On 22 September 2026 the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers published a ‘Questions & Answers’ document on Directive (EU) 2024/825, the so-called ECGT (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition) or EMP.CO. (Empowering Consumers) Directive, whose provisions apply from 27 September 2026 (European Commission, 2026a). Twenty pages and twenty-one questions, protocolled on 21 September, which update the version circulated at the end of June 2026 together with the Common Understanding of the CPC Network on ‘old stock’ (Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, 2026).
Food Times has followed the directive since the vote of the European Parliament in January 2024, through the analysis of the new definitions and blacklisted practices and the road-map on packaging stocks. This article examines the Q&A question by question, with attention to what changes, or does not change, for the agri-food sector.
A Q&A instead of updated guidance
The Commission itself explains why the document exists. Recital 42 of the directive states that ‘to facilitate the proper application of this Directive, it is important that the Commission keeps the guidance documents on Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU updated to take into account the content of this Directive’. No deadline was set, and the Commission has decided that the 2021 Guidance Notices on the UCPD (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC) and on the CRD (Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU) will be updated ‘at a later date’, after ‘the accumulation of relevant case law, enforcement decisions, and practical experience’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 2).
The disclaimer is equally explicit. The answers are ‘the preliminary views of the European Commission (EC) services and may not under any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the EC’. Interpretation belongs to the Court of Justice; enforcement belongs to national authorities and courts (European Commission, 2026a, p. 1).
Scope: B2C only, sustainability reports to be handled with care
Question 1 confirms the perimeter. The UCPD covers ‘unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, as laid down in Article 5, before, during and after a commercial transaction in relation to a product’ (dir. 2005/29/EC, art. 3.1). Business-to-business practices remain governed by Directive 2006/114/EC on misleading and comparative advertising, Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 on platform-to-business relations and, for the agri-food chain, directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices (European Commission, 2026a, p. 5).
Two levels of intervention coexist. The amendments to articles 6 and 7 of the UCPD require a case-by-case assessment, that is a ‘transactional decision test’; the additions to Annex I form the ‘blacklist’ of practices ‘prohibited under all circumstances, for which there is no need to demonstrate the negative impact of the practice on the average consumer’s transactional decision’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 5).
Corporate sustainability reporting under the CSRD is ‘typically not in scope’, since it is mandatory and addressed to investors. The exception matters: ‘if a company uses information from its sustainability report in voluntary advertising or marketing directed at consumers, such communication falls under the UCPD/ECGT Directive’ (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 5-6). A figure lifted from the ESG report and published in a different part of the website is a commercial practice.
‘Imply’: images, colours and the average consumer
Question 2 addresses the verb ‘imply’ in the definition of environmental claim, which covers ‘any message or representation which is not mandatory under Union or national law, in any form, including text, pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, such as labels, brand names, company names or product names’ (dir. 2005/29/EC, art. 2, lett. ‘o’).
Implicit and explicit messages ‘require the same assessment as to whether they are misleading’. The Commission recalls its own 2021 Guidance: ‘also the imagery and overall product presentation (i.e. layout, choice of colours, images, pictures, sounds, symbols or labels), should be a truthful and accurate representation of the scale of the environmental benefit, and should not overstate the benefit achieved. Implicit claims may, depending on the circumstances of the case, include the use of images (e.g. trees, rainforests, water, animals) and colours (e.g. blue or green backgrounds or text) that are associated with environmental sustainability’ (European Commission, 2021, section 4.1.1.3, p. 76).
One distinction is new and useful. A generic environmental claim is by definition ‘made in written or oral form’, so ‘implicit claims (colours or images) on their own, without written or spoken text, cannot be considered generic environmental claims’. The Annex I, point 4a prohibition does not bite on a green leaf alone. It does bite when ‘claims made in written form or orally combined with implicit claims’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 6). Question 5 completes the picture for packaging artwork: ‘a green leaf or water drop, when combined with logos or positioned next to statements about sustainability or natural ingredients, may be seen by the average consumer as a voluntary trust mark or quality mark’, and therefore as a sustainability label subject to Annex I, point 2a (European Commission, 2026a, p. 9).
The benchmark remains the average consumer, ‘reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect’, and the test ‘is not a statistical test’: authorities and courts may decide ‘without necessarily having to commission expert reports or consumer surveys’ (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 9-10).
