Germany: How the New EU Green‑claims (empco) Rules Affect Waste, Circular Economy & Municipal Procurement

The rules governing green claims in Germany are about to change fundamentally. Directive (EU) 2024/825, the “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” (EmpCo) Directive, required Member States to transpose its provisions into national law by 27 March 2026, with full obligations taking effect on 27 September 2026. For German municipalities awarding waste-management and circular-economy contracts, and for the suppliers bidding on them, the practical consequences are immediate: every environmental marketing statement, tender specification and contract warranty that references sustainability must now be backed by verifiable evidence. This guide sets out the legal framework, the Germany-specific transposition status, and, critically, the procurement clauses, checklists and compliance steps that general counsel, procurement officers and bid managers need before the September deadline arrives.

TL;DR, What German Municipalities and Suppliers Must Do Now

With the 27 September 2026 application date approaching, the following six actions should be treated as immediate priorities. Each is explored in depth later in this article.

• Audit every environmental claim. Review all marketing materials, tender submissions and product labels for generic statements such as “eco-friendly,” “green” or “climate neutral.” Under the EmpCo Directive, these are prohibited unless substantiated by recognised, verifiable evidence.
• Amend procurement documents. Insert express warranty, evidence-disclosure and audit-rights clauses into tender specifications and framework agreements. Procuring authorities that continue to accept unsubstantiated sustainability claims risk legal challenge and reputational damage.
• Check labelling against new standards. Waste labelling legal requirements now demand that recycled-content percentages, compostability statements and “circular” branding be traceable through chain-of-custody documentation.
• Establish evidence-retention protocols. Retain all underlying scientific reports, laboratory certificates, lifecycle assessments and third-party verification records for a minimum of five years, aligning with German statutory limitation periods and procurement record-keeping norms.
• Conduct supplier due diligence. Issue pre-qualification questionnaires that require bidders to disclose the evidential basis for every environmental claim. Score responses using a verification rubric, not self-certified labels alone.
• Obtain legal review. The interaction between the EmpCo Directive, the expected amendments to Germany’s Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, UWG) and existing sector regulations (Circular Economy Act, Packaging Act) creates overlapping obligations. A specialist legal review is essential before 27 September 2026.

What Is the EmpCo Directive? Legal Basis and Scope of Green Claims in Germany

Directive (EU) 2024/825 was adopted by the European Parliament and Council to strengthen existing consumer-protection rules, primarily the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU), by adding specific prohibitions against misleading environmental claims and unverified sustainability labels. The European Commission has described the measure as a cornerstone of circular-economy policy, noting that studies found more than half of environmental claims made in the EU were vague, misleading or unfounded.

The EmpCo Directive does not stand alone. A separate, complementary proposal, the Green Claims Directive (proposed March 2023), would impose additional substantiation and pre-approval requirements. As of 13 May 2026, the Green Claims Directive has not yet been formally adopted. This article therefore focuses on Directive (EU) 2024/825, which is already in force and subject to a binding transposition and application timeline.

Key Definitions

Understanding the directive requires precision with its core terms:

• Environmental claim. Any message or representation, in commercial communications, marketing or labelling, that suggests a product, service or trader has a positive or reduced negative impact on the environment, or is less damaging than competing products or services.
• Generic environmental claim. A broad, unqualified statement such as “environmentally friendly,” “green,” “eco,” “sustainable” or “climate positive” that is not accompanied by recognised excellent environmental performance or specific, verifiable evidence.
• Sustainability label. A voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent displayed on a product or in marketing that aims to highlight environmental or social characteristics. Under EmpCo, labels based on self-certification schemes without independent, transparent verification are prohibited.

What Constitutes a “Claim”?

The scope is deliberately broad. A claim can appear in advertising copy, on product packaging, in a tender submission, on a website, in social media posts, or even on the livery of municipal waste-collection vehicles. Critically for the waste and circular-economy sector, statements about recycled content, carbon neutrality of operations, or the “circular” nature of a service model all fall within the definition. The directive covers claims made by traders, manufacturers, service providers and, by extension through public procurement rules, entities contracting with public authorities.

Green Claims Transposition Germany: Timeline and Current Status

The legislative timetable imposes three critical dates. German businesses, municipal authorities and suppliers should track each milestone carefully.

Watchlist: Germany’s UWG Amendment and Regulator Guidance

Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice (Bundesministerium der Justiz, BMJ) is responsible for drafting the national transposition legislation. As of 13 May 2026, the amendment to the UWG required to implement the EmpCo Directive has been progressing through the legislative process. Industry observers expect the final text to closely mirror the directive’s prohibitions, given that the directive is a maximum-harmonisation measure in respect of its core consumer-protection provisions.

