Marc, 46
The Unconvinced Pragmatist
"All the eco-talk? It's not why I choose a sofa."
EXAMPLE · FURNITURE, SWEDEN
45% OF HIS SEGMENT: NO GREEN CLAIM IMPROVES THEIR VIEW
A 23-second explainer · no sound
EU EmpCo Directive · Applies 27 September 2026
Your green claims are about to be judged. Meet the jury first.
SBI Claims Check screens your sustainability claims against the Silicon Panel — four AI consumers built from 16 years of real Nordic survey data — then proves the survivors with real fieldwork. Before the market and the regulator do it for you.
T-MINUS — : — : — until the average-consumer test applies
0 years of data
0 respondents / year
0+ brands
0+ industries
0 markets
Not a legal question. An empirical one.
From 27 September 2026, generic claims like "green" or "climate friendly" are banned without proven excellence. Offset-based "climate neutral" claims are banned outright. Everything else is judged by one test: does the claim mislead the average consumer? Lawyers can tell you what is banned. They cannot tell you how consumers actually read your claim — and that is the standard that will be applied. Fines reach 4% of annual turnover. Silence isn't safe either: greenhushing surrenders positions your competitors will claim.
4%
of turnover, maximum fine
27 Sept 2026
the test applies
<3/5
consumer trust in sustainability communication, and falling
The Silicon Panel
Four consumers. Sixteen years of evidence. Zero patience for a weak claim.
Every screened claim faces four synthetic consumers — each one grounded in what real respondents in your market and industry require, reward and reject. They don't score your claim. They react to it, segment by segment, in plain words.
Anna, 47
The Mainstream Expecter
"I don't read reports. But treat staff badly and I'm gone."
EXAMPLE · FURNITURE, SWEDEN
43%: DECENT WORKING CONDITIONS ARE NON-NEGOTIABLE
Miriam, 47
The Critical Examiner
"Certified by whom? Show me."
EXAMPLE · FURNITURE, SWEDEN
31%: NO TRANSPARENCY, NO PURCHASE
Kim, 42
The All-In Idealist
"One visible failure outweighs ten good deeds."
EXAMPLE · FURNITURE, SWEDEN
ONLY 4% SAY NOTHING IS A MUST
The panel is rebuilt for your industry and market from the same data — so Marc in furniture is not Marc in banking.
Common questions.
How it works
Screen. Test. Monitor.
01 · SCREEN — €4,900
Up to 10 claims through the Silicon Panel. Who accepts, who rejects, and why — with greenwashing-risk flags and repositioning advice. 1–2 weeks.
02 · TEST — €9,900 / market
Your exact wordings, ~1,000 real consumers per market. Comprehension, trust, misleading-ness — a documented evidence file for the average-consumer standard. 4 weeks.
03 · MONITOR — €15,000 / year
Standing panel access to pre-screen claims year-round, one fieldwork wave per year, and credibility tracking in your industry.
| Compare | 01 · SCREEN €4,900 | 02 · TEST €9,900 / market | 03 · MONITOR €15,000 / year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claims covered | Up to 10 | Your exact wordings | Unlimited pre-screening |
| Consumers | 4 AI personas | ~1,000 / market | Panel + 1 wave / year |
| Output | Risk flags + repositioning advice | Legal-grade evidence file | Year-round access + tracking |
| Turnaround | 1–2 weeks | ~4 weeks | 12 months |
| Best for | Fast screening | Substantiation | Ongoing governance |
Silicon screens. Humans substantiate.
The panel flags what the data cannot answer — and routes it to real fieldwork. Only real consumers can form the evidence the average-consumer standard demands. That honesty is the product.
Coming in phase 2: run a claim past the panel yourself.
[ SAMPLE READOUT · CLAIMS SCREEN · 1 OF 10 CLAIMS ]
One claim, through the panel.
An excerpt from a real screening in the Swedish dairy category, anonymised. Every percentage is computed from Sustainable Brand Index survey data — the personas react, the data decides.