Brand names and trade marks
Question 3 is among the most sensitive for food operators, whose brand portfolios are full of ‘natural‘, ‘green’, ‘bio’, ‘eco’ and similar terms. Registration as a trade mark offers no shelter: brand and product names ‘regardless of their protection under intellectual property law, are not excluded from the scope of the UCPD/ECGT Directive’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 7).
The assessment is again contextual. The word ‘green’ or ‘blue’ in a name ‘does not automatically constitute an environmental claim’ where those terms ‘are unlikely to lead the average consumer to expect’ an environmental benefit. Where instead ‘green’, ‘eco’, ‘natural’ or ‘climate neutral’ appear ‘in a way that is likely to create an environmental association for the average consumer, even without any other explicit advertising’, the name is an environmental claim: the trader must specify it ‘in clear and prominent terms on the same medium’, failing which it is a generic claim and requires recognised excellent environmental performance (European Commission, 2026a, p. 7).
The trade mark consequences are spelled out. Under directive (EU) 2015/2436, article 4.3, lett. ‘a’, a Member State may provide that a mark is ‘not to be registered or, if registered, is liable to be declared invalid where and to the extent that the use of the trade mark may be prohibited pursuant to provisions of law other than trade mark law’. Member States ‘should ensure that national authorities are able to take action against traders using brand names and product names that constitute misleading claims under the UCPD, without being hindered by existing intellectual property rights’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 8). Ordinary trade marks are unlikely to be ‘sustainability labels’, since they must be distinctive; certification marks under article 27 of the same directive can be, and may then be displayed only if established by public authorities or based on a certification scheme (i.e. Made Green in Italy, integrated pest management, SQNPI, SQNZ, SQNBA, in Italy).
Generic and specific claims, the same medium
Question 4 offers the clearest examples. ‘Climate-friendly packaging’ without specification is generic and prohibited unless backed by recognised excellent environmental performance. ‘100% of energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources’ is specific and escapes the ban, while remaining subject to the general rules on misleading practices and to substantiation (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 8-9).
The specification must appear ‘next to, or as part of, the claim in clear and prominent terms on the same medium’. The Commission repeats a sentence from its 2021 Guidance that food marketers should pin above their desks: ‘If there is no space to specify the environmental claim, then the claim should generally not be made’ (European Commission, 2021, section 4.1.1.4, p. 80). A sustainability label is no ‘safe haven’ either: a claim such as ‘gentle on the environment’ included in a label is not generic, but it remains an environmental claim under article 2, lett. ‘o’, and ‘subject to other relevant provisions of the UCPD’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 8).
Carbon neutrality and offsetting
Questions 6 and 10 organise the rules on carbon claims into three layers:
- generic claims of carbon neutrality (‘carbon-neutral’, ‘climate neutral’, ‘carbon compensated’, ‘carbon positive’) follow the regime of generic environmental claims, Annex I, point 4a;
- claims that a product has ‘a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions’ based on offsetting are prohibited under all circumstances, Annex I, point 4c;
- claims on future environmental performance, including transition to climate neutrality, fall under article 6.2, lett. ‘d’, with a case-by-case assessment (European Commission, 2026a, p. 10).
The typical example is ‘claiming that a specific flight is climate neutral because the airline invests in a reforestation project in tropical rainforest’. Recital 12 lists the expressions caught: ‘climate neutral’, ‘CO₂ neutral certified’, ‘carbon positive’, ‘climate net zero’, ‘climate compensated’, ‘reduced climate impact’ and ‘limited CO2 footprint’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 14). Such claims ‘should only be allowed when they are based on the actual lifecycle impact of the product in question, and not based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions outside the product’s value chain’.
Three clarifications follow:
- first, a ‘reduced CO₂ impact’ claim is lawful ‘if this is specified in clear and prominent terms on the same medium, and based on actual improvements in the production processes’;
- second, point 4c ‘does not apply to claims based on offsetting at company level’, which nonetheless remain subject to the other UCPD provisions;
- third, companies may still communicate ‘their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, provided this information is presented transparently and is not misleading’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 14).
The same logic was noted in this journal on the demand for biodiversity credits by the German food industry, and the risk of greenwashing ‘offset’ by carbon credits had already been flagged when the Green Claims Directive was proposed.
Recognised excellent environmental performance
Question 7 identifies the three routes to demonstrate the performance required for a generic claim: the EU Ecolabel under regulation (EC) No 66/2010; national or regional EN ISO 14024 type I schemes officially recognised in the Member States (Nordic Swan, Blue Angel, Austrian Ecolabel, Milieukeur); top performance under other applicable Union law, the example given being the Energy Labelling Regulation (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 10-11).
