General and Specific Environmental Claims Under the EmpCo Directive

Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition – better known as the “Empowering Consumers” Directive or “EmpCo Directive” – brings significant changes to environmental advertising. The German government has initiated the transposition of the Directive into national law with the draft of a third law amending the UWG. The new regulations must be applied starting September 27, 2026. An additional transition period – including for products already on the market – is not currently planned. 

Although German courts have consistently taken a strict view of environmental advertising in the past – particularly regarding claims of “climate neutrality” or “CO2 offsetting” – as the confectionery manufacturer Katjes experienced in the landmark 2024 Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling, in which its advertising using the term “climate-neutral” was prohibited as misleading because the claim was not explained in a sufficiently understandable manner. 

With the aforementioned amendment to the UWG, this standard is now being further tightened and codified into specific legal provisions. 

Scope of Application and Implementation Effort

Important for practice: The new unfair competition regulations from the EmpCo Directive apply exclusively in the B2C sector, i. e., in the relationship between businesses and consumers. In B2B transactions, the previous general standards of the UWG remain in effect. Nevertheless, the scope of application is significant, as it covers all business practices – that is, any act, omission, or communication directly related to the advertising, sale, or delivery of a product to consumers. 

The implementation costs for the business sector will therefore be considerable. The draft bill estimates annual compliance costs of approximately 52 million euros, as well as one-time transition costs of approximately 355 million euros. A one-time cost of approximately 178 million euros is estimated for the review and adaptation of product information alone. Companies should therefore begin reviewing their environmental claims at an early stage.

Categories of Environmental Practices

The amendment to the UWG introduces several categories of environmental claims, each of which is subject to its own set of regulations. 
Specifically, this applies, among other things, to: 

• “general environmental claims,” which, due to a lack of specificity on the same medium, pose a particular risk of misleading consumers;
• “sustainability labels,” which in the future must be based on a certification system or be established by the government;
• “future environmental performance,” i. e., statements regarding environmental performance not yet achieved that are linked to a robust implementation plan; 
• statements regarding “offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions,” which will always be prohibited in the future when product-specific.

This article focuses on general environmental claims: 

General environmental claims – vague and high-risk

A central regulatory objective of the EmpCo Directive is so-called “general environmental claims,” whereby “general” is to be understood as “non-specific” or “vague” in contrast to “specific environmental claims.” The draft bill for the UWG amendment defines a general environmental claim as

“an environmental claim made in writing or orally, including via audiovisual media, that is not contained in a sustainability label and for which the specification of the environmental claim is not clearly and prominently stated on the same medium.”

The key point, therefore, is that the claim is either not explained at all or, in any case, not explained in more detail on the same medium.

The explanatory memorandum to the UWG amendment cites – with reference to the recitals of the EmpCo Directive – various examples of general environmental claims, such as:

• “environmentally friendly,”
• “environmentally friendly,”
• “green,”
• “nature-friendly,”
• “ecological”,
• “environmentally sound”,
• “climate-friendly”,
• “environmentally compatible,”
• “CO2-friendly”,
• “energy-efficient”,
• “biodegradable” and
• “bio-based.”

Similar phrases are also covered, provided they suggest outstanding environmental performance or create a corresponding impression. According to the legislative rationale, these are typically short, catchy terms that, taken on their own, have no verifiable meaning based on objective criteria, but are particularly memorable to consumers due to their slogan-like nature. Brand names, company names, or company logos containing environmental terms may also be classified as general environmental claims.

The regulation of such general environmental claims is particularly strict. Consequently, general environmental claims will in the future be included in the so-called “UWG blacklist,” a list of commercial practices that the legislature deems unlawful without further ado.

Accordingly, general environmental claims directed at consumers are always prohibited if the business operator cannot demonstrate an underlying so-called “recognized outstanding environmental performance.”

This somewhat cumbersome phrase, “recognized outstanding environmental performance,” is defined as follows:

“an environmental performance in accordance with

a) Regulation (EC) No. 66/2010 (EU Ecolabel),
b) national or regional environmental labeling schemes in accordance with DIN EN ISO 14024 Type I, June 2018 edition, which are officially recognized in the Member States of the European Union, or
c) environmental best practices under other applicable Union law.”

As examples, the legislative rationale specifically mentions products certified with the EU Ecolabel, the German government’s “Blue Angel” label, or the Scandinavian “Nordic Swan” label.

In practice, this means: Anyone who wishes to continue advertising with general environmental claims must be able to prove that their product lawfully bears one of the aforementioned recognized environmental labels or meets the requirements for top environmental performance under EU law. If this proof cannot be provided, the claim is unfair per se and thus risks being subject to a warning letter with costs.

“Specific environmental claims” as a panacea?

However, the strict regulation of general environmental claims by no means implies that companies will have to refrain from any environmental advertising in the future.

The draft bill offers a clear solution: the use of specified, i. e., specific environmental claims. The key distinguishing criterion between a general and a specific environmental claim is whether the specification of the claim is clearly and prominently stated on the same medium. An environmental claim that is sufficiently explained and specified on the same medium – such as on the same product packaging, in the same television or radio commercial, or on the same online sales interface – is sufficiently explained and specified does not, under the legal framework, fall under the term “general environmental claim” and is therefore not subject to the per se prohibition of the blacklist provision.

The legislative rationale illustrates this distinction with the following illustrative example from the recitals of the EmpCo Directive (see figure).

The decisive difference lies in the fact that the statement on the right has verifiable, concrete content that enables the consumer to understand the environmental aspect, the relevant stage of the life cycle, and the specific claimed effect.

The requirements regarding the degree of specificity depend on the medium. The legislative rationale explicitly clarifies that the requirements also depend on the characteristics of the medium, such as the space available on the product packaging or the time available for a commercial. Thus, a detailed scientific explanation is not required in every case—but the core message must be concretely articulated in a comprehensible manner within the same medium. Merely providing a QR code through which further information can be accessed, however, is likely to be legally problematic on a regular basis.

Yet even if a specific environmental claim is less strictly regulated than a general environmental claim, it is – unsurprisingly – still not in a legal vacuum. This is because specific environmental claims are simply subject to the general requirements of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) regarding all advertising claims: the specific environmental claim must therefore be factually accurate and must not mislead the recipient.

Finally, it is also always impermissible to make false claims regarding the scope of an environmental claim. This is the case, for example, when the claim applies only to a part of the product but is used in advertising for the entire product. In this case, a statement that would otherwise be classified as a specific environmental claim may nevertheless be impermissible in and of itself.

In addition, specific environmental claims must also comply with broader legal requirements, such as those regarding future and the prohibition of product-related CO2 offset claims.

Recommendations and Outlook

The effective date of the UWG amendment on September 27, 2026, is drawing nearer. Companies that advertise using environmental claims should promptly subject their entire product communication – from packaging and labels to online presence and advertising campaigns – to a comprehensive review and adapt it as necessary. Since no transition period is provided for products already on the market, existing products must also comply with the new requirements as of the effective date.

It is to be expected that once the new legal framework takes effect, competitors and, in particular, consumer protection organizations will strictly monitor compliance with the new regulations and issue costly warnings in cases of non-compliance.

In upcoming articles, we will take a closer look at further aspects of the EmpCo Directive – in particular, the practical requirements for sustainability labels, the new guidelines for claims regarding future environmental performance, and the implications of the ban on CO2 offset claims.