A leaf on a packet is an image. “Green” on the label is a promise. The difficulty for a shopper is working out whether the promise describes the product, its packaging, one part of production or simply the impression the seller would like to create.
The EU’s strengthened consumer rules make that distinction harder for businesses to avoid. Measures under Directive 2024/825 apply from 27 September 2026, through the relevant national framework. The European Commission describes them as part of an effort to give consumers better protection against misleading environmental practices. [1]
That does not mean every product carrying green imagery became unlawful on the same morning. The content, context and support for a claim matter. Nor is the legislation a public certification that every surviving claim has been independently approved.
The useful question is more exacting than whether a product looks sustainable: what is being claimed, how broadly, and what would show that the claim is justified?
The scope belongs beside the promise
The directive addresses generic environmental claims not supported by recognised excellent environmental performance, as well as sustainability labels lacking the required basis in a certification scheme or public authority. It also addresses claims about an entire product or business when the support concerns only a particular aspect. [2]
The practical distinction is between an attractive adjective and an explanation with a boundary. An improvement in one component does not automatically describe the whole product. A statement about packaging does not, without more, establish the environmental performance of what is inside it.
This is not an argument that specific improvements should go unmentioned. The opposite is more useful: say clearly what improved and provide the support appropriate to that statement. Precision allows a genuine change to be understood without being inflated into a universal verdict.
A consumer also needs to know what comparison is being made. Better than an earlier version, better than an alternative or compliant with a particular standard are different propositions. A statement that leaves the comparator unclear may be difficult to evaluate even if a technical document exists somewhere behind it.
Offsets do not rewrite a product’s footprint
Another important restriction concerns product claims of neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact when they are based on offsetting emissions. The directive distinguishes such claims from information about a company’s investment in environmental initiatives, which must still be presented without misleading consumers. It is not a general ban on every carbon-credit project. [2]
The distinction matters because an action outside a product’s own value chain is not the same measurement as the impact of making, supplying or using that product. Combining them in a single reassuring label can leave the customer with an impression the underlying activities do not establish.
Businesses can describe what they have done without suggesting that a purchase has no environmental consequence. Consumers, in turn, can ask whether the claim concerns reductions in the product’s lifecycle, a separate contribution elsewhere, or both. Those are different pieces of information and should remain visible as such.
A label is not a complete comparison
Even a well-supported environmental claim may answer only one question. It might concern a particular material, production process or category of impact. It does not necessarily tell a shopper everything relevant about durability, use or disposal.
The implication is not that consumers should have to conduct a full scientific assessment at the shelf. It is that the communication should not imply more certainty or breadth than the evidence can support. A useful label narrows the question honestly; it does not make every trade-off vanish.
For businesses, this makes internal coordination important. The words chosen by marketing need to describe the evidence the organisation actually holds. A technically accurate fact can still become misleading if the headline around it changes its scope.
An apparently small revision—specifying the relevant component, comparison or period—can change what a reader reasonably understands. The objective should be clarity, not the longest possible footnote attached to the shortest possible promise.
Existing stock is not a blanket exception
The transition has a practical complication: packaging and goods already in circulation. The Commission’s consumer-protection coordination material describes a proportionate, case-sensitive approach to certain old-stock situations and genuine transitional difficulties. It does not amount to a general statement that all older claims may remain unchanged indefinitely. [3]
Businesses should therefore distinguish the directive’s application, national implementation and the approach of the relevant enforcement authority. This explainer is not a substitute for advice on a particular claim or market.
It is also important not to confuse these applicable rules with a separate environmental-claims proposal or to attach the provisions of one instrument to another. The name “green claims” can describe a policy subject without identifying the actual law being discussed.
The new standard does not ask a packet to tell the whole environmental story of the world. It asks the promise on that packet to mean what it appears to mean. “Green” can no longer be expected to do the work of an explanation. The useful next words are: in what way?
Sources & notes
Explore the sources cited in this article.