Sustainability promises in communication and advertising are facing a transformation: With the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (EmpCo) Directive, the EU is drawing a sharp sword against greenwashing. The EmpCo Directive has been in force across the EU since March 2024 and must be transposed into national law by 2026. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular should not underestimate the scope of these new rules. The EmpCo aims to empower consumers by prohibiting misleading environmental and sustainability claims and promoting informed purchasing decisions. In the future, companies may only make “green” promises if they are clear, comprehensible, and verifiable.
We show what specific requirements the EmpCo Directive entails, how it differs from the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) and the planned Green Claims Directive, which typical errors in sustainability communication are now becoming dangerous, and, most importantly, how SMEs can now prepare their communication for the new rules.
EmpCo Policy in brief:
What is EmpCo? EU directive against misleading “Green Claims”, implemented in Germany via UWG amendments.
When does it apply? 27.09.2026
Core rules for environmental claims:
- Generic terms (‘eco-friendly’, ‘sustainable’, etc.) only permissible if clearly specified on the same medium or based on recognized excellent environmental performance/valid certification.
- Certifications/Labels only if state-approved or with a certification system & independent monitoring. Pure self-issued labels without a system: impermissible.
- ‘Climate-neutral’ product claims through offsetting: prohibited. Compensation may only be communicated transparently as a commitment – without attributing neutrality to the product.
- Forward-looking claims (e.g., ‘climate-neutral by 2030’) only with a published, detailed plan (measurable interim targets, resources), regular independent external audits and accessible results.
- No ‘cherry-picking’: Overall statements only if they apply to the whole; otherwise, clearly state the relevant part (e.g., ‘packaging’).
- Planned obsolescence practices prohibited: e.g., false durability claims, illusory repairability, premature replacement prompts, misleading update statements.
- Irrelevant benefits/obvious facts (e.g., legal obligations as a USP) are considered unfair.
What companies should do now:
- Claim inventory: collect all environmental claims, check specification on the same medium.
- Secure evidence: data, studies, certificates; if necessary, external verification.
- Adjust wording: no offsetting neutrality, name relevant parts.
- Label strategy: remove self-issued labels without a system; use recognized labels.
- Establish approval process (Marketing × Sustainability × Legal) and regular reviews.
1. Purpose: Empowering Consumers and Stopping Greenwashing
The official name of the EmpCo Directive (“Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition”) already reveals its goal: Consumers are to be empowered to make more sustainable purchasing decisions and protected from misleading environmental advertising. The EmpCo is part of the EU Green Deal and responds to a market flooded with vague and hardly verifiable sustainability claims (Green Claims) as well as homemade eco-labels. New transparency and information obligations aim to build trust and “practices that hinder sustainable consumption” are to be stopped.
In short: The EU wants to make real ecological progress visible and consistently penalize corporate “greenwashing” as well as “social washing”. For companies, this initially means – in addition to CSRD, ESRS, CSDDD and co. – even more regulation, but ultimately also fairer competitive conditions and more credibility in sustainability communication.
2. Strict Requirements for Green Claims: What the EmpCo Policy Regulates
The EmpCo Directive introduces specific prohibitions and obligations for environmental advertising claims that go beyond existing unfair competition law. These regulatory requirements will be implemented in Germany primarily through amendments to the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG). Here is an overview of the most important new rules:
2.1 Prohibition of Vague Environmental Terms
General keywords such as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘environmentally sound’, ‘green’, ‘ecological’, ‘climate-friendly’, ‘environmentally compatible’, ‘CO₂-neutral’ or ‘biodegradable’ may no longer be used without comment from the entry into force of EmpCo. Such blanket claims are only permissible if either a recognized excellent environmental performance within the meaning of the directive exists or the statement is clearly and explicitly specified (e.g., directly on the product packaging).
Example: A mere “sustainable” on packaging will be prohibited unless it can be proven that the product is exceptionally environmentally friendly. Thus, not every green phrase is automatically prohibited, but it is only allowed if its substantive content is immediately recognizable to consumers and scientifically substantiated.
