EU Commission publishes FAQ on the Empowering Consumers Directive – Some clarity and remaining open questions

The EU Commission has published a “Question & Answers” document regarding the Empowering Consumers Directive (“EmpCo”). EmpCo amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (“UCPD”) and must be implemented by member states by 27 March 2026. We have previously summarised the new rules introduced by EmpCo here.

In this article, we highlight the most important answers of the Commission FAQ, and outline some of the questions that still remain:

1.  When will EmpCo apply and is there an exception for older communication, marketing and goods?
2. Will EmpCo apply to B2B?
3. What is the status of national implementation of EmpCo, and have member states gone beyond EmpCo?
4. Who can own a sustainability label?
5. Are trademarks which contain environmental claims exempt?
6. When is an environmental claim considered generic and how can it be used?
7. Can limited space on a packaging justify a shorter specification?
8. How can I use generic environmental claims without specification?
9. What is a sustainability label?
10. How can future environmental performance claims be made?
11. When can carbon neutrality claims be made?
12. Is the Commission FAQ binding?
13. Is there any news on the Draft Green Claims Directive?

1. When will EmpCo apply and is there an exception for older communication, marketing and goods?

Member states must apply the new rules as of 27 September 2026. EmpCo does not allow for any further delay and makes no exception for marketing communication or packaging produced or placed on the market before that date. While industry associations have asked for a so-called “grandfather rule” in an open letter, the EU has so far denied any extension.

The Commission states in the FAQ (see question 18) that companies could use “stickers” or additional information at the point of sale. While well-intentioned, these suggestions do not align with practical and legal realities: stickering is complex and expensive. Additional information may be helpful for future environmental performance claims (such as: we will be net zero by 2050) but cannot justify any packaging that contains unlawful sustainability labels or generic environmental claims.

2. Will EmpCo apply to B2B?

As per the Commission FAQ (see question 1), EmpCo is strictly limited to B2C:

The Directive is strictly limited to B2C practices. Business-to-business (B2B) commercial practices fall outside its scope. […] Corporate sustainability reporting, such as annual sustainability reports or disclosures required under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), is typically not in scope of the UCPD/ECGT Directive, because these reports are often mandatory and addressed to investors, rather than being part of B2C commercial practices. However, if a company uses information from its sustainability report in voluntary advertising or marketing directed at consumers, such communication falls under the UCPD/ECGT Directive, for example, if it constitutes an environmental claim concerning the product or the company in general.

This guidance should be considered carefully, as there are many exceptions:

• Corporate Communication: Corporate communication, such as corporate websites, is often a mix of B2B, B2C and sometimes B2E (business-to-employee) communication. Both B2C and B2E communication are in scope of EmpCo. While it remains a case-by-case assessment, when in doubt, corporate websites are more likely than not to also address consumers. If a parallel consumer-facing website links back to the corporate website for information on ESG efforts, it is likely in scope. However, even without such a link, many of the corporate websites do address the consumers and aim to generally promote the corporate brand.
• B2B in scope under national law: While EmpCo does not apply directly in B2B situations, member states are free to apply the rules of EmpCo either directly or use them as guidance under their national laws. In some member states, such as Germany, Italy and Denmark, existing laws have in the past been used to combat alleged greenwashing in B2B communication. For those member states, it seems likely that (parts of) EmpCo will be applied in B2B as well, or that the more general rules of the UCPD will continue to apply to B2B.

3. What is the status of national implementation of EmpCo, and have member states gone beyond EmpCo?

We are monitoring the status of national implementations of EmpCo in our Empowering Consumers Directive Tracker. As of now, member states have not gone beyond EmpCo. They have refrained from so-called “gold-plating”, meaning further tightening of the already strict rules.

4. Who can own a sustainability label?

Perhaps surprisingly, the Commission FAQ clarifies that companies can own sustainability labels and use them themselves (see Commission FAQ, question 8).

It is not prohibited that the scheme owner and the trader (displaying the sustainability label) is the same entity, as long as the certification scheme is compliant with the requirements mentioned above, including its openness under transparent, fair and non-discriminatory terms to all traders willing and able to comply with the scheme’s requirements. Likewise, it is not prohibited for the scheme owner and the trader to be independent from each other. In other words, the relationship between the scheme owner and the trader is not explicitly stipulated in the definition provided by the ECGT Directive.

Previously, many expected that a three-party system would be required, clearly separating between label owner, label user, and label verifier. Companies can therefore operate, own and use a sustainability label, as long as it is based on a certification scheme (most importantly, it must be open to competitors) and verified by an independent third party.

Some international standards may allow for label owner and label verifier to be the same legal entity, as long as impartiality within that entity is ensured. The Commission FAQ denies that such a system would be in line with EmpCo:

Even if there were certain international standards that might allow for the scheme owner and third party to be the same, compliance with the provisions of the ECGT Directive can only be achieved if the scheme owner and the third party are legally separated, i.e. there are two different legal entities

5. Are trademarks which contain environmental claims exempt?

No – Any trademark that consists of or contains environmental claims (such as “Green …”) must also comply with EmpCo (see Commission FAQ, question 3). We recommend reviewing any trademark that could be seen as containing an environmental or social claim.

6. When is an environmental claim considered generic and how can it be used?

The EU Commission FAQ (see question 4) aims to bring more clarity on the definition of generic environmental claims but does not provide much more substance. As per EmpCo, a generic environmental claim is defined as:

any environmental claim made in written or oral form, including through audiovisual media, that is not included on a sustainability label and where the specification of the claim is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium

Recital 9 of EmpCo then provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, such as “green”, “eco-friendly”, and others. Recital 10 continues to outline that terms such as “sustainable”, “responsible” and “conscious” are not only considered generic environmental claims, but also refer to social aspects, which requires traders to consider social aspects as well when using such claims.

