Search every question across sub-FAQs

Climate claims need the normal explicit-claim file and a separate climate evidence file. From 27 September 2026, national measures implementing Directive (EU) 2024/825 prohibit claims that a product has a neutral, reduced, or positive greenhouse-gas impact based on offsets outside the product value chain. Existing UCPD rules can still apply to misleading offset claims before that date.

For trader climate claims using carbon credits, the evidence should separate the trader's greenhouse-gas emissions and reductions from any credits. It should identify the quantity of credits in tCO2e, the period, whether credits are reductions or removals, the scheme, registry, verification and certification route, and, for offset claims, the percentage of total greenhouse-gas emissions balanced out by credits.

Every category needs a claim register entry before publication. The entry should identify the exact wording, medium, market, product or trader boundary, category, owner, evidence method, source data, consumer-facing support, verification route, and review trigger.

The evidence file should be strong enough for a reviewer to tell whether the claim is specific, accurate, significant, current, not misleading by omission, and not broader than the data. It should also preserve the public explanation consumers will see, because Green Claims communication rules focus on both substantiation and how the substantiated claim is communicated.

The Green Claims Directive exists as Commission proposal COM(2023) 166 for a directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims. The Commission published it on 22 March 2023 under ordinary legislative procedure 2023/0085(COD).

As of 25 July 2026, the two official trackers use different procedural labels: EUR-Lex says "Ongoing", while Parliament's Legislative Observatory says "Awaiting Council's 1st reading position". Neither tracker records adoption or formal withdrawal. Do not attach final Green Claims transposition or application deadlines to this file.

Parliament's Legislative Train records the first trilogue on 28 January 2025 and the second on 24 April 2025. On 20 June, the Commission announced an intention to withdraw the Green Claims proposal. Parliament then reported that the Council cancelled the trilogue scheduled for 23 June.

Describe each event separately. The co-legislators began negotiations, the Commission announced an intention to withdraw, and the planned third trilogue was cancelled. The current official procedure trackers do not record either final adoption or formal withdrawal.

The European Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the Green Claims Directive proposal on 12 March 2024. That is a legislative milestone, not the adoption of the final directive.

In public copy, say that Parliament adopted a first-reading position or adopted the text at first reading. Do not describe the Parliament vote as adoption of the completed EU act.

The Council approved a general approach for the Green Claims Directive at the Environment Council meeting on 17 June 2024. The Council document is a negotiating position showing changes against the Commission proposal.

The Council general approach is a negotiating position, not an adopted final directive. It can show the Council's negotiating direction but cannot establish final legal deadlines.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 is already adopted and related, but it is not the Green Claims Directive proposal itself. The Council general approach describes the Green Claims proposal as complementing Directive (EU) 2024/825 by adding specific rules for explicit environmental claims, environmental labelling schemes, substantiation, communication, and verification.

Keep the instruments separate: Directive (EU) 2024/825 is adopted, Member States had to transpose it by 27 March 2026, and they must apply those measures from 27 September 2026. The Green Claims Directive remains the unadopted proposal tracked under 2023/0085(COD).

Avoid saying that the Green Claims Directive has final adopted deadlines, final transposition dates, or a final application date when those facts are not present in the cited sources. Draft and Council texts may contain bracketed timing markers or proposal-stage timing, but those are not final-act deadlines.

Do not turn the June 2025 announcement into a completed legal event. The official sources support saying that the Commission announced an intention to withdraw and that the third trilogue was cancelled. The procedure trackers checked on 25 July 2026 do not record a formal withdrawal.

Treat this status as a dated snapshot. Recheck EUR-Lex and OEIL before publishing a deadline, compliance statement, contract clause, or board paper. A recorded withdrawal, Council first-reading position, renewed interinstitutional negotiation, co-legislator adoption, Official Journal publication, or a new Commission proposal would require a new status analysis.

No. Do not publish or rely on fixed EU-wide penalty amounts for the Green Claims Directive as if they were final law. The Commission proposal included penalty rules and examples of measures, while the Council general approach keeps the core principle that Member States would set penalties that are effective, proportionate, and dissuasive.

For planning, use the penalty principles that are common across the proposal materials: competent authorities look at the nature, gravity, extent, and duration of the infringement, whether conduct was intentional or negligent, the financial strength of the responsible person, benefits gained from the infringement, previous infringements, and relevant cross-border penalties where available.

