Directive (EU) 2024/825 (empco): What Advertisers Must Stop Saying Now, Compliance Guide to Green Claims (applies 27 Sep 2026)

Introduction, a quick summary for advertisers

Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition is one of the EU’s most significant reforms of environmental advertising rules in a generation. Formally the Directive on empowering consumers for the green transition (the “EmpCo Directive”), Directive (EU) 2024/825 amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive to tackle greenwashing, misleading environmental claims and premature obsolescence. Member States must transpose it into national law by 27 March 2026, and the new rules apply from 27 September 2026. For any business that markets to EU consumers, the practical message is simple: certain claims must be reviewed now, and the compliance work should already be under way.

According to the European Commission’s FAQ on empowering consumers for the green transition, the Directive targets common greenwashing techniques, vague sustainability language, unsubstantiated carbon-neutral claims and self-invented eco-labels. This guide explains, in plain language, what advertisers must stop saying, what they may still say and how to say it, and the concrete steps marketing and legal teams should take before the application date.

Timeline, transposition and application dates under Directive (EU) 2024/825

Summary: Two dates matter. National transposition is due by 27 March 2026; the rules apply from 27 September 2026.

The EmpCo Directive was published in the Official Journal and entered into force in 2024. From that point, the compliance clock has been running against two milestones set out in the Directive text:

• 27 March 2026, transposition deadline. Member States must adopt and publish the national laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by this date.
• 27 September 2026, application date. Those national measures apply from this date. Commercial practices carried out on or after this date must comply.

The distinction between transposition and application gives advertisers a short but valuable window. During the first half of 2026, national implementing acts will begin to appear, revealing the precise wording each Member State adopts. By the September application date, however, there is no further grace period, advertising, packaging and product pages must already be compliant.

The practical consequences apply across sales channels. A generic environmental claim printed on packaging placed on the market before the application date may still need review, because the claim continues to be communicated to consumers at the point of sale. Online, the same claim on a product page is a live commercial communication that must comply from 27 September 2026. Advertisers running long lead-time campaigns, print catalogues or seasonal packaging runs should therefore treat the timeline as tighter than the headline dates suggest, and build compliant copy into artwork and content now.

Legal basis and interaction with existing law (UCPD)

Summary: The EmpCo Directive works by amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC), not by replacing it.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 is not a standalone code. It operates by amending two established consumer-protection instruments, principally the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Directive 2005/29/EC, the “UCPD”) and, to a lesser degree, the Consumer Rights Directive (Directive 2011/83/EU). This matters because the enforcement architecture of the UCPD, the general prohibition on misleading actions and omissions, the “blacklist” of practices that are unfair in all circumstances, and the national enforcement bodies, is carried over and extended to environmental claims.

Among the key changes, the Directive amends Article 6(1) UCPD so that misleading environmental characteristics and claims are expressly caught as misleading actions. It also expands the UCPD annex, the list of commercial practices that are always considered unfair, to include specific greenwashing behaviours. The effect is that certain environmental claims move from a case-by-case assessment to an outright ban: they are prohibited regardless of whether the trader can show they were, in some narrow sense, accurate.

For counsel, the practical takeaway is that existing UCPD case law and national enforcement practice remain relevant and provide the interpretive backbone for the new rules. For marketers, the takeaway is blunter: a claim that appears on the expanded blacklist cannot be rescued by disclaimers or footnotes.

Banned claims under Directive (EU) 2024/825, concrete list and examples

Summary: Generic sustainability claims, offset-based carbon-neutral claims, vague footprint claims and self-invented sustainability labels are the core targets.

The heart of the reform is a set of prohibited or heavily restricted claim categories. The Commission FAQ on empowering consumers for the green transition sets out the rationale for each, and the Directive text supplies the enforceable prohibitions. Below is a practitioner-oriented breakdown, followed by a comparison table marketers can use directly.

Generic environmental claims and “sustainable” language

Generic environmental claims, words such as “sustainable”, “green”, “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly” or “conscious”, are prohibited where the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. The problem the Directive addresses is that these words convey a broad, vague benefit that most consumers read as an overall endorsement, while the trader may have improved only one narrow aspect of the product.

The consequence is significant. A brand cannot label a product “sustainable” simply because it uses some recycled content or because one input has a lower footprint. To use a generic claim at all, the excellent environmental performance must be recognised, for instance through the EU Ecolabel or an equivalent officially recognised scheme. Absent that, the generic word must be removed or replaced with a specific, substantiated statement.

Carbon-neutral, climate-positive and net-zero claims based on offsetting

Perhaps the most commercially disruptive change concerns climate claims. The Directive prohibits claims that a product is “carbon neutral”, “climate neutral”, “climate positive” or “net-zero” where those claims are based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions rather than on genuine reductions in the product’s own lifecycle emissions. According to the Commission FAQ, claims that rely on offsetting to assert a neutral or positive climate impact can mislead consumers because the offset does not reduce the product’s actual footprint.

