EmpCo Directive: Obligations, Implementation, and Practical Implications

Abstract

Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as EmpCo for short, will become mandatory in Germany as of September 27, 2026. The Bundestag approved its implementation as early as December 2025. It was published in the Federal Law Gazette on February 19, 2026.

In addition to the bans already in place, EmpCo introduces three key changes that are often overlooked in public discourse: new disclosure requirements regarding durability, repairability, and software updates; a clear framework for acceptable certifications and labels; and, for the first time on a uniform EU-wide basis, a ban on artificially shortening a product’s useful life.

What is the EmpCo policy?

EmpCo stands for the EU Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition and refers to Directive (EU) 2024/825. Contrary to what the name might suggest, it does not introduce an entirely new area of law, but rather amends two existing EU directives: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU). For years, both directives have formed the basis for the prohibition of misleading advertising in the EU.

The background:

A study by the European Commission showed that many environmental claims in the EU were vague, exaggerated, or unsubstantiated. At the same time, according to the European Commission, there were several hundred different sustainability labels. Their standards varied widely. As a result, it was nearly impossible for consumers to distinguish between credible and unverified claims.

Who is affected by the EmpCo policy?

EmpCo is primarily aimed at companies that communicate with end consumers in the EU—that is, in the B2C sector. The company’s place of business is irrelevant: even a provider based in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or the United States must comply with the requirements as soon as it advertises products or services to consumers within the EU. This applies to traditional advertising channels as well as packaging, product pages in online stores, social media communications, and point-of-sale materials in brick-and-mortar retail.

What is less well known is that EmpCo can also play a role in two related areas:

• Employer Communication (B2E): Job postings or employer branding campaigns that include sustainability statements fall under the guideline as soon as they can also be viewed by consumers and are not directed exclusively at an internal professional audience.
• B2B statements with consumer relevance: Purely B2B communication is not directly covered. However, as soon as a supplier’s claim is incorporated unchanged into a manufacturer’s end-customer communications or appears in a publicly available sustainability report, it may in fact fall within the scope of the directive again.

Specifically, what additional obligations does EmpCo entail?

We have already addressedthe key prohibitions—vague terms like “environmentally friendly” without evidence, carbon offset-based claims of climate neutrality, and uncertified home labels—in our article on greenwashing. However, three aspects go beyond what was described there.

Cherry-picking and obsolescence are expressly prohibited

For the first time, the EmpCo Directive explicitly prohibits two practices. Until now, these were covered only under the general doctrine of misleading advertising. The first practice is known as “cherry-picking”: A company makes an environmental claim about the entire product or the entire company, but in reality, the claim applies only to one specific aspect.

Here 's an example: A product is advertised as being "made from recycled materials," even though only the packaging is actually recycled.

The second newly defined practice is the prohibition on artificially shortening the useful life of a product. This refers to practices that pressure consumers into replacing consumables unnecessarily early.

Here's an example: Aprinter prompts the user to replace the cartridge even though there is still ink left. Such practices will be considered unfair business practices in the future.

In addition, the directive prohibits the promotion of characteristics that are already required by law as unique features.

Here's an example: A product is advertised as "CFC-free," even though the ban on CFCs has long been required by law.

New Disclosure Requirements Regarding Durability, Repairability, and Software

This aspect of EmpCo is often overlooked in public discourse because it does not fall under the category of “greenwashing,” but rather falls within the realm of traditional consumer protection. In the future, companies will be required to provide transparent information—even before a purchase is made—regarding:

• how long software updates are available for a product,
• whether software updates can affect performance, such as by reducing battery life,
• whether the function will be impaired if replacement parts or accessories from other manufacturers are used,
• Availability, costs, and procedures for replacement parts,
• the term of a voluntary warranty, if it exceeds two years.

Claims regarding durability, such as “lasts 20 years” or “withstands 5,000 wash cycles,” are also permitted only if they can be achieved under realistic conditions of use. Under the new legal framework, a value achieved only under laboratory conditions is no longer sufficient.

Which certifications and seals will remain valid?

The EmpCo guideline also sets clear requirements for sustainability labels. Such labels are now only permitted if one of two conditions is met: Either they are established by government agencies, or they are based on a certification system with independent monitoring. Companies that use government-recognized environmental labels, such as the EU Ecolabel or the Blue Angel, are on the safe side. Both are classified as Type I environmental labels under ISO 14024. Government-regulated systems such as EMAS are also acceptable.

Private-sector certification systems can also meet the requirements. The prerequisite is that they meet three criteria: open, non-discriminatory access; a transparent rule-making process; and independent oversight. PEFC, for example, claims to meet these criteria.

Forward-Looking Statements: The New Implementation Plan Pursuant to Section 5(3)(4) of the UWG

EmpCo imposes particularly strict regulations on an area that has received little attention to date: statements about future environmental performance. Statements such as “climate-neutral by 2030,” “We will cut our emissions in half by 2030,” or “All products will be 100 percent recyclable in the future” regularly appear on company websites, in branding campaigns, and in sustainability reports. For precisely such statements, a specific provision was created under Section 5(3)(4) of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG), as amended, which takes effect on September 27, 2026.

What counts as a forward-looking statement?

The legislature does not provide an exhaustive definition of what constitutes an “environmental claim regarding future environmental performance.” Generally speaking, however, the term should be interpreted broadly. It covers claims made about a company, a product, or a service. It does not matter what kind of promise is made: it can be an absolute target, such as “climate neutrality by 2040,” or a relative improvement, such as “30 percent less CO₂ compared to 2026.”