Practitioners should monitor several items closely:

• Final UWG amendment text. The draft bill transposes the new “blacklist” of prohibited commercial practices, including generic environmental claims and unverified labels, into the UWG’s annex of per se unfair practices.
• Guidance from the Umweltbundesamt (UBA). The German Federal Environment Agency has signalled that it will publish practical guidance for businesses on substantiating environmental claims, particularly in sectors where environmental performance metrics are complex (waste, recycling, energy recovery).
• DIHK and IHK advisory notes. Germany’s chambers of industry and commerce have already flagged the compliance burden for SMEs and are expected to issue sector-specific handouts ahead of the September deadline.

What Counts as Unlawful Greenwashing Under the EmpCo Directive?

The greenwashing law Germany is about to enforce through UWG amendments targets a defined set of misleading practices. Understanding these categories is essential for anyone making, or relying upon, sustainability advertising claims in the waste and circular-economy space.

The directive adds the following to the list of commercial practices that are considered unfair in all circumstances:

• Making a generic environmental claim where the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. Terms like “eco,” “green” or “sustainable” without qualification are effectively banned unless the trader can point to verifiable evidence or a recognised certification scheme.
• Displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or not established by public authorities. Self-created “green” logos, a widespread practice in the waste-management industry, will be unlawful unless they meet the directive’s transparency and independent-verification requirements.
• Making an environmental claim about the entire product or business when the claim relates only to a specific aspect. For example, labelling a waste-collection service as “carbon neutral” when the claim covers only one depot’s electricity consumption, not the fleet emissions or disposal operations.
• Claiming climate neutrality or reduced environmental impact based solely on carbon-offset schemes without disclosing this fact prominently. This is directly relevant to waste operators and recyclers that have purchased voluntary carbon credits to support “net zero” marketing.

Examples: Waste and Recycled Material Claims

The following table illustrates how the directive’s rules apply in practice to the waste and circular-economy sector:

Evidence Standards: What Proof Is Required?

The EmpCo Directive requires that environmental claims be substantiated by “widely recognised scientific evidence,” taking into account the relevant product lifecycle stages. In practical terms, this means companies and suppliers in the waste sector must be prepared to produce:

• Lifecycle assessments (LCAs) conducted in accordance with ISO 14040/14044 or equivalent standards.
• Third-party laboratory testing results for recycled-content percentages.
• Chain-of-custody certificates from recognised schemes (e.g., EuCertPlast, RecyClass, or equivalent).
• Audited emissions data where climate-related claims are made.
• Transparent disclosure of the scope and methodology behind any comparative claim.

Sector Impacts: Waste, Circular Economy Compliance and Labelling Requirements

The EmpCo Directive does not operate in isolation from Germany’s existing regulatory infrastructure. The Circular Economy Act (Kreislaufwirtschaftsgesetz, KrWG), the Packaging Act (Verpackungsgesetz, VerpackG) and associated ordinances already impose specific waste-labelling and reporting obligations. The new anti-greenwashing compliance layer adds a market-facing dimension: it is no longer sufficient to meet regulatory reporting thresholds, every public-facing statement about environmental performance must independently withstand scrutiny.

Recycled Content Claims: Acceptable Language and Required Evidence

For recyclers and secondary raw-material suppliers, circular economy compliance now requires a fundamental shift in marketing practice. Broad claims about “recycled” or “circular” products must be replaced with precise, percentage-based statements supported by documentary proof. The directive effectively mandates that:

• Recycled-content percentages are stated with reference to a defined measurement methodology (pre-consumer vs. post-consumer, mass balance vs. physical segregation).
• Claims distinguish between input recycled content and output quality, a product made from recycled feedstock that is downcycled or energy-recovered does not support a “circular” claim in the same way as closed-loop material recycling.
• Where a claim covers only part of a product or packaging, this is disclosed explicitly (e.g., “cap made from 100% post-consumer HDPE; bottle body contains 30% recycled PET”).

Labelling for Municipal Waste Services and Collection Points

Municipal waste services routinely use environmental messaging on collection vehicles, bins, information leaflets and websites. Under the EmpCo framework, waste labelling legal requirements mean that statements such as “your green waste service” or logos implying environmental excellence must be either removed or substantiated. Municipalities that outsource waste collection and processing to private operators should ensure that contractor marketing materials and vehicle branding also comply, as the procuring authority may face reputational and legal exposure if a contractor’s claims are found to be misleading.

