One month remains until Member States must transpose the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT). Six months later, on 27 September 2026, the rules will begin to apply across the EU. 

For companies that need to comply, the focus has long ago shifted from ‘what the Directive says?’ to ‘how does compliance work in practice?’ With the application deadline approaching fast, key decisions on product sustainability communication are being made now, and legal certainty is crucial.

The ECGT Directive introduces important changes to the way sustainability-related information can be communicated to consumers. Among other things, it establishes new conditions for the use of sustainability labels, tightens the rules around generic environmental claims, and sets requirements for future environmental performance claims.

The European Commission’s recently published FAQ has provided valuable clarification on a number of provisions. However, as implementation discussions continue across sectors and Member States, additional practical questions continue to arise. 

Our reflections in this blogpost build on the Commission’s FAQ document as well as important implementation exchanges held with the EU institutions and other stakeholders, clarifications, and ongoing dialogue across the sector. They focus on the areas where the most frequent implementation questions are emerging and where alignment in interpretation will be particularly important in the months ahead.

When can sustainability labels be considered ‘environmental claims’

Sustainability labels sit at the centre of B2C product sustainability communication. From September 2026, a sustainability label may only be used if it is established by a public authority or based on a certification scheme that meets defined criteria, including third-party verification, transparency of requirements, public accessibility of criteria and open participation.

• The Commission’s FAQ clarifies that sustainability labels may also constitute environmental claims if they are used in a way that suggests that a product has a positive or reduced environmental impact. This clarification is important, as it means that compliance with the certification requirements does not equal compliance with the rest of the ECGT provisions. For example, if wording such as ‘carbon neutral’ appears alongside or within a sustainability label, the claim may trigger separate prohibitions – such as the ban on claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse gas impact based on offsetting. In that case, even though the label may be structurally compliant, the claim embedded within it could still be prohibited.

• A related question concerns the use of broader terms in connection with certification: does having certification automatically justify claiming that a product is ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’? While ECGT doesn’t require sustainability labels to be accompanied by specification, careful consideration is needed on the existence of evidence and the wording of a claim. If the claim implies characteristics that go beyond those criteria for which the certification provides evidence, authorities may examine whether the overall presentation corresponds to what is actually verified. For example, if a label uses the term “responsible,” and that term could imply both environmental and social attributes, enforcement authorities may expect clarity as to what dimensions are actually covered by the certification. 

Generic vs specific claims – what level of specification is needed and where to specify the claim?

The Directive introduces a clear prohibition on generic environmental claims unless they are based on recognised excellent environmental performance. A generic environmental claim is one that does not specify the environmental attribute concerned. Expressions such as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘green’ or ‘climate-friendly’ are typical examples.

To be permitted, the claim must be specific - i.e., accompanied by a clear and prominent specification on the same medium. In practice, this means identifying the concrete environmental characteristics being communicated. For example, rather than stating that packaging is ‘climate friendly’, which would be a generic claim and therefore de facto not allowed, an indication of a defined percentage of energy used in production coming from renewable sources, or that a product contains a specified share of recycled material, can make a claim specific.

• Here, the interpretation of the ‘same medium’ requirement is key. Where a claim appears on packaging, the essential specification must also appear there in clear and prominent terms. Digital tools such as QR codes may provide additional detail, but they cannot substitute the core clarification. The ‘essential specification’ - for example, ‘contains 50% recycled polyester’ or ‘produced using 100% renewable electricity’ – should appear on the same medium as the claim. More detailed explanations, such as certification references or calculation methodology, may be provided digitally, provided the consumer can access them easily.

• Overall, the benchmark for the assessment remains the perspective of the average consumer. The assessment is not based on how sustainability professionals or regulators interpret the wording, but on how an average consumer is likely to understand it. The ‘average consumer test’ does not necessarily require companies to conduct complex behavioural studies or extensive consumer research. However, companies must be able to demonstrate the accuracy of what is being communicated to consumers. 

Assessing the scope and verification of the future-performance claims

Future environmental performance claims are forward-looking, referring to outcomes that have not yet materialised. The Directive does not prohibit companies from setting ambitious environmental targets – net-zero pathways, science-based targets, etc., remain legitimate components of sustainability strategies. The ECGT compliance question arises when these commitments are used in consumer-facing communication.

