EmpCo: How the New EU Directive Impacts Nature Projects

EmpCo, Directive (EU) 2024/825, is the EU law behind national rules that member states had to apply from 27 September 2026. It bans telling consumers that a product is climate neutral, or has a reduced or positive climate impact, because of offsets. It also bans vague claims such as "eco-friendly" without recognised excellent environmental performance, and sustainability labels with no certification scheme or public authority behind them. It doesn't ban buying credits or funding nature projects: companies can still say specifically what they fund, if they can prove it. For developers, the value moves from a neutrality badge to evidence.

Restoration Scope, which makes field and monitoring software for nature projects, publishes this guide for restoration, reforestation and carbon project developers, and for the companies that fund them or buy their credits. For the carbon standards themselves, see carbon standards for nature projects.

Checked November 1, 2026: against the ⁠text of the directive, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive it amends, the Commission services' Questions & Answers (September 2026), the consumer authorities' common understanding on old stock (June 2026), the national measures listed on EUR-Lex and the European Parliament's Legislative Train. The Q&A is the Commission services' preliminary view, not a binding interpretation; national authorities and courts decide cases. This guide is a plain-language summary, not legal advice.

What is the EmpCo Directive?

EmpCo ("Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition", also called ECGT) is an EU directive of 28 February 2024 that amends two consumer laws: the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU). It entered into force on 26 March 2024 (Article 5); member states had to adopt and publish national laws by 27 March 2026 and apply them from 27 September 2026 (Article 4).

It regulates what businesses tell consumers, on packaging, in adverts, on websites and through brand names. It doesn't regulate carbon credits, standards or projects. Five changes matter for nature claims:

The first four are on the blacklist in the UCPD's Annex I: banned in all circumstances, with no need to show that a consumer was misled. The fifth is judged case by case.

"Recognised excellent environmental performance" has a narrow meaning: the EU Ecolabel, an officially recognised national or regional EN ISO 14024 type I ecolabel, or top performance under other EU law. It also has to be relevant to the claim. Without that, a claim has to be specified "in clear and prominent terms on the same medium" (in practice, the Q&A says, next to or as part of the claim), or not made. A specified claim still has to pass the other rules against misleading claims. Recital 10 adds that "conscious", "sustainable" or "responsible" shouldn't rest on recognised excellent environmental performance alone, because those words also cover social characteristics.

Which claims about nature projects are now banned?

Recital 12 lists examples of offset-based claims the ban covers: "climate neutral", "CO2 neutral certified", "carbon positive", "climate net zero", "climate compensated", "reduced climate impact" and "limited CO2 footprint". The Commission's Q&A gives a nature example: a flight called climate neutral because the airline invests in a tropical reforestation project.

Images count too. The Q&A, quoting the Commission's 2021 guidance, says trees, rainforests, water, animals and green or blue colours can be implicit environmental claims. A picture alone isn't a generic claim, but a picture of a forest next to the word "sustainable" can be.

Names can be claims as well. The definition of an environmental claim includes "brand names, company names or product names", and the Q&A says a name counts when it conveys an environmental message, explicitly or implicitly.

Can companies still say they fund a reforestation or carbon project?

Yes. Recital 12 says the offset ban "should not prevent companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they provide such information in a way that is not misleading and that complies with the requirements laid down in Union law". The Commission's Q&A (question 10) says the same, and adds that the point 4c ban doesn't apply to offset claims at company level, which still fall under the directive's other rules. That doesn't make a company "climate neutral" claim safe: the Q&A says generic claims such as "climate neutral" or "carbon positive" are banned under point 4a unless the trader can show recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.

This is sometimes called a contribution claim: the company says what it paid for, not that the payment cancels its footprint. The directive doesn't use the term, and it doesn't give a template. What it does give is a test: a specific claim that the trader can back with evidence, that doesn't overstate the benefit or pass off one activity as the whole business.

The stronger versions say what was funded and add the details a reader needs to check it: where, how much, since when, and where to look. Most of those details come from the project.

Does EmpCo cover biodiversity and animal welfare claims?

Biodiversity claims, yes. Animal welfare claims, only in part.

The directive never uses the word "biodiversity", but its definition is wide: an environmental claim is any claim that a product, brand or trader has "a positive or zero impact on the environment", is less damaging to it than others, or has improved its impact over time (Article 2(o)). Read plainly, a claim about habitat, species or wildlife is a claim about the environment, so the environmental-claim rules apply: a vague one falls under point 4a, and a specific one is judged case by case unless another outright ban, such as point 4b, applies. Recital 9's examples of generic claims include "nature's friend", and the Q&A counts images of trees, rainforests and animals among possible implicit environmental claims, though a picture alone isn't a generic claim.

