Empowering Consumers for a Green Transition: What the EU’s new rules mean for environmental claims

Empowering Consumers for a Green Transition: What the EU’s new rules mean for environmental claims

Environmental claims are becoming a much more closely regulated part of doing business in the EU. Companies can no longer assume that terms such as “green”, “sustainable” or “climate-friendly” are simply marketing language: depending on how they are presented, they may fall within the new EU consumer-protection rules.

What is this about?

A key development is the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT). Rather than creating an entirely new green-claims regime, ECGT strengthens existing EU consumer law by amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD). Its objective is to improve consumer information and tackle misleading environmental claims, unreliable sustainability labels and other practices that can make it harder for consumers to make informed choices.

The Directive applies to all business-to-consumer (B2C) communications across sectors. It is therefore relevant not only to what companies say in advertising, but also to packaging, websites, product and brand names, labels and the overall presentation of a product. Corporate sustainability reporting on its own is generally outside of the scope, but information from a sustainability report can become relevant if it is reused in consumer-facing marketing.

What changes under ECGT?

The existing UCPD already prohibits misleading commercial practices. ECGT makes a number of greenwashing risks more explicit by introducing new definitions and specific prohibited practices. The rules apply from 27 September 2026, following the Member States’ transposition deadline of 27 March 2026. Eight Member States have not transposed the Directive as of 27 September. The European Commission has launched infringement procedures against the latecomers and the process is ongoing. The absence of transposition does not suspend the Member States’ obligations under EU law, so businesses in those countries should not assume that the absence of national transposition means the EU requirements can simply be disregarded.

1. Broad environmental claims will face greater scrutiny

One of the most important changes concerns generic environmental claims. Broad statements such as “green”, “eco-friendly” or “climate-friendly” can be problematic where they suggest an environmental benefit without explaining clearly what that benefit actually is.

Under ECGT, a generic claim can only be made where the business can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance, or where the claim is clearly specified in a prominent way on the same medium. In other words, simply adding a QR code or directing consumers to a website does not necessarily solve the problem if the headline claim itself remains vague.

The practical effect is a shift away from broad umbrella statements and towards specific, measurable claims that make clear what environmental characteristic is being discussed.

2. It is not just about the words

ECGT takes a wider view of what can constitute an environmental claim. The European Commission’s updated FAQs indicate that brand names, product names, company names, colours, symbols, packaging imagery and overall presentation can all matter where they create an environmental expectation for the average consumer.

This does not mean that every green colour or image of a leaf automatically becomes a regulated claim. The assessment is contextual: the key question is what the overall presentation is likely to communicate to the average consumer.

This means that compliance reviews increasingly need to look beyond individual marketing phrases and consider the overall consumer impression.

3. Sustainability labels will need a stronger basis

ECGT also introduces stricter rules for sustainability labels. A voluntary sustainability label must generally be based on a qualifying third-party certification scheme or established by a public authority.

Certification schemes themselves must meet a number of conditions, including independent third-party verification, independent monitoring, transparent requirements and open access. Company-owned labels relying only on external verification will not be sufficient under the new rules.

This could have implications for the many logos, badges and seals used to communicate sustainability credentials on products and in marketing.

4. Product-level “carbon neutral” claims based on offsets are prohibited

Climate-related claims are another major area of change. ECGT prohibits claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact where this is based on offsetting.

The Commission’s FAQs clarify that this is not an absolute ban on every use of terms such as “climate neutral” or “carbon neutral”. The critical distinction is whether the claim is based on offsetting rather than the product’s actual lifecycle impact and emissions footprint. Offsets or “green certificates” therefore cannot simply be used to neutralise a product’s emissions and support a broad product-level neutrality claim.

More specific claims about actual emissions reductions or defined environmental characteristics remain possible, provided they can be substantiated.