This does not mean businesses cannot invest in carbon-reduction or offset programmes. It means they cannot translate offsetting into a headline neutrality claim on the product. A phrase such as “carbon neutral thanks to certified offsets” is precisely the type of statement that must stop.

Vague footprint and future-performance claims

Vague quantitative or comparative footprint claims, “low carbon”, “reduced impact”, “planet-friendly”, are restricted where the boundary, baseline and methodology are unclear. Similarly, environmental claims about future performance (for example, a pledge to be “climate neutral by 2035”) are restricted unless they are supported by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments and an implementation plan, including independent monitoring.

Unverified labels, self-declared endorsements and unproven attributes

Displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme and not established by public authorities is prohibited. This directly targets self-invented logos and in-house “eco” badges that give the impression of third-party endorsement without any independent basis. Equally, attribute claims such as “biodegradable” or “100% renewable” that cannot be substantiated to a recognised standard fall foul of the misleading-actions prohibition.

Sample “stop saying” list for marketing teams

• “Sustainable”, “eco”, “green”, “eco-friendly”, used generically without recognised excellent performance.
• “Carbon neutral”, “climate neutral”, “climate positive”, “net-zero”, based on offsetting.
• “Planet-friendly”, “kind to the environment”, “low impact”, without a defined, verifiable basis.
• Self-created “eco” or “green” logos and badges not backed by a certification scheme.
• “Biodegradable”, “compostable”, “100% renewable”, where unproven or unqualified.

Verification and third-party monitoring requirements

Summary: Sustainability labels and comparative claims must rest on independent verification and ongoing monitoring, not self-declaration.

A recurring theme across the Directive is that credibility must come from outside the business. The Commission FAQ makes clear that sustainability labels must be based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities, and that certification schemes should be subject to third-party monitoring. Self-declared claims and one-off audits carried out by the trader itself will generally not satisfy the requirements.

What counts as adequate verification turns on independence and continuity:

• Independence. The body assessing the claim or label should be independent of the trader that benefits from it. In-house sign-off, or an assessment commissioned and controlled entirely by the marketer, does not provide the objectivity the Directive seeks.
• Ongoing monitoring. Compliance must be checked over time, not confirmed once and then assumed to persist. A certification scheme should include recurring surveillance of the products or businesses it certifies.
• Transparency. The criteria behind a label and the evidence behind a comparative claim should be objective, publicly available and capable of being checked.

Steps to verify a certification before relying on it in advertising: confirm the scheme is operated or recognised by a public authority or an established independent standard; check that certification involves external assessment against published criteria; confirm recurring surveillance rather than a single audit; and retain the certificate, scope and expiry documentation in the claim file. Where a supplier provides the certification, obtain the underlying evidence rather than accepting a logo at face value.

Point-of-sale and online notice obligations, legal guarantee and consumer information

Summary: Traders face clearer obligations to inform consumers about the legal guarantee of conformity and to substantiate environmental claims at the point of sale.

Beyond restricting claims, the Directive strengthens the information consumers receive before they buy. Amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive expand pre-contractual information duties, including clearer communication about the existence and duration of the legal guarantee of conformity that consumers already enjoy under EU law. The aim is to ensure consumers are aware of their existing repair and replacement rights, which supports the wider objective of durability and reduced obsolescence.

For online sellers, environmental claims and required disclosures should be presented clearly on the product page, close to the price and add-to-basket area, rather than buried in linked terms. In physical retail, equivalent information should be visible at the point of sale.

The following short sample wording can be adapted for an e-commerce product page and should always be reviewed against the final national implementing law:

“You benefit from a legal guarantee of conformity for this product under EU consumer law. If the product does not conform to the contract, you are entitled to a remedy, such as repair or replacement, free of charge. This is in addition to any commercial warranty.”

Where an environmental claim is made, pair it with an accessible, specific substantiation, for example: “This claim relates only to the packaging and is based on [scheme/standard]. Full details available here.”

Enforcement, penalties and likely private claims

Summary: Enforcement runs through the existing UCPD framework, national authorities, sanctions and consumer redress.

Because the EmpCo Directive amends the UCPD, it plugs into that Directive’s enforcement machinery. National consumer-protection and market-surveillance authorities are responsible for supervision and can order the cessation of infringing practices. The UCPD framework requires Member States to provide penalties that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, which in practice includes fines and corrective measures. The precise penalty levels are set by each Member State’s implementing law.

Advertisers should anticipate several enforcement routes operating in parallel:

• Regulatory action. Authorities may require an infringing claim to be withdrawn and impose penalties; in cross-border cases, cooperation between national authorities (including through the Consumer Protection Cooperation network) can amplify exposure.
• Corrective advertising. Authorities may require publication of corrective statements to undo the misleading impression created.
• Self-regulatory complaints. National advertising self-regulatory bodies frequently adjudicate green-claim complaints quickly and publicly, creating reputational risk even where formal fines do not follow.
• Consumer redress. The UCPD framework provides for consumer remedies, and misleading environmental claims can expose businesses to individual and collective consumer actions, including representative actions under the EU Representative Actions Directive.

