By: Johannes Fiegenbaum on 4/30/24, 10:59 AM · Last updated September 4, 2026
From 27 September 2026, the EmpCo Directive changes what you may print on a pack, a tariff sheet or a landing page. Directive (EU) 2024/825 does not ask you to have claims verified in advance. It bans a defined set of them outright, offset-based carbon neutrality among them. If your compliance project is still named after the Green Claims Directive, it is aimed at the wrong act.
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of 28 February 2024 amends two existing acts: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. Its subject is empowering consumers for the green transition, which is where the short name EmpCo comes from.
The dates are fixed. Member States had to transpose it by 27 March 2026, and the rules apply from 27 September 2026. They may not weaken the provisions, so the substance is the same everywhere even where the numbering is not. Germany transposed it through the third act amending the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG), effective on the same September date.
The mechanism is what makes it bite. EmpCo introduces no approval procedure and no independent verifier. It extends Annex I of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the blacklist of practices considered unfair in all circumstances. For an item on that list there is no balancing of interests, no materiality test and no size threshold. What counts is whether you address consumers with an environmental claim, on a label, in an ad, in an app or on a tariff page.
An environmental claim is any voluntary statement in a commercial context attributing a positive or neutral environmental effect, or an improvement, to a product or a trader. A generic environmental claim is one made without clear and prominent specification on the same medium.
| Wording used today | Status from 27 September 2026 | Substantiated replacement |
|---|---|---|
| "Climate neutral", "CO₂ neutral", "climate positive" on an offsetting basis | Prohibited outright | State the reduction against a named baseline year, calculated to ISO 14067, and describe the offsetting programme separately from the product. |
| "Eco-friendly", "green", "sustainable" | Prohibited unless recognised excellent environmental performance is demonstrated | Name the property instead: "bottle and cap made from 87 percent recycled plastic". |
| A self-designed seal or eco logo on your own packaging | Prohibited, no certification scheme and no public authority behind it | A third-party scheme, for example an EN ISO 14024 Type I ecolabel, or the property in words with no mark. |
| "Made from 100% recycled material", with an asterisk on the back excluding cap and film | Prohibited, the claim reads as covering the whole product | "Bottle made from 100 percent recycled PET, cap and sleeve are not." |
| "Climate neutral by 2035" | Still allowed | Only with a published plan, measurable interim targets and independent monitoring. A statement of intent is not enough. |
One further per se item belongs here: a property the law already requires may not be sold as a distinctive feature. Everything else stays allowed, provided the specification sits on the same medium as the claim and you can produce the evidence behind it.
The Green Claims Directive was a separate proposal, COM/2023/166 of 22 March 2023. It would have required explicit environmental claims to be substantiated in advance, on a life cycle basis, and checked by an independent verifier before publication. On 20 June 2025 the Commission announced its intention to withdraw it, trilogue negotiations have been suspended since, and the text is neither formally withdrawn nor actively pursued. You can follow the file in the European Parliament's Legislative Train Schedule.
What has not gone away is the finding behind it. The Commission's 2020 review of environmental claims found 53 percent of them vague, misleading or unfounded and 40 percent without supporting evidence. EmpCo carries that finding into the blacklist rather than into a verification procedure. Building a 2026 claims project around a suspended proposal delays work that is already legally due.
Energy suppliers are more exposed than most sectors, because the product name is the claim. "Green electricity", "100 percent renewable", "climate-neutral gas" and "cleaner than the grid mix" are environmental claims in the meaning of the directive, and they sit on the tariff sheet rather than in a sustainability report.
Three cases separate cleanly. A tariff sold as climate neutral because the supplier retires offset certificates runs straight into the per se prohibition. A comparative claim needs a stated baseline, a stated method and a comparison that is genuinely equivalent. And a renewable claim carried only by unbundled guarantees of origin buys a paper attribute, not a physical supply, which is the electricity-market version of offsetting: the certificate is cheap precisely because it changes nothing. Where delivery is backed by a power purchase agreement or your own generation, the same sentence on the tariff sheet is defensible.
Start with the claims, not with the product range. List every environmental claim on packaging, the website, datasheets, social posts, tariff sheets and sales decks, and give each one an owner. For each claim the owner should be able to produce, on request:

Then run one sign-off route. Marketing drafts, the sustainability function checks the figure against the Scope 3 data, legal checks the wording, and nothing goes live without the file behind it.
One reaction to avoid: going quiet. Companies that do perform are already deleting claims they could defend, for fear of being challenged. From 27 September the vague claims of your competitors disappear, which makes a specific and substantiated one worth more than it was. The rule does not penalise communication about environmental performance, it penalises unsubstantiated communication.
Specific, substantiated ones. A claim naming a property, a figure, a boundary and a method stays allowed. What falls away is generic wording, self-awarded labels and neutrality claims resting on offsetting.
The transposition deadline was 27 March 2026, and the rules apply from 27 September 2026 regardless of the label your national act carries. Check the implementing act rather than the directive: Germany works through the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG).
A mark needs a certification scheme or a public authority behind it. Third-party schemes audited against EN ISO 14024, the standard for Type I ecolabels, meet that test, as do publicly established labels such as the EU Ecolabel. A logo you designed yourself does not.
Yes, with substance behind them. A claim such as climate neutral by 2035 needs a published and verifiable plan with measurable interim targets and independent monitoring. A statement of intent without a defined pathway is not sufficient.
Enforcement runs through national unfair competition and consumer protection law, so the competent authority differs by Member State. In Germany competitors and qualified associations can act directly as well. The usual first step is a warning letter with a deadline of days, and the practical cost is corrective stickers, reprints or withdrawn stock rather than the fine.
ESG and sustainability consultant based in Hamburg, specialised in VSME reporting and climate risk analysis. Has supported 300+ projects for companies and financial institutions, from mid-sized manufacturers to major banks and insurers.
More aboutGreen claims in the EU are no longer judged by intent, but by the evidence on file when someone asks. From 27 September 2026 the empowering-consumers rules of Directive (EU) ...
Read more →