The Commission FAQ continues to quote the Recital 9 of EmpCo:

Whenever the specification of the environmental claim is provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium, such as the same advertising spot, the product’s packaging or online selling interface, the environmental claim is not considered to be a generic environmental claim. 

For example, the claim ‘climate-friendly packaging’ (without further specifications) is considered a generic environmental claim and would be subject to the prohibition on such claims unless it is based on recognised excellent environmental performance. In contrast, a claim like ‘100% of energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources’ would be considered a specific environmental claim and does not fall under the prohibition on generic environmental claims

Reading the definition of a “generic environmental claim” and the explanation on “specification”, EmpCo can be interpreted to mean that companies can use terms that would be considered generic (such as “responsible”), as long as a detailed explanation is provided on the same medium. However, the example provided by the Commission is unhelpful: The EU aims to explain “the specification of the environmental claim” and then – in the example – changes the claim from “climate-friendly packaging” to a completely different claim (100% of energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources). Switching the claim to a different claim is not “the specification of the environmental claim”. The Commission FAQ lacks any further clarity in this regard.

7. Can limited space on a packaging justify a shorter specification?

The Commission FAQ notes that a lack of space (for example on packaging) is no justification for a shortened specification (question 4):

If there is no space to specify the environmental claim, then the claim should generally not be made

8. How can I use generic environmental claims without specification?

To use generic environmental claims without specification, so-called recognised excellent environmental performance is required. This is a very high bar, requiring exceptional environmental performance in line with EU law or EN ISO 14024 type I ecolabelling schemes. The Commission FAQ provides further guidance in question 7 by citing, inter alia, the EU Ecolabel, the Nordic Swan, the German Blue Angel, the Austrian Ecolabel or the Dutch Ecolabel (Milieukeur).

The Commission continues that such justification must of course be relevant to the claim and continues to provide examples: The EU Ecolabel can, for example, justify the use of “better for the environment”, “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “ecological” or “eco-friendly”.

9. What is a sustainability label?

The new rules on “sustainability labels” have led to much uncertainty. The definition of “sustainability labels” is broad and could potentially cover text and any imagery. The Commission FAQ states in that regard:

When designing packaging artwork, companies should be mindful that certain visual elements, such as green leaves, water drops, or similar nature-related icons, may be interpreted by consumers as implicit environmental claims, that in combination with a claim made in written form or with a logo, depending on the context and presentation, could be subject to the requirements of the ECGT Directive, such as related to generic environmental claims or sustainability labels.

Overall, traders should exercise caution when using icons, symbols, images, or artwork that could be perceived as (implicit) environmental claims or trust marks. For example, a green leaf or water drop, when combined with logos or positioned next to statements about sustainability or natural ingredients, may be seen by the average consumer as a voluntary trust mark or quality mark.

In short, leaves or water drops combined with text risk being treated as a sustainability label. This seems to be a very broad interpretation, putting many other visuals at risk. The Commission FAQ continues that this is a case-by-case assessment, based on the subjective consumer perception. For the time being, we recommend avoiding such visuals until case law brings clarity.

Lastly, the Commission FAQ notes that sustainability labels established by public authorities are only lawful if such public authorities are EU-based. Sustainability labels established by non-EU public authorities may not be lawfully used in the EU (see question 17).

10. How can future environmental performance claims be made?

EmpCo introduces new rules for “future environmental performance claims”, such as net zero claims. Such claims must be 

supported by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments and targets given by the trader and set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that shows how those commitments and targets will be achieved and that allocates resources to that end.

The Commission FAQ continues to explain in line with EmpCo (in question 12) that “the claims” must be verified by an independent expert:

The verification process must ensure that the expert is capable of monitoring the trader’s progress towards environmental commitments and targets. The Directive does not prescribe a specific verification methodology, but the expert must be able to provide credible, objective, and regular assessments. The trader is responsible for ensuring that the chosen expert fulfils all requirements set out in the Directive, particularly regarding independence and competence

While EmpCo requires "regular" monitoring, the Commission FAQ allows the interval to be set based on the nature of the commitments and specific circumstances. Best practices would suggest annual or biennial reviews, or additional verification if significant changes occur. The results of the verification must be made available to the consumer. The Commission FAQ states that a QR code can be sufficient, as long as the information is easily accessible.

11. When can carbon neutrality claims be made?

EmpCo bans carbon neutrality claims based on offsetting. The Commission FAQ states that such claims are only allowed if they are based on actual lifecycle impact within the product’s value chain (question 6).

12. Is the Commission FAQ binding?

No. The Commission FAQ is not binding and only contains “preliminary views” of the European Commission. Courts and authorities may ignore it. However, such FAQs are often used by courts and authorities to interpret ambiguous language of Directives, and it is exceptionally rare for decisions to be contrary to the FAQs.

13. Is there any news on the Draft Green Claims Directive?

No. The Commission FAQ does not mention the Draft Green Claims Directive. The EU failed to create a majority for the draft, and it seems likely that it will be abandoned.

For further clarification on irrelevant benefits, comparative advertising and practical tips on organic and vegan claims, please see the further details of the Commission FAQ.

To help companies better prepare for EmpCo, we offer our Green Claims AI Scanner, which allows for automated review of websites.