Where a trader communicates future environmental performance in a way that is capable of influencing a consumer to purchase their products, the Directive requires that such claims be supported by a detailed and realistic implementation plan. That plan must include measurable and time-bound targets, allocation of resources, and regular third-party verification. Here, several practical considerations arise:

• The critical issue here is how to assess the scope of what is considered a future-performance claim. Not every sustainability strategy published on a corporate website automatically falls within this regime, as it depends on how the communication is framed and to whom it is directed. A sustainability strategy primarily aimed at investors or mandatory reporting may fall under other frameworks. However, once future commitments are incorporated into product marketing the ECGT limitations apply - for example, stating that ‘by purchasing this product, you contribute to our climate neutrality by 2030/2050’, or ‘this product supports our net-zero transition’.

• What level of detail is expected in an implementation plan and does the implementation plan have to be in place before the claim is made? The Directive does not provide a template, but the plan must be sufficiently concrete to demonstrate that the commitment is realistic. Targets must be measurable and time-bound, and responsibilities and resources must be identifiable. Importantly, the plan must exist before the claim is communicated, because it is essential to possess evidence of a claim before that claim is made.

• Finally, the scope and cadence of verification are crucial. The Directive requires verification by an independent third-party expert, but does not set a fixed interval. In many cases, an annual or biennial review may be appropriate, but the frequency should correspond to the nature of the commitment and the timeline involved. With regards to scope, the expectation is that verification should meaningfully assess the elements on which the claim relies. This can include reviewing the design and governance of the implementation plan, assessing progress against interim targets, and examining whether resources remain aligned with the stated objectives. If multiple claims are based on a single transition plan, one overarching verification may suffice, provided its scope clearly covers all relevant elements.

Transitional period and products placed on the market before 27 September 2026

As the application approaches, another crucial question concerns products placed on the market before 27 September 2026. The Directive does not provide a formal ‘sell-through’ or grace period for existing products (although some Member States are giving indications that they will allow it).

This does not mean that all existing products must be withdrawn. However, careful assessment is needed on whether claims displayed on those products comply with the new framework. Where potential issues are identified, corrective measures need to be applied, and this can include covering non-compliant claims or providing supplementary information at the point of sale.

• For example, providing supplementary information at the point of sale can mean that, if a sustainability label is not yet third-party certified but the trader is in the process of obtaining certification, transparent information on this at the point of sale is provided. 

In practice, much of the compliance assessment will depend on the approach of national enforcement authorities. Discussions at the EU level indicate there is awareness of the practical challenges businesses face in adjusting to new rules. When assessing compliance, national authorities are expected to examine whether traders have made reasonable and proportionate efforts to comply with the new requirements and whether they have acted in good faith.

Conclusion

In practice, claims and their compliance with ECGT will ultimately have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis by companies that make them. With the rules for the substantiation of claims (‘Green Claims Directive’) unlikely to be agreed upon any time soon, the general rule for ensuring ECGT compliance is to communicate only those claims for which robust data and background information needed to prove them exist.

Additionally, the compliance assessment will always rely on an evaluation of how the average consumer is likely to understand a claim in its specific context. That assessment is inherently contextual, and will depend on the wording, presentation, visual cues and the overall commercial communication of each individual claim.

In practice, this means that some degree of legal development will occur through enforcement and, potentially, case law. Therefore, it will be important to look not only to the legal text of the Directive and the FAQ, but also to early signals from national enforcement authorities.

At the same time, the need for a harmonised interpretation across Member States is critical. Divergent national approaches to key concepts would create fragmentation in the Single Market and undermine the level playing field the Directive seeks to establish.

Therefore, continued dialogue between institutions, enforcement authorities and stakeholders will be essential to translate the legislative framework into a predictable and workable practice. As implementation progresses, maintaining open channels for clarification and exchange will be just as important as the legal text itself.

Policy Hub will continue contributing to that dialogue and welcomes further input from stakeholders navigating the transition toward application in September 2026.

‍