The original Commission proposal went further than the Council general approach. It proposed fines that remove the economic benefit, confiscation of revenue or products, temporary exclusion from public procurement and public funding for up to 12 months, and, where Article 21 of Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 applies, a maximum fine level of at least 4% of annual turnover in the Member State or Member States concerned. Those figures and measures are proposal text, not an adopted Green Claims penalty schedule; the Council's June 2024 text deleted the listed measures and 4% clause.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 matters because it amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, which already applies to misleading business-to-consumer environmental claims. National measures applying from 27 September 2026 add specific concepts and blacklist practices, including sustainability labels not based on a qualifying certification scheme or public authority, generic environmental claims without recognised excellent environmental performance, whole-product or whole-business claims that concern only one aspect, and certain offset-based greenhouse-gas impact claims.

Green Claims penalty planning should not wait for a final Green Claims Directive. A claim can create risk under existing national UCPD rules if it is misleading, too broad, unsupported, or presented through a label that creates a false impression. The new Directive (EU) 2024/825 blacklist items add clearer rules from 27 September 2026; they do not create an EU-wide fixed fine for each claim.

Reduce risk by keeping claim-specific evidence before publication. The Commission materials describe voluntary consumer-facing green claims as needing substantiation and ex-ante verification, and they expect scientific evidence, relevant environmental impacts, and trade-offs to be identified.

Keep evidence in a form that a product, marketing, legal, sustainability, or customer-support reviewer can connect directly to the exact words, label, image, product scope, geography, and sales channel used in the claim.

For a live issue, preserve the sequence: record the complaint or authority request, freeze the challenged claim version and evidence, identify the responsible trader or scheme owner, assess every affected channel and market, complete any required correction or withdrawal, retain proof of completion, and keep the file open for a separate penalty or court decision.

The main mistake is treating penalties as a finance-only issue. Green Claims and UCPD exposure usually starts earlier, when a claim is drafted too broadly, reused in a new market, tied to an unsupported label, or separated from the evidence that substantiates it.

Teams should also avoid implying that one certificate, one life-cycle study, or one sustainability report automatically protects every future claim. The cited position is narrower: each claim needs evidence and communication review that matches the claim as consumers see it.

No. A product cannot be marketed as having a neutral, reduced, or positive greenhouse-gas impact where that message is based on offsetting. Directive (EU) 2024/825 requires national measures applying from 27 September 2026 to blacklist that practice. Before then, the existing UCPD can still apply where the same message misleads consumers.

The Directive's recitals say the prohibition does not prevent a product climate claim based on the product's actual life-cycle impact rather than offsets outside its value chain. That does not automatically make the claim lawful: the evidence and overall presentation must still support it. Claims such as carbon neutral, climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, climate compensated, or reduced climate impact cannot use purchased credits as proof of the product's own impact.

Separate the emissions-reduction evidence from the credit evidence. The Council text says climate-related claims that use carbon credits should consider credits separately from the trader's or product's greenhouse-gas emissions, including financial contributions to carbon-credit projects that are not used for offsetting.

A useful review file therefore has two ledgers: one for actual emissions and reductions in the product, operations, or value chain, and one for credits or contributions outside that boundary. The claim should not let the second ledger change the first.

Classify the proposed wording before reviewing evidence. A product-impact claim based on greenhouse-gas offsetting reaches the Directive (EU) 2024/825 prohibition. A statement about a separately funded climate project can describe the investment without changing the product footprint. A trader-level offset or contribution claim needs its own organisation boundary, emissions inventory, credit disclosures, and UCPD review; the Council's detailed route remains proposal-stage.

Substantiation should start with the claim's exact wording. If the wording says or implies a product or trader has a lower, neutral, positive, or improving climate impact, the evidence needs to support that message with widely recognised scientific evidence, relevant methods, and a life-cycle or activity boundary that fits the claim.

For Green Claims review, the record should also show that relevant environmental impacts were not ignored, that one benefit was not achieved by shifting harm to another life-cycle stage, and that carbon credits were assessed for integrity and correct accounting instead of being treated as equivalent to reductions in the trader's own operations or value chain.