2.2 Obligation to Substantiate Environmental Claims
In the future, sustainability claims must be supported by robust evidence. This means companies need hard data, facts, and, if applicable, certificates to substantiate their green claims. The EmpCo Directive mandates a uniform definition of terms: An “environmental claim” is any voluntary statement in communication – whether text, image, label, brand, or company name – that expresses or implies that a product, brand, or the company as a whole has positive or reduced environmental impacts. Such statements must not be misleading. Specifically, the essential characteristics of a product, about which no deception is allowed, now also include everything relevant to sustainability – from composition to “ecological or social characteristics” to “circularity aspects” such as durability, reparability, or recyclability. In short: Anyone advertising with green promises must be able to substantiate them completely and truthfully, otherwise there is a risk of misleading consumers in the sense of the UWG.
2.3 "Cherry-Picking" is Prohibited
It is expressly prohibited to make an environmental claim about a product or the entire company if it actually applies only to a partial aspect. This practice, such as highlighting individual positive environmental attributes while ignoring the rest, is a common greenwashing trick (keyword: “cherry-picking”).
Example: A manufacturer heavily advertises their item as “made with recycled material,” even though only the packaging actually consists of recycled material. This will be impermissible in the future. Companies may not deceive consumers with clever partial truths about a product’s overall environmental profile.
2.4 No Own Eco-Labels Without Genuine Certification
The flood of colorful environmental and sustainability labels will be curbed. Self-created labels by a company will be prohibited in the future, unless an independent certification system stands behind them. Self-created labels are only permissible if they are based on a certification system with independent monitoring; without such a system or without state regulation, their application is per se impermissible. SMEs should therefore review their label strategy: self-praise labels must either be replaced by genuine certifications or abolished.
2.5 No Climate Neutrality Claims Through Offsetting
The EmpCo Directive makes it clear that CO₂ offsetting is not a free pass for climate promises. Advertising that a product is “climate-neutral,” “CO₂-neutral,” or even “climate-positive” will be per se unfair in the future if it relies solely on offsets. Companies may therefore no longer create the impression that their products have no climate impact simply because emissions have been retrospectively offset through certificates. Such statements are only permissible if the product’s entire life cycle has actually been designed to be climate-neutral, which is difficult to achieve in reality. This prohibition forces companies to focus more on actual emission avoidance and reduction, rather than relying solely on offsetting measures.
2.6 Stricter Requirements for Future-Oriented Claims
Future-related environmental claims such as ‘climate-neutral by 2030’ or ‘100% plastic-free by 2025’ are considered misleading according to the new UWG draft, if made without a clear, objective, and verifiable implementation plan. Companies communicating climate-related goals or similar future promises must in the future disclose a detailed roadmap with measurable interim targets, which is regularly audited by independent experts. Otherwise, such announcements are impermissible. This change aims to prevent empty PR promises and ensure that statements about future sustainability performance are genuine and verifiable.
2.7 Transparency in Durability and Reparability
The EmpCo Directive also extends consumer protection to product information on longevity. In the future, companies may only make durability claims (e.g., “lasts 20 years”) if these are truly realistic and verifiable under normal conditions of use. A promise like “Our washing machine can handle 5,000 wash cycles” would be impermissible if this performance was only achieved in the laboratory.
The same applies to reparability claims: Advertising a product as “repair-friendly” is prohibited if it falls short in reality, for example, because spare parts are not available or special tools would be required. The directive aims to protect consumers from false expectations and reward genuine product longevity.
Manufacturers must also proactively indicate how long updates (e.g., for software) will be offered and what repair options the products provide. This information should be provided clearly visible, e.g., on packaging.
2.8 No Artificial Shortening of Service Life
A practical detail of the EmpCo rules: It will be prohibited to urge consumers to replace unnecessarily early consumables. For example, well-known cases where printers demand ink cartridge replacement very early, even though ink is still present, will be considered an unfair practice in the future. Such tricks, intended to lead to more waste and revenue, contradict the idea of sustainability and will be prohibited. Companies must therefore check their products and instructions to see if they encourage wasteful replacement anywhere.
