Environmental claims: what the new EU rules change
From 27 September 2026, EU Directive 2024/825 bans generic environmental claims without certified performance. The question shifts from “is this product sustainable?” to “what exactly is certified, by whom, and to what percentage?”
Short answer: From 27 September 2026, EU Directive 2024/825 makes it illegal to use generic environmental claims like “eco-friendly”, “green” or “sustainable” on products sold in the EU unless you can demonstrate recognised, certified environmental performance. For companies ordering branded merchandise, this shifts the question from “is this product sustainable?” to “what exactly is certified, by whom, and to what percentage?”
What is changing, and when
Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, was adopted on 28 February 2024 and published in the Official Journal on 6 March 2024. It amends two pillars of EU consumer law: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU).
Member States were required to transpose it into national law by 27 March 2026. The provisions become enforceable across the EU from 27 September 2026, with no transition period.
A separate proposal, the Green Claims Directive, would have added detailed substantiation and third-party verification requirements. On 20 June 2025 the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw that proposal, following concerns about its complexity for micro-enterprises. That withdrawal does not soften what is already law: Directive 2024/825 remains fully in force and enforceable from September 2026.
What the directive actually prohibits
From 27 September 2026, Directive (EU) 2024/825 bans generic environmental claims used on their own on any product sold in the European Union: “eco-friendly”, “green”, “sustainable”, “kind to the planet”. What the ban targets is not the word itself but the absence of evidence behind it. A claim remains possible where it points to a precise, recognised and verifiable performance: a certified recycled content percentage, a label issued by an independent body, a figure attached to a stated method. For a company ordering branded merchandise, the change is less legal than documentary: the question is no longer whether a product is sustainable, but what exactly is certified, by whom, and to what percentage. That information has to be obtained at the moment the order is placed, not at the moment the claim is published.
The directive adds new practices to the EU’s blacklist of unfair commercial practices. The ones most relevant to branded merchandise are:
Generic environmental claims without proof. Terms such as “environmentally friendly”, “eco”, “green”, “climate friendly” or “biodegradable” are prohibited unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.
Sustainability labels that are not based on a certification scheme. Displaying a sustainability label that is not underpinned by a certification scheme or established by public authorities becomes a banned practice. Self-invented eco-labels are directly targeted.
Claims about the whole product based on one aspect. Presenting a product as environmentally advantageous overall when the claim only concerns one part of it is prohibited.
Carbon-neutrality claims based on offsetting. Claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact on the basis of emissions offsetting are banned.
Why this matters specifically for corporate merchandise
Branded merchandise sits in an awkward position. It is usually sourced from a supplier catalogue, customised, and then distributed by a company under its own name. That last step is the one that creates exposure.
When you put your logo on a bag and describe it as “sustainable” in an internal newsletter, an event page or a client mailing, you are the one making the claim. Not the supplier who manufactured it. Not the distributor who sold it to you.
Three practical consequences follow.
“Recycled” is not one thing. A product described as recycled may contain 100% recycled material, or 57%, or it may be one component that is recycled while the rest is virgin. The percentage is the claim. Without it, you are making a generic statement.
Certifications are not interchangeable. As covered in our guide to textile and paper certifications, OEKO-TEX STANDARD 100 tests for harmful substances and is explicitly not a sustainability standard. FSC concerns forestry, not manufacturing. RCS verifies recycled content and chain of custody, not environmental processing conditions. Using one to support a claim it does not cover is precisely the gap the directive addresses.
Colour variants can differ. In textile ranges, composition frequently changes between colourways. A product line described as “80% organic cotton” may be 75% in one heather or marl colour, because the melange requires a different fibre blend. If you communicate a single figure across a whole order, part of that order may not match the claim.
What to ask your supplier before you order
If you intend to communicate anything about a product’s environmental characteristics, five questions will cover most of the risk.
1. Which certification applies, and to what exactly? Ask whether the certificate covers the fabric, the whole product, or the packaging. Ask for the certificate number where one exists. FSC licence codes, for instance, follow the format FSC-C123456 and are traceable.
