Search every question across sub-FAQs

Before a voluntary explicit environmental claim is communicated to consumers, the evidence file should substantiate the exact claim being made. That means the record should identify the product, service, or trader; the claimed environmental impact, aspect, or performance; the scientific method or study relied on; the data sources; and the verifier or review status where verification is required.

The evidence should support the public wording, not a broader or different sustainability story. If the claim says a product has lower water impact in the use phase, the record should not only contain a corporate ESG report or supplier certificate unrelated to that impact.

A claim file should identify the environmental aspects and impacts relevant to the product or trader and should not omit significant impacts. Considering the life cycle does not always require a full life-cycle assessment: a narrower method may fit a single-attribute claim, but the file should explain the boundary and show that omitted stages or impacts do not make the claim misleading.

PEF and OEF can be useful where they fit the product category or organisation context because Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 recommends them as life-cycle assessment methods for measuring environmental performance. The Recommendation is not a universal legal mandate. The record should show the functional unit or organisational boundary, life-cycle stages, impact categories, datasets, assumptions, and data quality.

A comparative claim needs evidence for both sides of the comparison. The record should show that products or traders are comparable, the same or equivalent methods and assumptions were used, and the comparison is based on equivalent information and data.

If the comparison is against an earlier version of the same product, a competitor product no longer on the market, or a trader that no longer sells to consumers, the substantiation should explain the improvement, the baseline year, and whether the improvement changes other relevant environmental impacts.

Keep a publication record that connects each live claim to its substantiation package. The record should allow a reviewer to see what was communicated, which evidence supported it at the time of communication, what information was made available to consumers, and whether the evidence has been reviewed after product, supplier, method, market, or legal changes.

The 2016 compliance criteria state that substantiation should be available when claims are published and retained for a reasonable period after use in commercial communication. The Green Claims proposal also expects supporting information to accompany the claim or be available through a web link, QR code, or equivalent channel. The exact disclosure content differs between the Commission, Parliament, and Council positions and cannot be treated as final.

The Council's unadopted position would require review when circumstances may affect accuracy and no later than five years after the certificate of conformity or simplified-documentation date. Updated substantiation would then need verification. Treat five years as a proposal-stage backstop, not permission to wait when a supplier, formulation, method, comparator, claim, or other material fact changes sooner.

Yes, but only within the label's certified scope. The Green Claims proposal treats environmental labels as explicit environmental claims and defines an environmental labelling scheme as a certification scheme that certifies a product, process, or trader against the requirements for an environmental label. A valid award does not substantiate broader wording about impacts or activities outside the scheme criteria.

Before using a label in packaging, advertising, procurement material, or a product page, teams should check the scheme behind it. The useful evidence is not the badge artwork; it is the scheme file showing ownership, objectives, criteria, monitoring, complaint handling, non-compliance procedures, and verification.

The review should start with public transparency, because both the Green Claims proposal and Directive (EU) 2024/825 focus on whether consumers can trust the label's governance. A scheme should not be accepted if its rules, owner, decision-makers, criteria, monitoring, or non-compliance process cannot be found or understood.

For private schemes, the review should also test whether the scheme is open on fair and non-discriminatory terms, whether the requirements were developed with relevant experts and stakeholders, and whether compliance monitoring is objective and independent.

Third-party verification is central where the label is not established by a public authority. Directive (EU) 2024/825 defines a certification scheme as a third-party verification scheme with publicly available terms and objective compliance monitoring by an independent, competent third party. National measures apply these new rules from 27 September 2026.

The Green Claims proposal adds a separate verification layer for explicit environmental claims and environmental labelling schemes. The Council general approach keeps that structure but makes the scheme owner the party that submits the scheme and corresponding label for verification; traders awarded a compliant label may display that label without repeating the scheme-level verification.

The EU Ecolabel is different from a private sustainability badge. It is the official EU voluntary label for environmental excellence, and Commission materials describe it as promoting goods and services with reduced environmental impact across the life cycle.

