On 27 September 2026, the EU’s rules on environmental claims began to apply. For marketing and communications teams, this is not a legal footnote. It changes which words they can use, what evidence has to sit behind them, and who inside the company has to check them.
The rules come from Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as EmpCo, which amends two existing consumer laws: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive. That puts greenwashing under everyday consumer protection law, where authorities can act on it directly.
A directive, not one law: where it applies
EmpCo is an EU directive, so it takes effect through national laws. The application date was 27 September 2026, but by early October only 19 of the 27 Member States had passed theirs. Germany’s rules are in force, while France is among those still working on it. Companies that sell in several countries need to check each market. Penalties are also set nationally; for widespread infringements across several EU countries, the ceiling is 4% of annual turnover in the countries concerned.
What is now restricted
According to the European Commission, EmpCo changes how companies can make environmental claims in four ways:
- Generic claims. Broad, non-specific words like “eco-friendly”, “green” or “energy efficient” are banned from packaging, digital marketing copy, meta descriptions and advertisements unless the company can show “excellent environmental performance” (the EU Ecolabel, an officially recognised national or regional ecolabel under EN ISO 14024, or top environmental performance under other EU law) relevant to the specific claim.
- Uncertified labels. In-house designed sustainability badges no longer qualify. A sustainability label on a product or webpage needs an independent certification scheme or a public authority behind it.
- Offset-based neutrality claims. A product can no longer be called “carbon neutral”, “climate positive” or “CO2 neutral” on the basis of carbon offsets, regardless of the quality of the credits. A neutral, reduced or positive claim now has to rest on the product’s own measured life-cycle emissions, backed by a life-cycle assessment. Offsetting itself is not banned, and companies can still say they fund climate projects, as long as the text does not suggest that the product is neutral. In Germany, a 2024 Federal Court of Justice ruling had only required companies to explain that a neutral claim rested on offsets; since 27 September, explaining is no longer enough.
- Unsupported future pledges. Statements such as “climate neutral by 2040” need a detailed, verifiable implementation plan with independent checking.
There is no transition period for old stock. Material that is already printed or on shelves has to comply from the first day.
Who it hits: B2C sellers vs. B2B realities
EmpCo covers claims made to consumers, so its direct targets are retailers, consumer brands, online marketplaces and energy suppliers that sell green electricity, green gas or heat tariffs to households. Marketplaces are already enforcing it: Amazon has emailed vendors asking them to remove prohibited environmental claims from their listings by 27 September, and an analysis of more than 80,000 listings found that about one in three contained claims that needed review.
Energy suppliers show where this is heading. In July 2026, a Düsseldorf court barred the supplier NEW Niederrhein Energie und Wasser from advertising fossil gas as “Ökogas”, in a case brought by Deutsche Umwelthilfe. The ruling concerns advertising from 2024 and rests on existing misleading-advertising law, not on EmpCo. But the supplier’s defence, that climate projects offset the emissions, is the kind of argument EmpCo now closes for neutrality claims, and a label such as “Ökogas” is the kind of generic claim EmpCo restricts. German trade press advises utilities to back green-power claims with guarantees of origin, the electricity mix and the period covered.
Companies that sell only to other businesses are not the direct target, but two things pull them in. Their customers ask for proof: suppliers to consumer brands, such as equipment makers, manufacturers and developers, are likely to be asked for the evidence behind what goes into those brands’ claims, and the UK regulator has already published guidance on green claims across the supply chain.
The communication view: from adjectives to evidence
The directive does not prescribe a process, but three practices make claims much easier to defend:
- A central claims register. Every public sustainability statement is logged with the exact claim, where it is used, the evidence behind it, the person who owns it and a review date. If a regulator or competitor challenges a phrase, the proof is in one place.
- A cross-functional sign-off. No sustainability claim goes live without a check by communications, legal and the person who holds the evidence, usually the sustainability lead or the product owner.
- Numbers instead of adjectives. A claim is not generic if its specifics appear clearly and prominently on the same medium, so each adjective on a website, brochure or tariff page is replaced by a verifiable fact on the same page, with the certificate or data kept on file. “Eco-friendly packaging” is risky, whereas “shipping boxes made from 85% recycled cardboard” is a specific claim. Offsets are described as a contribution (“we fund project X”), not as a property of the product.
Some teams respond by removing sustainability messaging altogether. That is understandable, but it gives up a market position. EmpCo restricts how companies speak, not whether they speak. The practical answer is more precision, not less volume.
Beyond Europe’s borders
EmpCo also reaches companies based outside the EU that make environmental claims to EU consumers, so exporters from the Gulf or Asia are in scope when they sell to European households. The UK is moving in the same direction: since April 2025 its competition regulator can fine companies directly, up to 10% of global turnover, for misleading claims. A company that sells in several markets will find it hard to keep a different standard of proof for each one, and is likely to work to the strictest.
EmpCo is not meant to stop companies talking about progress. It is meant to make every statement something they can prove. For communications teams, that moves the job from choosing words to owning evidence: knowing which claims the company can stand behind, who holds the proof, and keeping every statement within what that proof shows. Counsel decides what is legal; communications decides what gets said and how.
This article is not legal advice. Companies should check the national rules that apply to them with counsel.