5. Promises of future environmental improvements will need evidence

Claims about future environmental performance, i.e. improvement of the environmental footprint, are also subject to new requirements. A company cannot simply announce that a product, brand or business “will be climate neutral” or achieve another environmental objective in the future.

To support such claims, there must be clear and publicly available commitments, measurable and time-bound targets, a realistic implementation plan, resources to deliver it, and regular independent verification, with findings made available to consumers.

The message is straightforward: future ambition increasingly needs to be backed by evidence of how that ambition will actually be delivered.

6. Environmental benefits that are required by law

The ECGT introduces a specific prohibition on presenting legal requirements that apply to all products in a relevant product category as a distinctive feature of a company’s offer. In other words, businesses should not present ordinary compliance with EU law as though it was a voluntary environmental benefit that sets their product apart.

This will become particularly relevant as new EU sustainability legislation starts establishing common product requirements. For example, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) requires all packaging placed on the EU market to be recyclable, with more detailed recyclability requirements being phased in from 2030 onwards. Describing packaging simply as “recyclable” communicates compliance with a legal requirement rather than a distinctive environmental benefit. Companies should therefore consider what consumers are likely to understand from such claims and whether they convey an environmental advantage beyond what is already required by law.

The situation can be different where a product exceeds the legal minimum or where a requirement applies only to some products. A specific, measurable performance claim - for example, referring to a particular recyclability performance grade or recycled-content in batteries - may potentially be used where it accurately reflects the product’s characteristics and can be substantiated.

The practical lesson is that “required by law” and “environmentally better than required” are not the same thing. As EU sustainability legislation increasingly sets common performance standards, companies will need to distinguish carefully between communicating regulatory compliance and making a voluntary environmental claim.

7. Social claims are part of the picture too

ECGT is primarily associated with environmental claims, but its scope is broader. The amended consumer rules also cover social characteristics of products and businesses, including issues such as working conditions, wages, social protection, human rights, safety, inclusion and ethical commitments.

This means that claims about positive social impacts can also be misleading if they cannot be supported.

What does this mean?

The main practical change is that reviewing environmental marketing can no longer be reduced to checking whether a particular sentence is technically accurate.

Businesses will increasingly need to ask:

What exactly does the claim mean?
What would an average consumer understand from it?
What evidence supports it?
Does the evidence relate to the product or feature actually being advertised?
Is the claim clear enough on the same medium?

That also means looking at claims across packaging, websites, advertising, product names, logos and visual identity, rather than treating each element in isolation.

A useful rule of thumb is that the more general the claim, the more difficult it may be to substantiate. A narrowly defined statement about a particular material, process or emissions reduction is generally easier to explain and evidence than a sweeping claim about a product being “better for the planet”.

Businesses will also need to consider existing products and materials. ECGT contains no general “grandfathering” provision for products already manufactured. From 27 September 2026, the new rules will also apply to environmental claims and sustainability labels on existing products and packaging.

To address practical concerns around “old stock”, the EU’s Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network agreed a Common Understanding in June 2026. It does not exempt old stock from the new rules, but aims to promote a coherent and proportionate approach to enforcement, taking into account factors such as stock volumes, production orders, packaging cycles, supply-chain constraints, shelf life and the feasibility of corrective measures.

ECGT is not the end of the story

ECGT should also be viewed alongside other EU rules on environmental claims. The proposed Green Claims Directive (GCD) is a separate initiative that was intended to introduce more detailed requirements for substantiation and verification of explicit environmental claims, although the legislative process is currently stalled with no clear timeframe for completion.

At the same time, sector-specific EU legislation can establish its own requirements for particular types of claims. ECGT therefore forms part of a wider and increasingly interconnected framework rather than operating in isolation.

Would you like to know more?

Empowering Consumers to the Green Transition

Frequently Asked Questions

CPC Common Understanding  

Reach out to Chorus experts:

Ariane de Bellefroid : [email protected]

Gabi Gregorius : [email protected]

‍