The claim as submitted
“Eco-smart cap made from renewable material.”
ON-PACK CLAIM · DAIRY · SWEDEN · SCREENED AGAINST 2025–26 DATA, N=2,182
Step 1 — Decomposition
“…cap made from renewable material”
Verifiable factSpecific and checkable. Maps to sustainable packaging — a must-have for 21% of Swedish dairy consumers, though the category is ruled by animal welfare (61%) and locally produced (57%). A safe claim fighting for attention on the #13 concern.
“Eco-smart…”
Generic benefit claimSmart how — compared to what? Generic environmental terms fall under the EmpCo Directive's ban unless proven excellence backs them, and they are judged by what the average consumer understands. Renewable does not automatically mean lower footprint.
Step 2 — The panel reacts
Marc, 46
EGO · PRAGMATIST
23% OF MARKET
“An eco-smart cap? It's a cap.” The claim neither wins nor loses him — but if the new cap pours worse, he'll remember that, not the material.
PACKAGING A MUST-HAVE: 10%“NOTHING IMPROVES MY VIEW”: 22%CAP USABILITY: OFF-DATA
Anna, 47
MODERATE · MAINSTREAM
33% OF MARKET
“Fine — they're doing something.” Mildly positive, low intensity. “Eco-smart” washes over her as background noise; the renewable fact quietly registers as effort.
PACKAGING A MUST-HAVE: 22%WANTS MORE OF IT: 22%
Miriam, 47
SMART · EXAMINER
16% OF MARKET
“Smart how? Which material? What did it improve?” The risk center. An unquantified “eco-smart” reads to her segment as greenwash — she would accept the fact with a number attached.
PACKAGING A MUST-HAVE: 29%CLIMATE ACTION A MUST-HAVE: 29%
Kim, 42
DEDICATED · IDEALIST
4% OF MARKET · SMALL BASE
“Better material, good. Less packaging, better.” The most demanding segment — and the only one that actively rewards packaging moves. She'd still rather see reduction than substitution.
PACKAGING A MUST-HAVE: 41%REWARDS PACKAGING ACTION: 12%
Step 3 — The verdict
AVERAGE CONSUMER VERDICT · AMBER
Keep the fact. Drop the adjective.
Weighted across all segments, the factual half of the claim is safe and mildly positive: sustainable packaging is a must-have for roughly one in five Swedish dairy consumers, and the screened brand already holds above-average credit in this territory (checked against a category average of 9% — brand lookup redacted in this sample). The exposure sits entirely in one word. “Eco-smart” promises a benefit the average consumer cannot verify and the claim does not substantiate — the exact pattern EU regulators and Nordic courts have already ruled against in this category.
Recommendation: “Cap made from renewable material” — plus the named material or a quantified benefit. The specific claim earns the same goodwill and carries none of the risk.
→ ROUTED TO CLAIMS TEST · FIELDWORK
What does “eco-smart” and “renewable” actually promise to Swedish consumers on a milk cap — do they infer a climate benefit that isn't substantiated? Term-level interpretation is not covered by the survey data, so the panel flags it instead of guessing. That question goes to ~1,000 real consumers: the evidence file for the average-consumer standard.
Silicon screens. Humans substantiate.
The panel finds the risk in 48 hours. Real fieldwork proves the survivors.
Anyone can ask an AI what consumers think.
Most synthetic-consumer tools are a chatbot in a trench coat — plausible answers with nothing underneath. Our panel is constrained by the Sustainable Brand Index: Europe's largest brand study on sustainability since 2011. When a question falls outside the data, the panel says so. Then we field the real study.
The average consumer, measured
16 years, methodologically consistent, five markets.
Beyond compliance
The same evidence shows which messages build trust and preference.
Independent
Not your agency, not your certifier. Our data has no stake in the answer.
Send us your three most important claims.
We'll show you — free, in 30 minutes — how they sit in your industry's data today.
Erik Elvingsson Hedén · Sustainable Brand Index