Animal welfare sits elsewhere. Recital 3 lists "ethical commitments, such as animal welfare" among a product's social characteristics, and the Q&A repeats this (question 9); neither calls it environmental. So some of the new rules reach it and some don't:

• Labels: covered. A sustainability label is a mark about "environmental or social characteristics, or both" (Article 2(q)), so an animal-welfare seal can only be shown with a certification scheme or a public authority behind it, like an eco label (point 2a).
• Misleading claims: covered, case by case. Social characteristics are now named among a product's main characteristics (Article 6(1)(b)), so a false or deceptive animal-welfare claim is misleading when it is likely to make the average consumer take a transactional decision they wouldn't otherwise take. Courts and authorities can require the trader to prove it where appropriate (Article 12).
• Legal minimums: covered. Presenting something the law requires of every product in the category on the EU market as a distinctive feature of your offer is banned outright, whatever the subject (point 10a).
• The other outright bans: not covered while the claim stays social. Points 4a and 4b are about environmental claims, and point 4c about greenhouse gas emissions. A vague "animal friendly" isn't banned outright. If it implies a benefit to the environment, it can become an environmental claim, and point 4a then applies if it is vague: the Q&A says a term such as "vegan" used to mean "better for the planet" could be one (question 15).

The directive doesn't say where protecting wild animals falls. Our reading: a claim that a project protects a species or its habitat is about the environment, and the environmental-claim rules apply; a claim about how farmed or kept animals are treated is animal welfare.

The offset ban names only greenhouse gas emissions, so point 4c doesn't reach a claim based on biodiversity credits. That doesn't make such a claim safe: "nature positive" with nothing next to it saying how is a generic claim (point 4a), and a spelled-out one leaves point 4a but is still banned outright if it claims something about the whole product or business on the strength of one project (point 4b); otherwise it is judged case by case. Recital 12's line about advertising "investments in environmental initiatives" isn't limited to carbon projects.

The directive sets no standard for species evidence. But hectares and tree counts show what was restored, not what lives there, and a true species count can still mislead if it implies the product caused it (Article 6(1)).

What about removals inside a buyer's own supply chain?

Recital 12 says the ban targets offsetting "outside the product's value chain"; point 4c itself has no value-chain wording. The Commission's Q&A says a neutral, reduced or positive claim is not caught when it rests on the actual emissions footprint of the product across its value chain, and that such claims "would need to be substantiated through proper life cycle assessments".

So agroforestry or restoration on the farms that supply a product, often called insetting, may support a claim about that product where an assessment shows a real, verifiable effect within the product's life cycle. The label "insetting" proves nothing by itself: what counts is the measured effect within the product's life cycle, not buying or retiring a credit, and the directive's other rules still apply. Either way, it raises the bar for farm-level records: which farms, which practices, from when, with what measured result.

Does EmpCo apply to project developers?

Mostly indirectly. The Commission's Q&A says the directive is "strictly limited" to business-to-consumer practices; business-to-business claims are outside it, though some fall under other EU rules, notably the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive, and member states may extend protection to businesses nationally. Annual sustainability reports are usually outside it too, unless their content is reused in consumer advertising.

Three cases bring a developer in:

• You sell to consumers. Tree sponsorships, gift trees, credits for individuals or a "plant a tree" checkout add-on are consumer sales, and your claims about them are covered.
• You give buyers a badge. A logo or seal your buyers put on products or websites can be a "sustainability label", "any voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent", when consumers read it as a mark of environmental quality. The Q&A says that depends on its use, context and consumer perception. If it is one, it can only be shown when based on a certification scheme: public requirements and terms, open on transparent, fair terms to all traders willing and able to comply, developed with experts and stakeholders, rules for non-compliance that can withdraw or suspend the label, and monitoring by a third party whose competence and independence from both the scheme owner and the trader rest on international, EU or national standards. The Q&A adds that the owner and the monitor must be separate legal entities.
• Your buyers' claims fail. A buyer whose consumer claim relies on your numbers needs to be able to prove them. Under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, traders should be able to furnish evidence of the accuracy of factual claims (Article 12, as the Q&A notes). That burden lands on the buyer, and many buyers will pass it down.

The Q&A also says labels set up by public authorities outside the EU don't count as "established by public authorities"; they need a certification scheme behind them to be shown in the EU.

