EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition: Commission updates its FAQs

The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (also known as the “EmpCo" or “ECGT” Directive) will start applying from 27 September 2026. From that date, companies must ensure that their commercial practices (including green claims and use of sustainability labels) comply with the requirements introduced by the new rules, including for products already on the market (read more in our client briefing). 

Against that backdrop, on 18 May 2026, the European Commission published an updated version of its FAQs. The first edition of that document, published in November 2025, provided the preliminary views of the Commission on the practical application of the new framework. While the updated version is, at first glance, almost identical, it provides a number of clarifications. 

The FAQs do not constitute a formal Commission position or a legally binding interpretation of EU law, and authoritative interpretation rests exclusively with the Court of Justice of the EU. 

What the Commission FAQs cover

Material scope: a B2C instrument, with room for Member States to go further

The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), and therefore the EmpCo Directive’s amendments to it, provides a harmonised framework governing business-to-consumer (B2C) commercial practices. Business-to-business (B2B) practices fall outside its scope. However, Member States are free to extend equivalent protection to B2B relations at national level. The position varies by Member State, and monitoring national implementation of the EmpCpo Directive is essential (see our transposition tracker).

Sustainability reports under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are generally out of scope. However, if a company uses information from its sustainability report in voluntary advertising or marketing directed at consumers, that communication falls under the UCPD, as amended by the EmpCo Directive.

Sustainability labels: who can operate them, and what the rules require

A company may design, own and use its own sustainability label, provided the underlying, credible certification scheme is open on transparent, fair and non-discriminatory terms to all traders willing and able to comply. 

Even if international standards in a given sector might permit the scheme owner and the third-party label verifier to be the same entity, the EmpCo Directive requires them to be legally separated, i.e. two different legal entities.

On labels established by public authorities, only EU Member State public authorities qualify. Labels established by non-EU governmental bodies will be prohibited under the blacklist unless based on a qualifying certification scheme. To qualify, the scheme’s requirements must be publicly available and developed by the scheme owner in consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders. The scheme must be open on transparent, fair, and non-discriminatory terms to all traders willing and able to comply with the scheme’s requirements. 

Monitoring of compliance must be subject to an objective procedure and carried out by a third party whose competence and independence from both the scheme owner and the trader are based on international, EU or national standards and procedures. 

In practice, this means that compliance monitoring should follow recognised standards such as ISO 17065 or the mechanisms provided for under Regulation 765/2008. 

The scheme must also set out clear procedures for dealing with non-compliance, including withdrawal or suspension of the right to use the sustainability label where a trader fails to meet the scheme's requirements.

The packaging dimension also requires particular attention. Visual elements - such as green leaves, water drops or similar nature-related icons, when combined with written claims or logos - may be treated by the Commission as implicit environmental claims or voluntary trust marks. The assessment will need to be made on a case-by-case, based on the perception of the average consumer in context. 

Generic environmental claims: specification, space and substantiation

On generic environmental claims (meaning environmental claims in written or oral form where the specification is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium), a lack of space on packaging is not a justification for a shortened specification. The only route to using generic environmental claims without specification is demonstrating recognised excellent environmental performance. 

This means performance compliant with the EU Ecolabel, national or regional EN ISO 14024 Type I ecolabelling schemes, or top performance under other applicable EUlaw. 

Products bearing the EU Ecolabel may, for example, legitimately use terms such as “environmentally friendly”, “green”, “ecological” or “eco-friendly”. However, that connection must be demonstrably linked to the specific claim made.

Future environmental performance claims: implementation plans and independent verification

Environmental claims relating to future performance are subject to specific requirements, including verification by an independent expert. 

On the question of how frequently that monitoring must occur, the FAQs do not prescribe a fixed interval: what constitutes “regular” verification is to be determined by reference to the nature of the commitments and the specific circumstances. 

Traders should accordingly calibrate their monitoring cycles to the scope and complexity of their commitments and ensure that the findings of the independent expert are made publicly accessible to consumers.

Brand names and product names: the May 2026 update

As was already clear from the previous FAQs, commercial practices implemented through brand names and product names are not excluded from the scope of the EmpCo Directive. Such names may constitute environmental claims and are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The May 2026 revision clarifies how environmental claims in brand, product, and company names are assessed. Building on the previous guidance, the update clarifies the position in three main respects:

• The assessment is contextual and free of presumption. Using terms like “green” or “blue” does not automatically constitute an environmental claim. The key consideration is whether, in the relevant commercial context, an average consumer would expect an environmental benefit.
• An objective standard is used. The test is based on the “average consumer”, defined as a person who is reasonably well-informed, observant, and circumspect. This replaces the previous, more subjective “consumer’s mind” standard and aligns the assessment with established legal doctrine and case law.
• The scope is clarified. The rules clearly apply to company names in addition to brand and product names. This means a company name that includes an environmental term may, on a case-by-case basis, have regulatory consequences for the business itself.

Looking ahead

With fewer than four months remaining before the EmpCo Directive applies, the window for ensuring compliance with the new rules is narrowing. 

Organisations should review their commercial practices to ensure that all communications, from branding and packaging to future commitments, are transparent and substantiated with clear, verifiable evidence.

For more information about the EmpCo Directive, see our client briefing.

To find out how the EmpCo Directive is being implemented across selected EU Member States, see our transposition tracker. 

We will be hosting a webinar on 9 June to discuss what the EmpCo Directive does, how it fits alongside wider EU and UK action on greenwashing, and where businesses are most likely to feel the impact in practice, from marketing and labelling to customer communications and litigation risk. Click here for more details.