EmpCo: What Brands Can Say From 27 September, and What They Cannot

The directive itself sets no transition period. Enforcement runs through each Member State’s own implementing law, and Member States are at different stages: the transposition deadline was 27 March 2026, and not every country met it. What applies to you, and when, depends on the markets you sell into. 

If you sell into the EU, start by listing every environmental claim and every label you use, then decide on each one. 

What EmpCo is 

EmpCo is Directive (EU) 2024/825. It amends existing EU consumer law rather than creating a separate regime, which means environmental claims now fall under the same rules that govern misleading commercial practices generally. 

The timeline has been public for over two years. The directive entered into force in March 2024. Member States had until 27 March 2026 to write it into national law. Some moved earlier; Germany transposed it through its unfair competition act in December 2025. What changes on 27 September is enforcement. 

We covered the directive when it was first adopted, in our earlier update on what ECGT means for product claims. This piece is the practical version, written for the weeks before enforcement. 

What is prohibited 

Three prohibitions matter most for textile and apparel brands. 

1. Generic environmental claims without evidence

Words like eco-friendly, green, climate friendly, and conscious cannot be used on their own. A claim has to be specific and supported by evidence that relates to that product. 

This is the prohibition with the widest reach, because generic language is everywhere: product descriptions, category pages, collection names, hangtags, and campaign copy. 

It is worth saying that vague language was already working against brands. The evidence on whether consumers act on sustainability claims suggests that specific, checkable information performs better than general assurances. The directive pushes in the same direction as consumer behavior. 

2. Carbon neutrality claims based on offsetting

Claiming a product has neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact on the basis of offsetting is explicitly prohibited. A brand that describes a garment as carbon neutral because it purchased offsets is making a claim that no longer stands. 

3. Sustainability labels not based on a certification scheme

From 27 September, a sustainability label must either be established by a public authority or based on a certification scheme that meets the directive’s requirements. The European Commission’s FAQ defines a sustainability label broadly: any trust mark, quality mark, or equivalent that distinguishes a product by its environmental or social characteristics. 

That definition covers more than third-party marks. In-house eco-badges, internal scoring systems shown to shoppers, and own-brand sustainability tiers all fall inside it. For brands that built their own program, often with real work behind it, this is a difficult one.  A brand’s own mark can no longer carry that message, even where the work behind it is real. 

What EmpCo asks of certification schemes 

The part of the directive getting less attention is what it requires of the schemes behind the labels. If you use a third-party mark, these are the questions worth asking whoever owns it.  If a label is not established by a public authority, the scheme behind it has to meet seven tests. 

• Certification based on independentthird-party verification 
• Requirements andterms publicly available 
• Compliancemonitored by a competent, independent third party, in line with international, Union, or national standards 
• Transparent, credible, and open to all traders on fair and non-discriminatory terms 
• Opento any trader willing and able to comply 
• Requirements setin consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders 
• The scheme allows use of a corresponding sustainability label 

The Commission has been specific on one further point. Where a scheme owner and the third party monitoring compliance might otherwise be the same organization, compliance requires that they are legally separate entities. 

Where to start: a claims audit 

If the scope feels large, there is a simple first step. Open your product pages and search for these words. 

• green
• eco-friendly
• sustainable
• conscious
• climate neutral
• carbon neutral
• planetfriendly 

For each result, ask one question: can you point to specific evidence for that claim, on that product? Where the answer is yes, the claim usually survives with a small edit that makes the evidence visible. Where it is no, the wording changes. 

Then work outward from the product page. 

• Filters and categories. A sustainable category on an e-commerce site is a claim aboutevery product inside it. 
• Hangtags and packaging. Longer leadtimes, so worth looking at early. 
• Collection and productnames. A claim in a name is still a claim. 
• Labels. Is each one established by a public authority, or based on a certification schemethat meets the directive’s requirements? 

 Most brands are doing more than their current claims describe. The chemistry has been changed, the suppliers have been pushed, the work is real. This is a chance to say so specifically, which is more persuasive than the general language it replaces. 

A worked example: a claim that a jacket is eco-friendly does not survive. A statement about the specific chemistry used to achieve water repellency, and what was removed from the process, does. Our piece on the shift to PFAS-free clothing shows the level of specificity that holds up, and the Swedish proposal on PFAS in consumer products is a reminder that substance-level regulation is moving in parallel. 

One timing point that is easy to miss: collections in development today are already inside this window. The design, sourcing, and marketing decisions being taken now are the ones that will be assessed. 

Where claims rest on chemical inputs, the evidence has to come from further upstream than most brands are used to looking. We have written about why input-stage chemistry decides what you can later claim. 

What this means for substantiation 

A claim that survives the audit still needs to be substantiated where the shopper sees it. In digital channels that usually means a QR code, a link, or an expandable panel that shows the underlying claim when a shopper selects the mark. bluepass labels carry a QR code or URL that links to our verification page, which explains what the mark covers in plain language. 

For a fuller explanation of the three bluepass marks and what each one certifies, see our overview of bluepass. 

What bluesign is doing 

 We welcome this directive. Transparency and accountability in sustainability claims are what bluepass exists to support, and clearer rules make that work easier to see. 

We have been working through the directive’s requirements for certification schemes since 2024. Our revised bluesign Criteria and a new Scheme document are publishing for public consultation this month. 

When the Empowering Consumers Directive takes effect on 27 September, bluepass meets its requirements for certification schemes. For our System Partner companies, nothing changes. Existing certifications remain valid, and assessment and product registration continue as they are. 

Two of the seven requirements are that a scheme’s requirements are publicly available, and set in consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders. Publishing the draft for open consultation is that, in the open. 

We will send a full statement to our System Partner companies, and we are planning a webinar with time for questions. 

Next steps 

Start with the claims audit. It is the fastest way to see the size of the task, and most of it can be done by your own team. 

If you want a view of where the chemical risk sits in your own supply chain before you start writing claims, our Risk Check is a short tool that gives you a starting point. Or get in touch to talk through how the bluesign System supports substantiated claims.