What evidence will buyers ask project developers for?

The directive sets no evidence list for projects. But a buyer that wants to say anything specific about its support will need facts it can repeat and defend. Expect requests for:

Keep it current: a dated claim ("planted in 2025") can stand, but a claim about now ("2,000 trees growing") needs current numbers. Projects that can hand this over quickly, for the exact sites a buyer funded, make their buyers' claims easier to keep. For the records funders ask for in general, see restoration monitoring for funders and how to track tree planting survival.

Where does field monitoring data fit?

Most claims about nature projects that survive EmpCo will be specific, and a specific claim about what happened on the ground ends in a field record: a boundary, a planting date, a survival count, a photo with a location. When those records are scattered across spreadsheets and phones, buyers get round numbers and old reports, and their claims get vaguer or riskier.

Restoration Scope keeps those records connected for each site. Teams map boundaries or walk them with GPS, record planting and survival checks offline, and attach photos that carry their location. Tables export as CSV and sites as GeoJSON, and we set up public portals where funders and consumers read the latest record without signing in. It doesn't verify projects, certify claims, run life cycle assessments or issue credits, and it isn't legal advice: buyers still need their own review of what they say. See Restoration Scope for carbon projects.

What about net-zero and other future claims?

Claims about future environmental performance, at product or company level, can be misleading when they don't rest on "clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments" in a "detailed and realistic implementation plan" with measurable, time-bound targets and resources, "regularly verified by an independent third party expert" whose findings are available to consumers (Article 6(2)(d)). Like the other Article 6 rules, it is judged case by case, by whether it is likely to make the average consumer take a transactional decision they wouldn't otherwise take. The Q&A says the directive doesn't fix how often verification happens and suggests yearly or two-yearly reviews, or more after significant changes. Consumers must be able to reach both the plan and the findings easily; a QR code is one way.

How does EmpCo relate to the Green Claims Directive?

The Green Claims Directive is a separate, stalled proposal that would set detailed rules for substantiating and verifying environmental claims before they're made. It is not law. Its status, from the European Parliament's ⁠Legislative Train:

EmpCo sets the bans; the Green Claims Directive would set how to prove what's left. With it stalled, the blacklist applies as written, and everything else is judged case by case under the amended consumer rules by national authorities and courts.

Has every EU country transposed EmpCo, and who enforces it?

The record isn't complete. As of 1 November 2026, ⁠EUR-Lex lists national measures notified by 22 of the 27 member states, and none for Spain, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia or Sweden. A notified measure isn't proof of complete transposition, and a missing one isn't proof of none. On 28 May 2026 the Commission sent letters of formal notice to 20 member states for not communicating complete transposition, including the Netherlands and Austria, which have both notified measures since.

Examples of national laws:

• Germany: the Third Act amending the Act against Unfair Competition (UWG), published 19 February 2026.
• Italy: Legislative Decree of 20 February 2026, No. 30.
• Netherlands: the Act of 27 May 2026 implementing the directive.
• Ireland: the European Union (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition) Regulations 2026.
• Austria: amendments to its Unfair Competition Act and consumer law, published 28 July 2026.

The existing rules against misleading claims already apply everywhere; the Commission's Q&A notes that they could be used against greenwashing before EmpCo applied.

Who enforces. National consumer authorities and courts. Under some national laws, people and organisations can also bring cases, as the Q&A notes; in Germany, for example, competitors, trade associations and consumer associations can sue under ⁠section 8(3) of the UWG. Penalties are set nationally. For penalties imposed in coordinated actions under Article 21 of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation, national law must allow maximum fines of at least 4% of the trader's annual turnover in the member states concerned, or at least EUR 2 million when turnover data isn't available (UCPD Article 13, as amended by ⁠Directive 2019/2161).

Old stock. The rules apply to products and packaging already made or on shelves. In June 2026 the CPC network published a common understanding: authorities may phase enforcement where old stock causes genuine and specific difficulty, may favour corrections such as stickers or updated online claims, and may avoid requiring destruction or recall. It isn't a formal CPC position or a binding interpretation, and it doesn't stop action in a specific case. Online claims and adverts are expected to change right away.

More guides: carbon standards for nature projects compared, Plan Vivo vs Gold Standard vs Verra and restoration monitoring for funders.

Disclosure: Restoration Scope makes field and monitoring software for restoration and carbon project developers. We are not a standard, a registry, a verifier or a law firm, and we don't sell credits.