The application date for the EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo / ECGT) has arrived. For companies making sustainability claims, the practical challenge is now less about the wording alone and more about whether the claim can be traced back to reliable evidence.
The countdown is over.
For months, EmpCo sat in the category of “important, but not yet urgent.” That phase has ended. National measures implementing the Directive have applied since September 27, 2026, and many Member States, including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, have already adopted or notified them. Details still differ between countries and are continuing to develop.
EmpCo tightens the rules around environmental claims, sustainability labels, future environmental commitments and certain greenhouse-gas claims. That makes it a marketing issue, but just as importantly, an operational readiness issue.
The risk is more than non-compliant wording
Not every claim is treated in the same way. A broad statement such as “environmentally friendly” is subject to a different test from a specific claim such as “30% lower product carbon footprint compared with our 2023 model.”
Some generic claims require recognized excellent sustainability performance. For example, certain product or service greenhouse-gas claims are prohibited where the claimed benefit relies on offsetting outside the product’s value chain. Future environmental performance claims need measurable targets, a realistic implementation plan, resources and independent progress verification. This means that there is no single evidence test for every sustainability claim: the required substantiation depends on the claim type, wording, scope and market in which it is used.
The practical sequence is simple: admissibility first, substantiation second, verification where required.
Evidence can make or break readiness
The first serious challenge often sits behind the claim: the evidence.
Take a statement such as “this product has a 30% lower carbon footprint.” Before that wording is published, a company needs to know what the 30% is being compared with, which lifecycle stages are included, which methodology was used and which data and assumptions support the result.
Such claims about climate and GHG emissions, recyclability, water savings, biodiversity benefits or responsible sourcing may each rely on different methodologies, datasets and system boundaries. The key question is therefore not simply whether evidence exists. It is whether the right evidence supports the exact claim being made.
Future-looking environmental claims require particular care. A company publicly promoting a target such as “net zero by 2040” must be able to support it with clear, verifiable commitments, a realistic implementation plan, measurable milestones and allocated resources. Progress must also be regularly verified by an independent third-party expert, with the findings made available to consumers.
In many organizations, the relevant information is spread across sustainability teams, product teams, supplier data, LCA models, marketing materials and legal reviews. The compliance gap can therefore appear in the evidence trail before it appears in the wording.
Why B2B companies should also pay attention
EmpCo itself is designed around business-to-consumer commercial practices. But that is not the end of the story.
The Directive is implemented through national law, and national unfair-competition frameworks can go further than the harmonized EU consumer rules.
Germany is a good example. The new EmpCo blacklist remains primarily consumer-facing, but the broader German UWG also regulates misleading commercial practices directed at other market participants. Its general misleading-practices provision now expressly refers to ecological and social characteristics and circularity aspects such as durability, repairability and recyclability. Competitors and qualified trade associations may also bring claims under the UWG [source].
Similar broader unfair competition or misleading advertising frameworks exist in other Member States. In Austria, misleading commercial practices are assessed by reference to a “market participant,” while Dutch law separately protects businesses against misleading advertising by other businesses [source].
For companies operating internationally, this makes it important to assess not only the claim itself, but also where it is communicated, which national rules apply and whether the evidence can support its intended use.
This means companies should not look only at the EU Directive. National transposition and existing national competition law matter too.
There is also a practical supply chain effect. Environmental and sustainability information often moves from suppliers to manufacturers and ultimately into consumer-facing packaging, advertising or product pages. B2B suppliers may therefore face increasing requests for traceable methodologies, clear system boundaries and evidence that downstream customers can rely on.
The result is a wider B2B2C data-readiness challenge: even if a supplier is not directly making a consumer claim, the quality of its sustainability data may determine whether its customer can make one safely.
Four actions to strengthen EmpCo readiness
Companies that are best prepared will not necessarily be those making the boldest statements. They will be the ones that can connect public claims with reliable data, technical evidence and clear ownership.
Priority 1: Review claims and assess market feasibility.
Qualitatively review existing claims and their classification, considering the wording, context and markets in which they are used. Assess admissibility under EmpCo and relevant national rules, then classify claims by risk and prioritize those requiring corrective action.
Priority 2: Test claim admissibility before substantiation.
Determine what type of claim is being made and whether the wording itself is permissible. Strong technical evidence cannot rescue a claim that the rules prohibit.
Priority 3: Build robust, claim-specific substantiation.
Depending on the claim, substantiation may draw on expertise in climate and GHG emissions such as CCFs, PCFs, Scope 3 inventories and LCAs; circularity and resource use such as EPDs, recyclability and circular-product assessments; water such as water footprints and water-saving evidence; biodiversity and nature such as impact and hotspot assessments; and social or human-rights topics where relevant. The evidence should always match the scope and wording of the claim.
For example, a claim that a product has a lower carbon footprint may require a comparable baseline, clearly defined lifecycle boundaries and reliable emissions data. A claim about water savings would need different criteria, including how water use is measured, the relevant location and the conditions under which the savings occur.
This is where topic-specific expertise matters. Rather than applying the same checklist to every claim, companies need evidence criteria that reflect the environmental or social characteristic being communicated.
Priority 4: Establish clear claims governance and verification readiness.
Establish clear responsibilities, approval workflows, documentation and periodic reviews across Sustainability, Product, Marketing and Legal. A structured process helps ensure that future claims remain accurate and defensible. Where independent verification is required or appropriate, companies should also prepare a traceable evidence package for an external reviewer.
The real work starts with the evidence
EmpCo is now in application, and national enforcement frameworks are taking shape. For companies, this moves the topic from regulatory preparation to practical implementation.
The immediate task is to understand which claims are already in market, which national rules apply and whether the supporting evidence is strong enough.
Many companies already have the technical building blocks: lifecycle assessments, product and corporate carbon footprints, EPDs, transition plans, water or biodiversity assessments, supplier information and other sustainability data. The next step is to connect those assets to a structured claims process.
Under EmpCo and national laws that implement it, a strong environmental and sustainability claim is not simply one that sounds credible. It is one the company can explain, trace and defend.
Sources:Â Directive (EU) 2024/825 | European Commission Q&A on ECGT / EmpCo