Relevance is the operative condition. A product may claim ‘energy efficient’ on the basis of its energy label, but ‘a generic environmental claim such as “biodegradable” could not be made based on the EU Ecolabel, if there are no requirements for biodegradability in the specific EU Ecolabel criteria related to the product in question’. The Q&A then lists product-group examples of claims allowed for Ecolabel goods, from textiles to lubricants. None concerns food or drink, for which no EU Ecolabel criteria exist.
Certification schemes, 27 September without transition
Question 8 restates the requirements of article 2, lett. ‘r’:
- independent third-party verification;
- publicly available requirements;
- monitoring by a competent and independent third party in line with international, Union or national standards, ISO 17065 and regulation (EC) No 765/2008 being cited;
- transparent, fair and non-discriminatory access;
- requirements set by the scheme owner in consultation with experts and stakeholders (European Commission, 2026a, p. 12).
Two points are new. The scheme owner and the trader displaying the label may be the same entity, provided the scheme is open to all traders willing and able to comply. By contrast, the scheme owner and the third party monitoring compliance must be ‘two different legal entities’, whatever international standards may allow (European Commission, 2026a, p. 12). Private company labels ‘certified’ by an in-house function are thus excluded.
The timing is stated without ambiguity: ‘Any sustainability label on the market as of 27 September 2026 must comply with these provisions. Existing schemes that do not meet the requirements of Article 2(r) of the UCPD, as amended by Article 1(1)(b) of the ECGT Directive must be adapted accordingly, otherwise the associated labels must be removed from commercial communications. The ECGT Directive does not provide for a transition period beyond this date’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 12). The proliferation of heterogeneous sustainability labels on food, and the resulting confusion, had been documented by the JRC.
Social characteristics, animal welfare, ‘vegan’
Question 9 recalls that article 6.1, lett. ‘b’ now lists social characteristics among the main characteristics of a product, with recital 3 as the reference text: working conditions ‘throughout its value chain’, human rights, equal treatment, inclusion, ‘contributions to social initiatives or to ethical commitments, such as animal welfare’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 13). Traders must be able to furnish evidence of factual claims (dir. 2005/29/EC, art. 12, lett. ‘a’). As regards social labels such as SA8000 and FSSC 24000, and some animal welfare schemes, reference is made to previous articles.
Question 15 concerns ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ labels. Their qualification as sustainability labels ‘will depend on the specific case’. Where the trader ‘implies environmental or social benefits when using these terms or labels (e.g., “vegan = better for the planet”)’, the label becomes an environmental claim or a sustainability label under the new definitions (European Commission, 2026a, p. 16). Five years ago this journal had already observed that a ‘100% plant-based‘ label guarantees composition and nothing more.
Irrelevant benefits: gluten-free water, extra-protein yoghurt
Question 11 explains the new article 6.2, lett. ‘e’, which qualifies as misleading ‘advertising benefits to consumers that are irrelevant and do not result from any feature of the product or business’. The two conditions are cumulative. Recital 5 offers the examples of a bottled water advertised as gluten-free and of paper sheets said to contain no plastic. The Commission adds the counter-examples: ‘extra protein’ on a yoghurt is relevant, ‘as protein content varies between yogurts and may result from specific ingredients or formulations unique to that brand’; ‘nickel-free’ jewellery may be lawful because ‘some jewelleries do contain nickel which can cause allergies’ (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 14-15). The criterion is therefore not the rarity of the feature but its relevance and its dependence on a real characteristic of the product.
Future performance and the third-party expert
Question 12 addresses claims on future environmental performance (article 6.2, lett. ‘d’). They require ‘clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments’ set out in ‘a detailed and realistic implementation plan’ with measurable and time-bound targets, verified by an independent expert whose findings are made available to consumers. The expert ‘must be independent from the trader, free from conflicts of interest, and possess experience and competence in environmental issues’; ‘in practice, private auditors or consultancy companies can serve this role’. Verification must be ‘regular’, and ‘best practices would suggest annual or biennial reviews’. Neither the plan nor the findings need to appear on the same medium as the claim: a QR code on the packaging pointing to the trader’s website suffices (European Commission, 2026a, p. 15).
Comparisons, organic, legal requirements, third countries
Question 13 clarifies that a trader offering a comparison service on environmental or social characteristics or circularity (article 7.7) must disclose the compared products, their suppliers, the method of comparison and the measures keeping the information up to date, and that the method ‘must be explained to the extent that an average consumer would be able to fully comprehend it’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 16).