Greenwashing is widely expected to be an early enforcement priority once the rules apply, given the political profile of the reform and the clarity of the new blacklist. The likely practical effect is that the most visible, high-volume claims, headline neutrality claims and prominent “eco” labelling, will attract the first scrutiny.

Practical compliance roadmap for advertisers and in-house counsel

Summary: Treat compliance as a project with named owners, a claim inventory and hard internal deadlines before 27 September 2026.

The following step-by-step roadmap is designed for marketing and legal teams working together. It moves from immediate action to full readiness by the application date.

1. Build a claim inventory (immediate). Catalogue every environmental claim across packaging, product pages, ads, social media, brochures and sales scripts. Assign each to a product line and owner.
2. Screen against the banned list (immediate). Flag generic claims, offset-based neutrality claims, self-made labels and unproven attributes for removal or rework.
3. Assess the evidence (weeks 1–8). For each retained claim, confirm whether substantiation is specific, objective, current and, where required, independently verified.
4. Rework copy (weeks 4–12). Replace generic language with specific, provable statements. Retire offset-based neutrality claims entirely.
5. Fix labels and logos. Remove self-invented eco-badges; use only certified or officially recognised labels; retain certification documentation.
6. Update the legal guarantee and product information disclosures. Ensure product pages and point-of-sale materials communicate consumers’ legal guarantee rights clearly.
7. Revise contracts. Update agency briefs and supplier contracts to require substantiation, certification evidence and indemnities for non-compliant claims.
8. Establish a claim approval gate. No new environmental claim goes live without documented substantiation and sign-off.
9. Train the teams. Brief marketing, e-commerce and sales on the banned list and the approval process.
10. Monitor national transposition (ongoing to 27 March 2026). Track each relevant Member State’s implementing act and adjust wording where national rules add detail.

Sample internal audit questions to embed in the process: Does this claim tell the consumer exactly what environmental benefit is delivered and to which part of the product? Is the benefit independently verified? Does any neutrality claim rely on offsetting? Is every label backed by a certification scheme? Can we produce the evidence today if an authority asks?

Sample disclaimers, POS notice and revised marketing copy templates

Summary: Use specific, substantiated wording, and treat all templates as starting points for local legal review.

Safe alternatives to banned phrases follow the same principle: replace a vague overall endorsement with a specific, evidenced statement.

• Instead of “sustainable packaging”: “This packaging is made from 90% recycled cardboard.”
• Instead of “carbon neutral product”: “We have reduced this product’s manufacturing emissions by 35% since 2020.”
• Instead of “eco-friendly formula”: “This formula is biodegradable and certified to [standard].”

Online product-page information block (adapt and review locally):

“Environmental claim: [specific benefit]. Scope: [which part of the product]. Basis: [scheme/standard/measurement and baseline]. Legal guarantee: you benefit from the EU legal guarantee of conformity for this product; if it does not conform, you may be entitled to repair or replacement free of charge.”

These templates are jurisdiction-dependent. National implementing laws may prescribe particular wording, placement or additional disclosures, so obtain local legal review before publication.

National transposition and cross-border considerations

Summary: Expect variation between Member States; design a compliant baseline and layer national specifics on top.

Because the EmpCo Directive is a directive rather than a regulation, Member States transpose it into their own laws, and detail will vary. Differences may arise in penalty levels, the precise formulation of information duties, and the procedural routes for enforcement and redress. Some Member States may already have national greenwashing rules that interact with the new provisions.

For multi-country rollouts, the pragmatic approach is to build to the strictest common denominator: adopt claim wording and substantiation standards that satisfy the Directive in full, then adjust for any stricter or more specific national requirements as implementing acts are published. Monitoring national transposition instruments through to the 27 March 2026 deadline should be a standing task, with a mechanism to feed changes back into the claim inventory and approval gate.

Conclusion

Directive (EU) 2024/825 marks a decisive shift from voluntary caution to enforceable obligation in environmental advertising. With transposition due by 27 March 2026 and application from 27 September 2026, the window to remove banned phrases, rebuild claims on verifiable evidence and update point-of-sale information is narrow. Advertisers that act now, auditing every claim, retiring offset-based neutrality language, removing self-made labels and tightening contracts, will convert a compliance deadline into a competitive advantage in consumer trust. For a jurisdiction-specific review of your claims and national transposition detail, contact Global Law Experts to be connected with experienced Consumer & Advertising Law counsel in the relevant EU Member State.

You can also explore Consumer & Advertising Law, practice area (EU) and the GLE lawyer directory, Consumer & Advertising Law, European Union.

Sources

1. European Commission, FAQ: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo)
2. EUR-Lex, Directive (EU) 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition)
3. EUR-Lex, Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices (UCPD)
4. EUR-Lex, Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights (CRD)