Teams can use EU Ecolabel evidence when the public claim stays inside the certified product group and criteria. They should still preserve the product group criteria, licence or catalogue record, and claim wording, because a label for one criterion or product group does not automatically support a broad claim such as sustainable, responsible, or green for the whole business.

The Green Claims proposal is designed to slow proliferation of environmental labels, not to invite new badges for every product line. The Commission proposal would have stopped new national or regional public schemes after transposition while allowing new schemes under Union law; it would also have required new private schemes to be approved only where they add environmental value compared with existing schemes.

The Council general approach changes the detail: new national or regional public schemes and public schemes from third countries would be subject to Commission approval before entering the Union market, while new private schemes would need Member State approval and added value. Existing schemes may continue only if they meet the directive's requirements. Because the proposal is not final, teams should avoid publishing fixed approval deadlines or final-law statements unless they are citing the adopted text when it exists.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 amends the UCPD framework for consumer-facing marketing. From 27 September 2026, national measures must prohibit displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities. They also prohibit generic environmental claims unless the trader demonstrates recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. Existing UCPD misleading-practice rules continue to apply before that date.

The Green Claims proposal is more specific for explicit environmental claims and environmental labels: it adds substantiation, communication, scheme governance, and verification requirements. Passing a Green Claims verification check would not automatically make a marketing practice fair under the UCPD, and the Council text expressly preserves national authority and court assessment under Directive 2005/29/EC where applicable.

For products or packaging created before 27 September 2026, do not assume a blanket old-stock exemption. The CPC authorities' June 2026 common understanding expects timely, good-faith compliance work and says authorities may phase enforcement where genuine and specific transitional difficulties arise. The treatment remains fact- and authority-specific.

An explicit environmental claim is an environmental claim made in written form or orally. The Council text distinguishes it from implicit claims such as colours or imagery, which remain handled under the wider unfair-commercial-practices framework.

For an explicit claim, the evidence file should first state exactly what the claim covers: the whole product, part of a product, a product aspect, all trader activities, or a specific activity. The assessment then needs scientific evidence, accurate information, relevant standards, significant life-cycle impacts or aspects, primary information where available, representative secondary information where primary data is not available, and a check that the claim is not merely a legal minimum.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 defines a generic environmental claim as written or oral environmental wording whose specification is not provided in clear and prominent terms on the same medium. From 27 September 2026, national implementing measures prohibit such a claim unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to it. Existing UCPD rules can still catch vague or misleading wording before then.

Do not approve a generic claim because a product has one positive attribute. The evidence should show the claimed environmental excellence is relevant to the claim, significant for the product or trader, not just common practice, and not offset by unmentioned trade-offs.

A comparative environmental claim says or implies that one product or trader has lower environmental impact or better environmental performance than another. It needs the normal explicit-claim evidence plus equivalence across the comparison.

The comparison file should prove that the compared products or traders use equivalent data, equivalent sourcing or generation methods, equivalent value-chain coverage, equivalent impact or aspect coverage, and equivalent assumptions. If the comparison is against an older product, a discontinued product, or a trader that no longer sells to consumers, the record should state the baseline year and show the improvement is significant and recent.

Product claims need evidence for the specific good or service and the life-cycle stages that matter to that claim. If the use phase is one of the most relevant life-cycle stages, the claim should tell consumers how to use the product to achieve the stated environmental performance.

Trader or company claims need evidence for the activities covered by the wording. A company-level claim cannot borrow a narrow product improvement unless the claim clearly limits itself to that product, activity, site, business line, or environmental aspect. Product Environmental Footprint and Organisation Environmental Footprint methods are relevant because they are life-cycle methods for products and organisations, respectively.

An environmental label is not just a short claim in a logo. The proposal treats labels as claims awarded under environmental labelling schemes, with scheme-level evidence and governance requirements in addition to claim substantiation.

The scheme owner should be able to show transparent ownership, decision-making bodies, objectives, monitoring procedures, proportionate joining conditions, expert and stakeholder input for criteria, complaint and dispute handling, and non-compliance procedures. The label should also be verified against the relevant substantiation, communication, and scheme requirements unless an applicable exemption or simplified route applies.