Question 14 is the answer that the organic sector was waiting for. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 is lex specialis and prevails in case of conflict (dir. 2005/29/EC, art. 3.4). The EU organic logo is not an EN ISO 14024 type I ecolabel, yet ‘the terms referring to organic production (as listed in Annex IV to that Regulation) and their derivatives and diminutives, such as “bio” and “eco”, can be used throughout the European Union to demonstrate compliance with the EU organic farming rules, even though they could be considered as “generic environmental claims” under the UCPD’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 16). The point had been made in this journal in relation to the ABCs of regulation (EU) 2018/848, and it applies as well to the reserved terms ‘fair’, ‘equitable’ and ‘short supply chain’ introduced by Regulation (EU) 2026/1739, whose use is subject to sector conditions but whose communication remains under the UCPD.
Question 16 confirms that presenting legal requirements as a distinctive feature (Annex I, point 10a) is prohibited only where the requirement applies to all products in the category on the Union market, ‘including imported products’; where a requirement, Union or third-country, applies to some competitors only, the claim may be made (European Commission, 2026a, p. 17). Question 17 rules that sustainability labels established by third-country public authorities are prohibited under Annex I, point 2a, ‘unless these labels are based on a certification scheme’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 17).
Old stock and the CPC Common Understanding
Question 18 restates the timeline. The directive entered into force on 26 March 2024, transposition was due by 27 March 2026, application starts on 27 September 2026, and from that date traders must comply ‘including for existing products or “old stock” situations, i.e. products or packaging already manufactured, ordered, distributed or placed on retailers’ shelves before the application date’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 17). The practical options named are stickers covering or correcting claims and supplementary information ‘at the point of sale in proximity of the old stock products concerned’, for instance by identifying the products in the relevant aisle. Authorities and courts ‘may take into account the gravity of infringements’, ‘whether traders have made reasonable and proportionate efforts to comply’, proportionality, legal certainty and legitimate expectations, and ‘whether the measures necessary to ensure compliance would entail disproportionate costs or unnecessary environmental harm’ (European Commission, 2026a, p. 18).
The Common Understanding of the CPC Network of 30 June 2026 is the reference for this passage. It is not binding, and ‘does not constitute a formal position of the CPC network or a legally binding interpretation’. Its content, already analysed in the road-map published in July, can be summarised in five points:
- traders are expected to act ‘without delay and in good faith’, and old stock does not exempt them from compliance;
- authorities may take ‘a phased approach’ where genuine transitional difficulties exist, considering ‘packaging cycles, stock volumes, prior production orders, supply-chain dependencies, product shelf-life and the feasibility of corrective measures’;
- enforcement may be prioritised on online claims, on the most harmful practices, on claims already unlawful under the pre-existing rules and on products with faster rotation;
- authorities ‘may refrain from requiring the destruction or recall of products’ where this would create ‘disproportionate costs or unnecessary environmental harm’;
- a ‘compliance-oriented before a sanction-oriented approach’ is favoured, with guidance, requests for information and deadlines for corrective action preceding sanctions (Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, 2026).
The condition attached to this flexibility is documentation. The Common Understanding expects traders to show ‘all reasonable and proportionate efforts’ and to keep ‘records showing the steps taken and the timing of those steps’. Business organisations, including FoodDrinkEurope, welcomed the approach while noting that private enforcement before national courts is not bound by it (FoodDrinkEurope, 2026).
Durability, reparability, the harmonised notice and label
Questions 19 to 21 concern the CRD. The reparability score is ‘a score expressing the capacity of a good to be repaired, based on harmonised requirements established at Union level’ (dir. 2011/83/EU, art. 2, point 14d); since 20 June 2025 smartphones and tablets must display it on the energy label, and traders must provide it before the contract is concluded. Information on durability and reparability must be given by the trader only where the producer makes it available, and ‘traders are not required to actively search for relevant information on product specific websites or elsewhere’ (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 18-19).
The harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity is mandatory at the point of sale from 27 September 2026, on a poster in the shop or as a general reminder on the website; the harmonised label on the commercial guarantee of durability is voluntary for producers, for guarantees at no additional cost covering the entire good for more than two years, but traders must display it where the producer offers it. Both are established by implementing regulation (EU) 2025/1960 (European Commission, 2026a, pp. 19-20). Their relevance to food is marginal, with the exception of appliances and equipment sold by food retailers.