2.9 Irrelevant Benefits & "Obvious Facts"
Some “green” statements sound good, but they don’t provide real added value to customers or merely describe what is already legally required. Precisely this will be considered unfair in the future. Typical examples include “X-free” claims when X is already prohibited, or highlighting minimum standards as a special feature. Common examples: “CFC-free” for sprays/aerosols (forbidden for years) or “Cruelty-free” for cosmetics in the EU (not allowed anyway).
Conclusion of these new requirements
The EmpCo Directive and its implementation in the UWG compel companies to examine every green advertising promise for honesty and relevance. Anyone who continues to advertise with vague eco-messages or self-invented labels risks warnings, fines, and a massive loss of customer trust from 2026 onwards.
The good news, however, is: Sustainable advertising remains possible, provided it is transparent, specific, and truthful. Companies can and should continue to highlight environmental benefits, but without greenwashing, and instead with verifiable facts.
3. EmpCo Directive vs. UWG vs. Green Claims Directive: How Do the Laws Interact?
Many companies are wondering how the EmpCo Directive fits into the existing regulatory framework, especially in relation to the German Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG) and the separately planned Green Claims Directive (GCD) of the EU.
In short: EmpCo and UWG merge, the Green Claims Directive completes the picture (if it comes).
3.1 UWG and EmpCo
Even under the current UWG, environmental advertising claims are impermissible if they are misleading or withhold essential information. Until now, lawsuits against greenwashing were mostly based on the UWG. For example, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled that the term “climate-neutral” as a product characteristic must be explained concretely and unambiguously so as not to mislead.
The EmpCo Directive now explicitly specifies these general principles of fair competition for sustainability claims. It will be transposed into German law by March 2026 – specifically through amendments to the UWG. The federal government’s draft bill has finally been presented since early September 2025. In practice, this means: The UWG will in the future contain defined terms (e.g., “environmental claim,” “general environmental claim,” “sustainability label”) and an expanded “black list” of unfair commercial practices, in which the prohibitions described above (vague claims, own labels, etc.) are enshrined.
EmpCo and UWG thus work hand in hand: The UWG already provides the framework (misleading information and information obligations), and the EmpCo rules specifically tailor this framework to sustainability communication.
3.2 EmpCo vs. Green Claims Directive
At first glance, the EmpCo Directive and the planned Green Claims Directive are similar: both aim for more reliable environmental information and less greenwashing. The decisive difference lies in the approach. The EmpCo Directive focuses on prohibitions and general information obligations, while the Green Claims Directive (GCD) specifically provides detailed requirements for voluntary environmental claims.
The EmpCo Directive has already been adopted and must be transposed into national law by March 27, 2026, becoming binding from September 2026. The GCD, however, as of 2025, is still in the legislative process and could even be completely scrapped.
Content: EmpCo prohibits, for example, vague terms, self-made labels, and compensation claims and extends the UWG with corresponding clauses. It also obliges companies to provide certain sustainability information easily accessible in advertising (e.g., durability statements on the product). The GCD, on the other hand, would have primarily introduced that every voluntary environmental claim must be preceded by a standardized pre-assessment by independent bodies, including life cycle analyses and a uniform verification methodology.
It can be said: EmpCo sets the broad framework (what may no longer be said and what information must be disclosed), while the GCD was intended to delve deep into the how of substantiation (i.e., how a permissible green claim is to be scientifically supported).
3.3 Complementary Rather Than Redundant
The EmpCo Directive and the GCD pursue the same goal through different paths. If the GCD were to come as planned, it would complement the EmpCo by establishing an EU-wide uniform verification system for the specific green claims that are still permitted. However, should the GCD fail or be delayed (as is currently foreseeable), the EmpCo alone will remain decisive.
