Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition

EmpCo, Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition, is an EU directive that protects consumers from misleading environmental claims and greenwashing. It amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC (UCPD) and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU. As a directive, it has no direct effect. Member states transpose it into national law. Germany does so through the Third UWG Amendment Act (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 43).

Any company that communicates environmental or sustainability claims to consumers, whether in advertising, on packaging, on its website, or in sustainability reports addressed to end consumers, is affected. Purely B2B communication does not fall within the scope of the UCPD. Mixed-audience situations require a case-by-case assessment.

The directive entered into force at EU level in 2024. The relevant date is the transposition deadline set by the directive itself: 27 September 2026. From this date, authorities and competitors in every member state can take action against non-compliant environmental claims on the basis of the respective national implementing law. In Germany, this concerns the sanctions provisions of the Third UWG Amendment Act.

Core prohibitions include the newly inserted practices in the Annex, which lists commercial practices that are always unfair towards consumers:

No. 2a: making an unlawful use of a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme and has not been established by public authorities.

No. 4a: making a generic environmental claim that cannot be substantiated, where the trader is unable to demonstrate the recognized excellent environmental performance underlying it.

No. 4b: making an untrue statement about the scope of an environmental claim, where it relates only to one aspect of the product or business activity but is presented as relating to the entire product or the entire business activity.

No. 4c: making claims about environmental impact that are based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions and that state a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment.

In addition, Section 5(3) No. 4 UWG prohibits claims about future environmental performance without a clear, verifiable, and time-bound implementation plan.

The consequences differ depending on whether a single infringement is at issue or a “widespread infringement” within the meaning of EU-wide enforcement coordination.

1. Cease and desist: Under Section 8(1) UWG, an unlawful commercial act, for example an environmental claim that violates the Annex practices listed above or Section 5 UWG, gives rise to a claim for removal and, where there is a risk of repetition, an injunction. Under Section 8(3) UWG, standing belongs to: competitors, qualified trade associations, qualified consumer associations, and chambers of industry and commerce, craft organizations, and trade unions acting within their remit. Under Section 13 UWG, a cease-and-desist letter should generally be sent before litigation.
2. Damages. Under Section 9 UWG, a company that intentionally or negligently violates Section 3 or Section 7 UWG is liable to competitors for the resulting damages.
3. Interim injunctive relief. Under Section 12(1) UWG, injunction claims can be secured through expedited interim relief.
4. Fines for widespread infringement: A fine under Section 19 UWG, of up to EUR 50,000 or, for companies with annual turnover above EUR 1.25 million, up to 4% of annual turnover, capped at EUR 2 million otherwise, requires, under Section 19(1) and (3) UWG, a “widespread infringement” or “widespread infringement with a Union dimension” within the meaning of Article 3(3) or (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394. It can only be imposed as part of a coordinated enforcement action under Article 21 of that regulation, meaning it does not apply to every single misleading environmental claim by a company, but to large-scale, often cross-border patterns of infringement pursued jointly by authorities in several member states.

Under Art. 12 UCPD, courts or administrative authorities can require a trader to prove the accuracy of factual claims made in commercial communication. Combined with the amended Art. 6 and 7 UCPD, which now cover environmental claims, this means: once an environmental claim is challenged, the company must substantiate it. The authority or the competitor does not have to prove it is inaccurate. This is the legal mechanism behind EmpCo enforcement and is independent of any specific labeling regulation.

No. This is a common point of confusion. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960 has a narrowly limited scope. It establishes a harmonised label and a harmonised notice for commercial durability guarantees and statutory warranty rights. It does not cover general environmental or sustainability claims and is not the legal basis for assessing greenwashing. The substantive basis for assessing environmental claims remains the amended UCPD, specifically Art. 6 and 7; substantiation in the event of a dispute is governed by the reversal of the burden of proof under Art. 12.

“Recognized excellent environmental performance” is the legally defined standard for whether a generic environmental claim, such as “eco-friendly” or “climate neutral”, is substantiable under Annex No. 4a UWG. Under Section 2(2) No. 2 UWG, as amended, such environmental performance exists where it is consistent with: a) Regulation (EC) No. 66/2010 on the EU Ecolabel, b) national or regional ecolabelling schemes under EN ISO 14024 Type I that are officially recognized in the EU member states, or c) top environmental performance under other applicable Union law.

This is a narrow, exhaustive list. If a company cannot attribute its generic environmental claim to any of these three bases, the claim is deemed unsubstantiated under Annex No. 4a UWG and is unlawful. This definition applies to generic environmental claims about products or about the company.

Self-created sustainability labels that are not based on a certification scheme or have not been established by public authorities are unlawful under Annex No. 2a UCPD as well as UWG. What matters is whether the label is based on a certification scheme within the meaning of the statutory definition. Such a scheme must cumulatively: be open to all traders under transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory conditions; have its requirements developed in consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders; provide for procedures for dealing with non-compliance, including withdrawal or suspension of the label; and have compliance monitored through an objective procedure carried out by an independent third party. A self-invented label that does not meet these four criteria is prohibited.

Established schemes such as the EU Ecolabel (Regulation (EC) 66/2010) or national Type I ecolabels under EN ISO 14024 already meet these criteria on their own and are accordingly unproblematic. They are examples of compliant schemes, not the sole statutory standard for sustainability labels.

1. Inventory. Which environmental and sustainability claims does your company currently make in consumer-facing marketing, on packaging, and online?

2. Classification. For each claim, assess whether it is a generic claim, a comparative claim, a future-performance claim, or a label claim. The substantiation requirements differ.

3. Substantiation check. Is there documented, verifiable evidence for each claim, proportionate to the strength of the claim?

4. Remediation. Revise or withdraw claims that cannot be substantiated by 27 September 2026.

1. Content inventory. Among other things, marketing texts, packaging copy, website content, and sustainability reports addressed to consumers.

2. Claim-level detail. The exact wording of each environmental claim, its context, for example headline versus body text, and any existing substantiation or certification.

Our EmpCo Check evaluates your marketing and sustainability content on an AI basis, quickly and traceably, against the directive’s text, with a precise legal basis for every classification.

The scale of the review, often hundreds or thousands of environmental claims across marketing texts, packaging, websites, and sustainability reports, makes a complete manual, item-by-item review by 27 September 2026 barely practicable for most companies. AI-powered tools such as our “EmpCo Check AI” can automatically extract environmental claims from content and classify them systematically against the relevant provisions, providing an initial, traceable risk assessment with a legal basis for every classification.

Important for context: such a tool does not replace legal review and does not make any legally binding decision. It is an AI-powered compliance pre-check that helps companies identify risks early and set priorities for revision, before an in-depth legal assessment of individual borderline cases takes place.