Municipal Procurement Sustainability: How to Change Tenders, Specifications and Supplier Checks

For German public procurement officers, the EmpCo rules create an obligation to ensure that sustainability claims made by bidders in tender submissions are verifiable. The traditional approach, awarding points for self-declared environmental credentials, is no longer legally defensible after 27 September 2026. The following step-by-step framework provides practical municipal procurement sustainability guidance.

Model Procurement Clauses: Warranties, Evidence and Audit Rights

The four model clauses below are designed for inclusion in tender documents and framework agreements for waste-management and circular-economy services. They should be adapted to the specific contract context and reviewed by procurement lawyers before use.

• Clause 1, Environmental Claims Warranty. “The Contractor warrants that every environmental claim made in connection with this contract, whether in its tender submission, marketing materials, vehicle branding, labelling or reports, is accurate, specific and substantiated by verifiable evidence in compliance with Directive (EU) 2024/825 and applicable German law (UWG, as amended). The Contractor shall not make any generic environmental claim (including but not limited to ‘eco-friendly,’ ‘green,’ ‘sustainable’ or ‘climate neutral’) unless it can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the specific claim.”
• Clause 2, Evidence Disclosure Obligation. “Upon request by the Contracting Authority, and in any event within 15 working days of written notice, the Contractor shall provide all underlying evidence supporting any environmental claim, including but not limited to: lifecycle assessments, third-party audit reports, chain-of-custody certificates, laboratory test results and emissions data. Failure to provide such evidence within the stated timeframe shall constitute a material breach of this contract.”
• Clause 3, Audit and Verification Rights. “The Contracting Authority reserves the right to conduct or commission independent audits of the Contractor’s environmental claims at intervals of not less than once per contract year. The Contractor shall provide reasonable access to relevant records, facilities and personnel for this purpose. Audit costs shall be borne by the Contracting Authority unless the audit reveals a material discrepancy, in which case costs shall be recoverable from the Contractor.”
• Clause 4, Remedies for Non-Compliance. “In the event that an environmental claim made by the Contractor is found to be unsubstantiated, misleading or in breach of applicable law, the Contracting Authority may: (a) require corrective action within 30 days; (b) withhold payment in respect of affected services until compliance is demonstrated; (c) terminate the contract for cause where the breach is material or repeated; and (d) claim damages for any loss, including reputational harm, suffered as a result of the breach.”

Due-Diligence Checklist for Bidders

Procurement officers should require bidders to complete a pre-qualification checklist covering the following items:

• Full inventory of all environmental claims made in the bid and in the bidder’s public-facing materials.
• For each claim, identification of the specific product, service or operational aspect to which the claim relates.
• Evidence type supporting each claim (LCA, laboratory certificate, third-party audit report, recognised certification scheme membership).
• Date and scope of the most recent independent verification or audit.
• Disclosure of any carbon-offset component underlying a climate-related claim.
• Confirmation that no sustainability label used is self-created or based on a scheme lacking independent, transparent governance.

Scoring Matrix for Sustainability Claims

Industry observers expect that procuring authorities will need to revise their evaluation matrices to weight verifiable environmental performance over generic sustainability promises. A defensible scoring approach might allocate points as follows:

Anti-Greenwashing Compliance Programme: What General Counsel Must Implement

Companies supplying waste and circular-economy services to German municipalities, and the municipalities themselves, need a structured anti-greenwashing compliance programme in place before 27 September 2026. The following elements represent the minimum viable framework.

• Marketing and communications review process. Establish a mandatory sign-off procedure requiring legal or compliance approval before any environmental claim is published, whether in advertising, bid documents, labelling or social media. Assign clear accountability to a named compliance officer.
• Evidence repository. Maintain a centralised, indexed repository of all evidence supporting current environmental claims. Each record should be linked to the specific claim it supports, dated and tagged with an expiry or re-verification date.
• Third-party verification schedule. For material claims, recycled-content percentages, emissions reductions, carbon-neutrality statements, commission independent verification at least annually or in line with certification-scheme renewal cycles.
• Labelling governance. Appoint a responsible person to review all product labels, vehicle livery, bin stickers and digital assets for compliance. Withdraw any self-certified sustainability logo that does not meet the directive’s requirements for independent governance and transparency.
• Staff training. Train marketing, sales, procurement and operational staff on the new rules. Focus training on practical examples relevant to the waste and circular-economy sector, using the prohibited-claims table above as a case-study tool.
• Incident-response protocol. Prepare a protocol for responding to competitor challenges, consumer complaints or regulator inquiries about environmental claims. Include document-preservation instructions, escalation procedures and external-counsel contact details.

