Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition (EmpCo Directive) was actually due to be transposed into national law by 27 March 2026, and the provisions are due to enter into force on 27 September 2026. The Austrian legislature is behind schedule in this regard. Nevertheless, the general prohibition on misleading advertising already applies – including to advertising containing environmental claims (see this Part 1) and to advertising claims and factual circumstances regarding durability, reparability and software updates.
The EmpCo Directive does not replace the existing system of fair trading law (UWG), but in practice introduces significant tightening of the rules:
- Addition to the ‘blacklist’ (Annex to the UWG): Certain ‘sustainability practices’ are classified as unfair and prohibited per se, without the need to assess their potential to mislead in individual cases. This significantly facilitates enforcement for claimants.
- Clarification of the general UWG criteria for misleading conduct: Further practices are defined as misleading, but remain subject to a case-by-case assessment as to whether they are likely to induce the consumer to take a transactional decision that they would not otherwise have taken, and whether this could have an impact on the market (“appreciability”).
In any event, environmental and sustainability claims will no longer be assessed solely on the basis of whether they are “somewhat” accurate, but rather on whether they are clear, precise, verifiable and not open to misinterpretation by the average consumer. The practical crux of the matter is a compliance issue: in future, advertising claims must be organised as if they were a verifiable data product – with clear responsibilities, evidence management, version control and ongoing monitoring.
General environmental claims (“sustainable”, “green”, “environmentally friendly”) – the biggest minefield
Consumers regularly interpret general terms holistically. The word “sustainable” in particular can raise ecological, social and even corporate expectations. EmpCo is responding to this by classifying general environmental claims as inadmissible per se in future unless they are backed by evidence of “recognised outstanding environmental performance”. The options for providing such evidence are extremely limited: it is only possible via recognised, state-run or standards-based schemes (e.g. the EU Ecolabel, the Austrian Ecolabel or EN ISO 14024 Type I schemes) or via a top-tier classification under other EU law.
A general environmental claim may also arise simply from the use of certain colours (usually green) or the overall impression conveyed by a product or brand.
It should be noted that there is an important exception: an environmental claim is not considered ‘general’ if the specification of the claim is clearly and prominently stated on the same medium.
A general environmental claim such as ‘climate-friendly’ will in future be inadmissible per se, unless it is clearly and unambiguously specified on the same advertising medium (e.g. on the same packaging or in the same advert), for example by adding ‘manufactured using 100% electricity from renewable energy sources’; this claim must, of course, be accurate. Without such immediate specification, the claim is only permissible if ‘recognised outstanding environmental performance’ can be demonstrated, for example through the EU Ecolabel.
‘Cherry-picking’: claim about the entire product/company, evidence provided for only part of it
The EmpCo Guidelines explicitly address the tendency to pick out individual positive aspects and use them to form an overall message. It is not permitted for an environmental claim to give the impression that it relates to the entire product or business activity, when in fact it concerns only a specific aspect.
Practical example: Packaging states “100% recycled”. In reality, this applies only to part of the product, as the closure, label and outer packaging are not included. Without a clear, highlighted qualification, there is a risk of a per se infringement – and thus an easy target for competitors and associations.
Advertising an entire product using a feature that applies only to a part of it has previously been open to challenge as misleading. What is new is that this is now considered a business practice that is prohibited per se.
Sustainability labels and ‘label-like’ imagery: graphics, icons, recycling symbols
The new legal framework prohibits the use of sustainability labels that are not based on a ‘genuine’ certification system or have not been established by public authorities. The practical pitfall here is not so much the classic ‘label’ itself, but rather the impression of a label: graphic elements (leaves, drops, recycling arrows) that appear to be a quality mark.
A certification system must, among other things, ensure publicly accessible requirements, transparency/non-discrimination and objective monitoring by independent third parties.
The prohibition on the use of sustainability seals without a certification system or state regulation is a specific manifestation of the existing prohibition on the use of quality marks without authorisation (Annex Z 2 UWG). The term ‘label’ is to be interpreted broadly ( ) and also covers graphic representations (e.g. leaves, globe symbols) that give consumers the impression of a verified standard. The unauthorised use of such symbols is strictly punished by the courts.
Climate neutrality & offsetting: ‘CO₂-neutral’ is not a free pass
The new ban is particularly strict regarding claims that a product is neutral, reduced or positive in terms of greenhouse gas emissions if this is based on offsetting outside the value chain (e.g. certificates/reforestation projects). Communication regarding actual emission reductions or life-cycle impacts remains permissible – but only if these are solidly substantiated and not overshadowed by a compensation narrative.
This represents a fundamental departure from the previous legal situation: previously, such claims could be permissible under certain circumstances if the offsetting method was explained transparently. This option is now entirely ruled out for product advertising based on offsetting. Only communication regarding actual emissions reductions within one’s own value chain remains permissible.
Advertising future environmental performance: targets require a plan, a budget and independent verification
The new legal framework renders claims about future environmental performance vulnerable to challenge if they are not supported by clear, objective, publicly accessible and verifiable commitments, as well as a detailed and realistic implementation plan. This plan must contain measurable, time-bound targets, provide a transparent breakdown of resource allocation (particularly the budget) and provide for regular reviews by independent external experts; the results must be accessible to consumers.
Claims regarding future environmental targets (‘We will be climate-neutral by 2035’) will in future only be permitted under strict conditions. In the absence of a detailed, published implementation plan, a transparent allocation of funds and regular independent review, the claim is deemed misleading within the meaning of Section 2 of the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). Unlike the ‘blacklist’ infringements, this is not a per se prohibition, but rather a qualified case of misleading advertising.
‘Advertising the obvious’: What applies anyway must not be sold as a USP
There will be an explicit ban on highlighting statutory minimum requirements that apply to all products in a category on the EU market as a special feature. This is tricky for marketing departments because ‘compliance’ is often used as a quality argument in communications.
Advertising with self-evident facts – that is, highlighting characteristics already required by law as a special advantage – was already considered misleading under case law. Now this practice is explicitly included in the ‘blacklist’ of the UWG. However, an exception may apply if competing products (e.g. from third countries) are also available on the market that are not subject to these legal requirements. In this case, compliance with the standards may be communicated as a distinguishing feature.
Legal consequences under the UWG: Why disputes are likely to become more common
In Austria, the provisions of the EmpCo Directive are likely to take effect via the Unfair Competition Act (UWG). The typical enforcement route therefore involves warnings and legal action by competitors as well as by consumer protection associations or qualified bodies. The focus is on injunctions and removal, often combined with the publication of the judgement; the financial damage arises not only from legal costs but also from the expense of relaunching (packaging, campaigns, online assets) and reputational risks. Precisely because EmpCo classifies several scenarios as a ‘blacklist’ (per se), claimants can proceed without lengthy evidence-gathering – making litigation simpler and faster.
Practical recommendation: Organise “green claims” as an audit trail
Companies should establish an internal audit trail by the application deadline: (i) claim inventory (packaging, website, social media, PR), (ii) claim categorisation (general/specific, product/company, future-oriented claims, seal/label impression), (iii) evidence dossier (data, studies, LCA, certificates), (iv) approval process involving Legal/ESG/Controlling, and (v) monitoring and update obligations. In practice, the most effective lever is usually linguistic precision: less judgement, more verifiable facts. This does not diminish sustainability communication – it makes it robust and therefore arguably even more appealing from a marketing perspective.