For companies, this means: Regardless of the GCD, they must adapt to the EmpCo. Even without mandatory pre-certification (which the GCD had foreseen), from 2026 onwards: No more vague or misleading claims, but rather sound data, transparent criteria, and, if in doubt, external confirmations. Anyone who relies on continuing with soft eco-phrases risks legal consequences, even if the Green Claims Directive never comes. The EmpCo alone already ensures that greenwashing can become expensive in the future. With or without the GCD: Companies will need robust evidence for their sustainability claims – and preferably sooner rather than later.
4. Examples of Permissible vs. Impermissible Advertising Claims
For a better understanding of which green claims will be allowed in the future and which will not, here are some example pairs:
-
Inadmissible: Blanket terms such as “environmentally friendly” or “sustainable” without further context.
Admissible: Concrete, verifiable statements, e.g., “produced with 100% green electricity” or “consists of 68% renewable raw materials”. (The specific figures and facts make the difference!) -
Inadmissible: “Made from recycled material” – if this statement applies only to a part (e.g., the packaging) and not to the entire product.
Admissible: “Packaging consists of 100% recycled material.” Here it is made clear which part of the product is meant, without creating the false impression that the entire product consists of recycled material. -
Inadmissible: “Product X is climate-neutral,” if neutrality is achieved solely through the purchase of CO₂ certificates.
Admissible: “Company X offsets all emissions generated during the production of Product X through certified climate protection projects.” Here, transparent information is provided about offsetting measures, without labeling the product itself as “climate-neutral”. (The product is not presented as emission-free, but climate efforts are communicated factually.) -
Inadmissible: “We will be climate-neutral by 2030” as a mere announcement without a plan.
Admissible: “We aim to become climate-neutral by 2030 and follow a publicly accessible climate plan with annual progress reviews.” Here, the future promise is backed by concrete commitments and transparency, as required by EmpCo.
Of course, every advertisement is individual. In case of doubt, companies should seek expert advice on whether a specific statement complies with the EmpCo. However, the examples above illustrate the basic logic. Generally, the more concrete, truthful, and verifiable a sustainability claim, the more likely it is to be permissible. Crude or misleading claims, however, have no future.
5. Recommendations for SMEs
For small and medium-sized enterprises, the EmpCo directive may initially seem like another hurdle. However, with timely preparation, the transition can be mastered, and companies can even benefit by gaining customer trust. SMEs, in particular, should now address the following steps:
5.1 Inventory of all sustainability statements
Get an overview of wherever your company advertises with environmental or sustainability claims. Check every statement for its permissibility and verifiability. Anything vague or unsubstantiated should be revised or deleted. Scrutinize particularly frequently used keywords (“sustainable” etc.) and proprietary labels. Tip: Create a list of all statements and immediately note which evidence is available or missing.
5.2 Collect and Document Evidence
Create an “evidence folder” for each sustainability claim. It should contain everything that supports the statement: studies, technical data, certificates, test results, calculations, etc. In the future, the rule is: No Green Claim without robust evidence. Ensure that these documents are up-to-date, complete, and, if necessary, publicly presentable. Where gaps still exist (e.g., there is a vague sustainability promise but no concrete proof), decide whether you can specify and conduct follow-up measurements/tests for the statement or if it should be removed. Also plan to involve independent third parties where it is mandatory or sensible: External expert opinions or certifications significantly increase credibility and are sometimes required by the EmpCo.
5.3 Adapt Communication Materials
Start early to update packaging designs, package inserts, online product pages, etc., so that transparent information about lifespan and service can be provided by 2026. Avoid imprints like ‘durable’ without explanation; instead, a ‘Durability and Warranty’ field can be added, for example, where specific years or usage cycles are indicated. Similarly for repairs: State whether spare parts are available and for how long. Important for already produced goods: Check whether old stock with problematic claims is in circulation, and if necessary, plan for transitional stickers or inserts to ensure legal certainty until new packaging material is available.
