, making substantiation easily accessible, and providing necessary explanations for claims related to climate neutrality, ESG ratings, and impact. The AFM expects market participants to refine their sustainability claims to comply with these guidelines, with enforcement actions anticipated in 2026 for those failing to adhere to the principles of fair sustainability claims.
- https://www.afm.nl/en/sector/actueel/2026/jan/sb-esg-update-3 – The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified four key areas for improvement in sustainability claims: ensuring accuracy and representativeness, specifying the meaning of claims for market participants or products, making substantiation easily accessible, and providing necessary explanations for claims related to climate neutrality, ESG ratings, and impact. The AFM expects market participants to refine their sustainability claims to comply with these guidelines, with enforcement actions anticipated in 2026 for those failing to adhere to the principles of fair sustainability claims.
- https://www.afm.nl/en/sector/actueel/2026/jan/sb-esg-update-3 – The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified four key areas for improvement in sustainability claims: ensuring accuracy and representativeness, specifying the meaning of claims for market participants or products, making substantiation easily accessible, and providing necessary explanations for claims related to climate neutrality, ESG ratings, and impact. The AFM expects market participants to refine their sustainability claims to comply with these guidelines, with enforcement actions anticipated in 2026 for those failing to adhere to the principles of fair sustainability claims.
- https://www.afm.nl/en/sector/actueel/2026/jan/sb-esg-update-3 – The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) has identified four key areas for improvement in sustainability claims: ensuring accuracy and representativeness, specifying the meaning of claims for market participants or products, making substantiation easily accessible, and providing necessary explanations for claims related to climate neutrality, ESG ratings, and impact. The AFM expects market participants to refine their sustainability claims to comply with these guidelines, with enforcement actions anticipated in 2026 for those failing to adhere to the principles of fair sustainability claims.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article was published on 12 February 2026, making it current. However, the content closely mirrors information from the AFM’s recent publications, such as the ‘Fair sustainability claims: what does the AFM expect’ report dated 6 February 2026 ([afm.nl](https://www.afm.nl/~/profmedia/files/rapporten/2026/fair-sustainability-claims-what-does-the-afm-expect-from-you.pdf?utm_source=openai)). This raises concerns about originality and potential recycling of content. Additionally, the article is hosted on Blenheim’s website, which may indicate a press release or promotional material, potentially affecting the freshness score.
Quotes check
Score:
6
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from the AFM’s recent publications. However, these quotes cannot be independently verified through other sources, as they appear to be exclusive to the AFM’s reports. This lack of external verification raises concerns about the authenticity and originality of the quotes.
Source reliability
Score:
5
Notes:
The article originates from Blenheim, a law firm, which may have a vested interest in the content. The reliance on AFM’s publications without independent verification from other reputable news organisations or sources further diminishes the reliability of the information presented.
Plausibility check
Score:
7
Notes:
The claims about the AFM’s increased scrutiny of sustainability claims align with the regulator’s recent emphasis on transparency and accuracy in sustainability reporting. However, the lack of independent verification and the potential recycling of content from AFM’s publications raise questions about the novelty and depth of the information presented.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): FAIL
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article presents information that closely mirrors the AFM’s recent publications without independent verification from other reputable sources. The reliance on a single source and the potential recycling of content raise significant concerns about the originality, accuracy, and reliability of the information. Given these issues, the content does not meet the necessary standards for publication under our editorial guidelines.