EmpCo Directive: When brands become environmental or sustainability claims

As of September 27, 2026, new competition law requirements for environmental advertising apply in Germany. This is based on Directive (EU) 2024/825, often referred to as the "EmpCo Directive" (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition). It aims to protect consumers from greenwashing and has been implemented in Germany primarily through amendments to the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG).

The new legal situation affects more than just traditional advertising

The EmpCo regulations do not only cover explicitly formulated advertising claims such as "environmentally friendly" or "climate neutral." All forms of commercial communication directed at consumers are relevant—this includes packaging, product labels, websites, online shops, social media presence, sales documentation, logos, and visual design elements. Consequently, a brand itself can be understood as an environmental claim within a specific context of use and advertising.

General statements that suggest a positive or particularly low environmental impact are especially critical. The legislator cites examples including "environmentally friendly," "eco-friendly," "green," "ecological," "climate-friendly," "CO₂-friendly," "energy-efficient," and "biodegradable." Such statements are not permitted unless a corresponding, recognized, and outstanding environmental performance can be proven; alternatively, the statement must be clarified clearly and prominently on the same communication medium.

Which brands might be affected?

Brands containing terms such as "eco," "nature," "green," "organic," "sustainable," "climate-neutral," "fair," or "just" deserve special attention. However, whether such a brand is legally problematic does not depend solely on its wording. The decisive factors are always the specific goods or services claimed and their actual use in the market.

For instance, a term like "nature" in the context of food, cosmetics, or raw materials can raise expectations regarding natural ingredients or environmentally sound production. "Eco" or "green" can be interpreted as general environmental promises. Terms like "fair" or "just" typically relate to social, ethical, or fair production and trade conditions; while they are not automatically subject to the specific ban on general environmental claims, they can still be misleading under general competition law if the associated expectations are not met.

Brands that refer to a geographical origin also require careful assessment. A reference to a country, region, or landscape, when combined with nature motifs, sustainability terms, or statements about raw materials, can create the impression of a particularly natural, ecological, or ethically responsible origin. The decisive factor is the overall impression conveyed by the brand in conjunction with packaging, imagery, and other information.

Trademark registration remains valid—but use may still be problematic

The EmpCo Directive does not result in the automatic cancellation or invalidation of already registered trademarks. However, a trademark registration does not provide a blank check for every specific use in advertising. Trademark law and competition law operate side by side: a brand may be effectively registered as a trademark, while its specific use toward consumers may be prohibited under competition law.

This particularly concerns situations where a brand, through its design or supplementary advertising claims, creates the impression that an entire product, an entire product line, or even an entire company is sustainable or environmentally friendly, even though a verifiable benefit only applies to a single product component, the packaging, or a single production step. The EmpCo regulations also expressly prohibit statements that overstate the scope of an environmental benefit.

Sustainability labels and climate neutrality are particularly sensitive

In addition to general environmental claims, the new legal situation tightens the requirements for sustainability labels. In principle, a sustainability label may only be used if it is based on a certification system or has been established by a public authority. In-house "green" logos or insufficiently substantiated sustainability labels can therefore be problematic.

Also prohibited are statements that present a product as "climate neutral," "CO₂-neutral," or "climate positive" due to the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions. In the future, mere offsetting outside of one's own value chain will no longer support such product-related claims.

What companies should check now

Companies should not review their brands in isolation, but rather within the context of their entire market presence. Of particular relevance is the combination of a brand with:

• packaging and label designs,
• images of nature, plants, animals, or landscapes,
• sustainability, climate, and origin claims,
• seals, certificates, and logos,
• statements regarding raw materials, recycling, production, or supply chains,
• websites and social media communications.

The focus is on what specific message the target audience derives from the brand and its context – and whether this message is accurate, sufficiently specific, and reliably verifiable.

We are happy to assist you

Whether and to what extent a brand or its specific use falls under the new EmpCo requirements must always be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the goods and services claimed as well as the overall brand communication.

We would be happy to review your existing brands, planned trademark applications, packaging designs, and advertising claims for potential risks under trademark and competition law. If you have any questions or require an individual assessment, please feel free to contact us.

‍