Purely political statements, internal strategy documents, or vague statements without a specific timeframe, on the other hand, tend not to fall into this category. The line is blurred, however: A statement that seems noncommittal can quickly become a concrete promise as soon as a specific year or metric is added.

What must the implementation plan include?

Anyone who makes a statement about the future will need a detailed and realistic implementation plan that includes clear, objective, publicly available, and verifiable commitments.

These include, in particular:

• a reliable baseline, such as emissions figures from a defined reference year,
• measurable and time-bound goals,
• a schedule with verifiable milestones and interim goals,
• specific technical, organizational, and, where applicable, investment measures,
• the allocation of resources—that is, responsibilities, budgets, and personnel,
• Monitoring, documentation, and reporting mechanisms, as well as procedures for handling deviations.

A goal alone is not enough. There needs to be a clear connection between the starting point, the goal, the actions to be taken, responsibilities, resources, and the timeline.

External Audit and Disclosure Requirements

The plan must also be reviewed regularly by an independent external expert. This expert must have relevant experience in environmental matters and be free of conflicts of interest. The German legislative explanatory memorandum specifies who is eligible for this role: these include, for example, environmental auditors licensed under the Environmental Audit Act or appropriately qualified auditing and consulting firms. In exceptional cases, certified public accountants may also be considered. The law does not prescribe a fixed review interval. In practice, however, a review every one to two years is likely to be required, or a review whenever significant changes are made to the plan.

The test results must be made publicly available—for example, via the company's website or a QR code—in such a way that they can be clearly linked to the advertised claim.

How have courts assessed environmental claims prior to EmpCo?

One point that is often overlooked when interpreting EmpCo: Misleading environmental claims were already prohibited under the UWG even before the Directive. Existing case law shows the standard against which EmpCo will be measured in the future and where the Directive tightens that standard.

The courts have also already addressed the issue of climate-related advertising. On June 30, 2022 (6 U 46/21), the Higher Regional Court of Schleswig ruled on plastic trash bags advertised as climate-neutral. The ruling: The explanation of climate neutrality on the website was sufficient. Additional information on the product itself was not strictly required.

On July 6, 2023, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf ruled on two cases, with differing outcomes. In the fruit gum case (20 U 152/22), a “climate-neutral production” claim was not automatically misleading. The reason: Climate neutrality can also be achieved through offsetting, as long as the relevant information is accessible. In the case involving jam (20 U 72/22), the court also found no misleading claims, but ruled that there was a violation of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) because information requirements regarding production processes and offset measures had been violated.

The Regional Court of Karlsruhe ruled otherwise on July 16, 2023 (13 O 46/22). A company had advertised its carbon neutrality, citing a forest conservation project as a means of offsetting its emissions. The court deemed this advertising to be misleading. The reason: Forests grow too slowly to actually offset the emissions within the short duration of the project.

Special Cases, Obstacles, and Exceptions

What happens to old inventory and goods that have already been produced?

There is no automatic transition period, not even for products or packaging manufactured or placed on the market before September 27, 2026. However, European consumer protection authorities have provided some relief through the “Common Understanding on old stock.” It outlines a proportionate enforcement approach. Under this approach, authorities may take various factors into account when making their decisions, such as packaging cycles, inventory levels, orders already placed, and supply chain dependencies.

Companies with existing inventory should do four things: Adjust their communications and advertising as soon as possible. Comply with the new rules immediately for new orders and packaging. Where possible, correct old inventory, for example, by applying stickers. And document all steps.

A Comparison of B2C, B2B, and B2E

EmpCo has its greatest impact in the B2C sector. B2B communication that does not directly involve consumers is not immediately covered, but becomes relevant as soon as the same statements are later used in communications with end consumers—for example, when a supplier’s claim is adopted verbatim in a manufacturer’s end-customer communications. EmpCo applies to employer communications as soon as job postings or employer branding statements can also be viewed by consumers.

What are the consequences for companies that violate EmpCo regulations?

EmpCo is often referred to as the EmpCo Regulation, but legally it is a directive, not an EU regulation. For this reason, there is no blanket EU framework for fines, as companies are familiar with under the GDPR. Instead, the familiar tools of German competition law apply. However, this does not make them any less severe.

The first step is a warning letter. It may come from competitors, from competition associations such as the Wettbewerbszentrale, or from qualified environmental organizations such as Deutsche Umwelthilfe (DUH). In the event of an alleged violation of the EmpCo regulations, they demand that the company issue a cease-and-desist declaration subject to a penalty.

If the company fails to respond or responds inadequately, an injunction is usually sought. If the injunction is granted, the court prohibits the advertising claim in question. If the company later violates this prohibition, it faces substantial contractual penalties or administrative fines.

Profit recovery is also particularly relevant from an economic standpoint. Under the UWG, consumer protection organizations can sue to recover the profits a company has earned through misleading advertising. It does not matter whether individual consumers can prove they have suffered specific damages.

Added to this are reputational risks. While they are difficult to quantify, they often carry greater weight than the legal proceedings themselves. If an accusation of greenwashing becomes public—for example, through press reports or social media—trust in the brand often suffers more than it would from the legal proceedings themselves.

Conclusion

Above all, the EmpCo summarizes what case law and consumer protection in Germany have already established. New additions include clearly defined obligations regarding durability, repairability, and software. Cherry-picking and planned obsolescence are now also expressly prohibited.

For companies, one thing is now of the utmost importance: systematically reviewing their own communications, use of seals, and product information. Ideally, this should be done before September 27, 2026, when the new regulations take effect. A structured compliance process for claims and supporting evidence makes this transition significantly less risky than making ad hoc corrections at the last minute just before the deadline.