2. What is the exact recycled or organic percentage? Ask for the figure and the basis of calculation. “Total recycled content: 59% based on total item weight” is a usable claim. “Made with recycled materials” is not.
3. Does the figure hold across every colourway and size? Ask explicitly. This is the single most common source of accidental misstatement in textile orders.
4. Is the certification still valid? Certificates expire. Textile Exchange, FSC and OEKO-TEX all operate public databases where a certificate can be checked.
5. Can I have that in writing? If a claim matters enough to print, it matters enough to have on paper from the supplier.
What good practice looks like in your own communication
The directive does not prevent you from talking about environmental characteristics. It requires you to be specific.
| Instead of | Write |
|---|---|
| “Eco-friendly tote bags” | “Tote bags in 100% recycled canvas, AWARE™ traced” |
| “Sustainable water bottles” | “Bottles in 59% RCS-certified recycled aluminium and ABS” |
| “Green welcome packs” | “Notebooks with FSC-certified cover and pages” |
| “Climate neutral merchandise” | Avoid entirely if the basis is offsetting |
The second column is longer. It is also defensible, and it tells the reader something.
A note on scope
Directive 2024/825 is consumer protection law, aimed primarily at business-to-consumer communication. Corporate merchandise is typically a business-to-business purchase.
That does not put it out of reach. Branded items are frequently distributed to employees, event attendees and members of the public, and communicated about publicly on company websites and social channels. Where an environmental claim reaches consumers, the framework applies. Separately, national enforcement of greenwashing under the existing Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is already active in several Member States, independently of the September 2026 date.
The practical position for most organisations is straightforward: apply the same standard of accuracy to merchandise claims as to any other public environmental statement, because that is where the reputational and legal exposure sits.
What the Commission’s FAQ adds on scope
In addition to the directive itself, the European Commission has published a set of answers to frequently asked questions on the ECGT Directive. The document states plainly that it “do[es] not constitute a formal Commission position or legally binding interpretation”, and that authoritative interpretation rests with the Court of Justice of the European Union. National authorities nonetheless use it in practice, which makes it worth knowing.
Two points in it bear directly on corporate merchandise. The FAQ confirms that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is limited to business-to-consumer practices and that business-to-business practices fall outside its scope, governed instead by other instruments — notably the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (2006/114/EC). It then adds that nothing prevents a Member State from extending that protection to B2B relations in its own national law, while noting that such measures are not part of the harmonised EU framework.
For a company ordering branded merchandise, the practical reading does not change: the exposure sits wherever a claim reaches consumers, and national rules may reach further still.
Frequently asked questions
Does the Green Claims Directive still apply? The Green Claims Directive was a separate proposal. The Commission announced its intention to withdraw it in June 2025. Directive 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, is a different piece of legislation, is already adopted, and applies from 27 September 2026.
Can I still use the word “sustainable”? Not as a standalone, generic claim about a product. You can describe specific, verifiable characteristics: certified recycled content with a percentage, a named certification, a specific material property.
Who is responsible if a supplier’s information is wrong? The party making the claim to the market is exposed. This is why written confirmation from your supplier matters, and why a distributor who checks certificates before communicating them adds real value.
Does this apply outside the EU? Directive 2024/825 applies to the EU market. Similar frameworks exist or are developing in other jurisdictions, including the UK. If you distribute merchandise internationally, claims should be checked per market.
Sources
- Directive (EU) 2024/825, adopted 28 February 2024, published in the Official Journal 6 March 2024. Transposition deadline 27 March 2026, applicable from 27 September 2026.
- European Commission, answers to frequently asked questions on the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive
- Eversheds Sutherland / My Green Lab, “EU Green Transition Directive”
- Latham & Watkins, “European Commission Announces Intention to Withdraw EU Green Claims Directive Proposal”
- CMS, “The EU Green Claims Directive: where are we now and what’s next”
- ClimatePartner, “EU Green Claims Directive”
This article is general information, not legal advice. For decisions with legal consequences, consult a qualified adviser in the relevant jurisdiction.
Last reviewed: August 2026.