5.4 Clarify Internal Responsibilities and Processes
Make sustainability communication a top priority for the team. Green claims should no longer arise spontaneously in the marketing department without being checked. Establish an approval process, ideally involving marketing, sustainability officers, and the legal department or external legal experts. Determine who technically reviews new environmental claims (e.g., data validation by sustainability managers) and who legally approves them. Train the marketing team on the EmpCo requirements so that only permissible formulations are consciously chosen during content creation. If necessary, set up an internal guideline for green communication that summarizes do’s and don’ts (incl. a word list “avoid vs. desired”). This ensures that everyone in the company speaks the same language – one that both convinces customers and withstands legal scrutiny.
5.5 Reconsider Label and Brand Strategy
Check which sustainability seals or logos are currently being used. Own creations without a certification system with independent monitoring should be immediately abolished or replaced. Look early for recognized alternatives that fit the product and comply with EmpCo. Perhaps it is worthwhile to strive for a certification according to an established standard (e.g., organic seal, Blue Angel, B Corp, CSE, etc.) to continue advertising with a seal – but then on a robust basis. Also, brand names and logos with green connotations need to be scrutinized: If the company name or product name has an environmental reference (e.g., “Eco” in the name), you should assess whether this could be considered a general environmental statement. If necessary, an explanation in communication is needed or – in the long term – a rebranding should be considered if the name creates false expectations. Also keep an eye on legal developments: If the Green Claims Directive surprisingly does come, further tightening (e.g., official claim reviews) might have to be planned.
5.6 Realign Climate Strategy
Use the upcoming ban on offsetting claims as an opportunity to become truly more sustainable. Reduce the CO₂ footprint at the source and communicate concrete emission reduction targets and successes instead of vague neutrality promises. A company that discloses “We have reduced our CO₂ emissions by 40% since 2019” and explains how it achieved this is seen more positively by consumers than one that merely calls itself “neutral” through certificates. While the EmpCo forces more honest communication, it also rewards those who can demonstrate real progress. Therefore, start now to collect climate data and implement emission reduction measures. Then, by 2026, the company can tell stories that are both compliant and convincing. Climate neutrality remains a desirable goal; one only needs to fill it with substance (e.g., with a science-based climate target, validated by external experts).
5.7 Don't Wait, Act Now
Even though the new rules are only supposed to fully apply from September 27, 2026, hesitation is not a good idea. Transition periods are not foreseen. And now, courts, competition associations, and consumers are already looking more critically at green claims; the first wave of warnings has partly already begun (environmental associations like the DUH increasingly contacted companies in 2025 due to questionable eco-advertising). It’s better to act proactively: Adapt communication early to the new standards; then the company will be on the safe side when the EmpCo directive comes into force. Moreover, this already strengthens credibility today. While the EmpCo will only come legally in 2026, factually informed customers already expect transparency and honesty. Those who show early that they voluntarily comply with tomorrow’s rules can positively distinguish themselves from the competition.
6. Conclusion: Set the Course Now for Honest Sustainability Advertising
The EmpCo directive will fundamentally change sustainability communication for the better. Greenwashing will be significantly more difficult and sanctioned in the future. At the same time, consumers will receive more reliable information to distinguish truly sustainable offers from merely seemingly sustainable ones. For companies – especially SMEs – this initially means adjustment efforts, but in the long term also equal opportunities and trust. Those who report honestly and precisely about their environmental performance do not have to fear the new rules; on the contrary, they will have an advantage over black sheep.
Our recommendation is therefore: Don’t wait until 2026 to clean up all green claims of the company. Use the time to sharpen brand messages, achieve real sustainability progress, and communicate them clearly and with evidence. This way, the company not only avoids legal risks and possible fines, but also strengthens the trust of customers and business partners in the brand. Communicating sustainability is not a minefield if one adheres to a few basic rules: Truth, Clarity, Relevance. The EmpCo directive provides the new regulatory framework for this. Companies must fill it with credible content. Then it’s: Green advertising yes, but without greenwashing!