A note on timing
The facts are these. The directive was published on 6 March 2024. Member States had until 27 March 2026 to transpose it, and Italy did so with legislative decree 30/2026, in force since 24 March 2026, amending the Consumer Code with penalties of up to 10 million euro. The Common Understanding on old stock arrived on 30 June 2026, three months before application. The Q&A in its present form arrived on 22 September 2026, five days before application, and the update of the Guidance Notices, which recital 42 calls for, is deferred to an unspecified date after case law and enforcement decisions have accumulated. Operators who waited for interpretative guidance have five days and a set of ‘preliminary views‘ that bind no authority and no court. The answers are nonetheless useful, and in several passages (brand names, scheme governance, company-level offsetting, organic terms, irrelevant benefits) they narrow the margin of doubt.
The ‘safe-conduct’: audit and compliance programme
The Common Understanding and question 18 converge on one operational message. What protects the trader in the coming months is not the absence of non-compliant claims on the shelf, which the CPC authorities themselves regard as unrealistic on 27 September, but the evidence of ‘reasonable and proportionate efforts’: an inventory of the claims and labels in use, their classification under articles 6 and 7 and Annex I, a plan of corrective measures with dates, and records of their execution.
FARE (Food and Agriculture Requirements), the compliance division of WIISE Benefit, supports agri-food operators in this exercise: the audit of labels, packaging, websites and advertising materials to map the claims exposed to enforcement, the design of the compliance programme with the corrective solutions available (revision of online content and of future print runs, point-of-sale information, over-labelling), the verification of the certification schemes and sustainability labels displayed, and the compliance register to be produced to authorities on request. Questions on the subject have been answered on FARE also in relation to recycled plastic claims. The road-map published in July by the CPC network remains the starting point.
Dario Dongo
References
European Union legislation
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). Consolidated text: 27/09/2026. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2005/29/2026-09-27
Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights (Consumer Rights Directive). Consolidated text: 27/09/2026. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2011/83/2026-09-27
Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (recast). OJ L 336, 23.12.2015. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/2436/oj
Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information. OJ L, 2024/825, 6.3.2024. http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel. Consolidated text: 14/11/2017. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/66/2017-11-14
Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products. Consolidated text: 25/03/2025. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/2025-03-25
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960 of 25 September 2025 on the design and content of the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity and of the harmonised label for the commercial guarantee of durability. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2025/1960/oj
Italian legislation
Decreto legislativo 20 febbraio 2026, n. 30, Attuazione della direttiva (UE) 2024/825 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 28 febbraio 2024, che modifica le direttive 2005/29/CE e 2011/83/UE per quanto riguarda la responsabilizzazione dei consumatori per la transizione verde mediante il miglioramento della tutela dalle pratiche sleali e dell’informazione. Normattiva. Testo in vigore dal: 24/03/2026. https://www.normattiva.it/eli/id/2026/03/09/26G00047/CONSOLIDATED
Decreto legislativo 6 settembre 2005, n. 206, Codice del consumo, a norma dell’articolo 7 della legge 29 luglio 2003, n. 229. Normattiva. Ultima versione consolidata: 16/05/2026. https://www.normattiva.it/eli/id/2005/10/08/005G0232/CONSOLIDATED
Institutional documents
Consumer Protection Cooperation Network. (2026, June 30). Common understanding on old stock situations under Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition. European Commission. https://commission.europa.eu/document/264d8c70-2f9a-4955-8e7b-154d55a9b684_en
European Commission. (2021). Commission Notice – Guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market (2021/C 526/01). Official Journal of the European Union, C 526, 29.12.2021. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021XC1229(05)
European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. (2026a, September 22). Questions & Answers. Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition (Ref. Ares(2026)8917120, 21/09/2026). https://commission.europa.eu/live-work-travel-eu/consumer-rights-and-complaints/sustainable-consumption_en
FoodDrinkEurope. (2026, July 1). Joint statement on legacy stocks under the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive. https://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/resource/business-organisations-welcome-pragmatic-approach-of-consumer-protection-authorities-on-legacy-stocks-under-empowering-consumers-for-the-green-transition-directive/
Professional journalist since January 1995, he has worked for newspapers (Il Messaggero, Paese Sera, La Stampa) and periodicals (NumeroUno, Il Salvagente). She is the author of journalistic surveys on food, she has published the book "Reading labels to know what we eat".