Quick Compliance Risk Assessment

Enforcement, Liabilities and Likely Practical Enforcement of Greenwashing Law in Germany

Germany’s enforcement landscape for environmental claims is expected to be robust, drawing on the country’s well-established system of private competition-law enforcement under the UWG. Understanding the enforcement mechanisms is critical for assessing real-world risk.

Interaction with German UWG Amendments and Consumer Protection Enforcement

The primary enforcement route in Germany is likely to be civil litigation under the UWG. Competitors, qualified trade associations (Wettbewerbsvereine) and consumer-protection organisations have standing to bring injunctive proceedings against traders making misleading environmental claims. This private enforcement system has historically been highly active in Germany, far more so than administrative enforcement, and industry observers expect greenwashing claims to become a significant new category of UWG litigation after September 2026.

In addition, administrative enforcement by consumer-protection authorities at the Länder level is possible, including the imposition of fines. The Umweltbundesamt has indicated that it will play a coordinating role in monitoring compliance, although direct enforcement authority rests primarily with state-level bodies.

Early indications suggest that the following enforcement patterns are likely:

• Competitor-driven injunctions. Waste-management companies that lose tenders to competitors making unsubstantiated sustainability claims will have strong incentives to bring UWG actions, combining competitive advantage with legal remedy.
• NGO complaints. Environmental organisations, including those in the WWF coalition, have signalled readiness to file complaints and support strategic litigation against high-profile greenwashing cases.
• Reputational exposure. Court proceedings and public cease-and-desist orders create significant publicity risk, particularly for municipal suppliers whose public-sector clients face political accountability.
• Procurement-level consequences. Municipalities that discover a supplier’s environmental claims were false may pursue contract remedies (see Model Clause 4 above), terminate agreements for cause and potentially debar the supplier from future procurement processes.

Practical Checklist and Next Steps for Green Claims in Germany

The following ten-point checklist provides a phased action plan for general counsel, procurement officers and circular-economy suppliers.

Immediate (within 2 weeks):

• Conduct a rapid audit of all active environmental claims across marketing, labelling and procurement submissions.
• Identify and flag any generic claims, self-created labels or undisclosed offset-based assertions for immediate review.

Short term (1–3 months):

• Commission third-party verification for all material environmental claims (recycled content, emissions, recovery rates).
• Amend standard procurement documents to incorporate the model clauses set out above (or equivalent provisions reviewed by procurement counsel).
• Establish the evidence repository and assign compliance-officer responsibility.

Medium term (3–6 months):

• Roll out staff training on EmpCo requirements, focusing on waste-sector-specific examples.
• Update supplier pre-qualification questionnaires and evaluation matrices to reflect evidence-based scoring.
• Review and replace all self-created sustainability labels with recognised, independently certified alternatives.

Ongoing:

• Monitor publication of the final UWG amendment text and any Länder-level guidance or enforcement actions.
• Schedule annual re-verification of all environmental claims and update the evidence repository accordingly.

Conclusion

The EmpCo Directive represents the most significant tightening of green claims regulation in Germany in over a decade. With the 27 September 2026 application date now months away, the window for preparation is narrowing. Municipalities, waste operators, recyclers and circular-economy suppliers that act now, auditing claims, amending procurement documents, building evidence repositories and training staff, will be best positioned to avoid enforcement risk and maintain competitive credibility. Those that delay face litigation exposure under Germany’s vigorous private-enforcement system, contract termination by public-sector clients and reputational harm that no sustainability label can repair.

Last reviewed: 13 May 2026. This article will be updated when the final text of Germany’s UWG amendment and any supplementary regulator guidance are published.

Sources

1. European Commission, Green Claims (Circular Economy Topics)
2. Umweltbundesamt (German Federal Environment Agency), EU Adopts New Rules to Combat Greenwashing
3. DIHK (Deutsche Industrie- und Handelskammer), Stricter Rules Against Greenwashing
4. Heuking, General and Specific Environmental Claims Under the EmpCo Directive
5. Boehmert & Boehmert, The Status of Implementation of the EmpCo Directive
6. KPMG-Law, What the Green Claims Directive Means for Companies
7. IHK München, Guidance for Businesses on Green Claims
8. WWF Germany, Position Paper on Green Claims
9. IBA, ESG Litigation and Greenwashing in Germany