Generic Environmental Claims: When "Sustainable" and "Eco-Friendly" Are Allowed

Terms such as "sustainable", "eco-friendly", "green" or "eco" are hard to imagine product advertising without. Yet it is precisely this generality that makes them problematic under the EmpCo Directive (EU) 2024/825. The Directive counts generic environmental claims without proof of a recognised, excellent environmental performance among the practices that may in future be regarded as impermissible.

What is a generic environmental claim?

Generic claims are general environmental assertions that name no concrete, verifiable property. Typical examples are "eco-friendly", "green", "eco", "climate-friendly", "close to nature" or indeed "sustainable" when used without further explanation and without evidence. The problem: such terms suggest a general environmental benefit without making clear what that benefit is or how it has been demonstrated.

Why are such claims risky?

The EU legislator sees a high potential to mislead in blanket environmental terms. Consumers cannot tell whether the asserted benefit relates to the entire product, to a single component or to one stage of the life cycle. There is also often no basis for comparison: "more eco-friendly" – compared to what?

Generic claims without proof of a recognised, excellent environmental performance are therefore particularly risky. The standard is high: it is not enough for a product to be "somewhat better" than average.

When do "sustainable" and "eco-friendly" remain permissible?

The terms are not banned per se. They tend to remain permissible where two conditions are met:

1. Specificity. The claim relates to a clearly named property, not to a diffuse overall impression.
2. Evidence. There is robust proof for the specific property – for instance a recognised certificate, verified measurement data or a recognised methodology.

If, for example, "produced sustainably" is used, it should be clear what "sustainably" refers to (energy, material, supply chain) and how this is substantiated. The more concrete and verifiable the claim, the lower the risk.

How do you make environmental claims verifiable?

A practical approach is to test every claim in three steps:

• What exactly is being asserted? Spell out the specific environmental property.
• What does it relate to? The whole product, a component or a life-cycle stage – and is that clearly recognisable?
• What is it substantiated by? Assign concrete evidence and check whether it actually supports the claim.

"Eco-friendly packaging" thus becomes, for example, "packaging made from 90 percent recycled plastic" – a statement that can be verified. "Sustainable company" becomes "electricity 100 percent from certified renewable sources (evidence: …)".

What about comparisons and superlatives?

Comparative claims ("more eco-friendly than …") require a transparent, verifiable basis: what is being compared, by which method and against which reference point? Without these details, comparisons are risky. Intensified forms such as "particularly sustainable" further raise the risk, because they suggest outstanding performance that must be substantiated accordingly.

What does "recognised, excellent environmental performance" mean?

The Directive's high standard hinges on a recognised, excellent environmental performance. This means: a blanket environmental claim cannot be justified merely because a product performs somewhat better than comparable offerings. What is required is performance that can be regarded as outstanding by recognised standards – for instance relevant norms, verified life-cycle assessments or recognised certification schemes. Without such proof, the blanket claim is risky. This high threshold is a deliberate regulatory purpose: general environmental terms should only be used where they genuinely reflect a special performance.

Examples: before and after

A few typical reformulations illustrate the approach:

• Instead of "eco-friendly detergent", better "detergent with X percent biodegradable surfactants (test standard: …)".
• Instead of "sustainable packaging", better "packaging made from 100 percent recovered paper, FSC Recycled certified".
• Instead of "green shipping", better "shipping with vehicles that are X percent electrically powered".

In each case a diffuse umbrella term is replaced by a concrete, verifiable statement. This not only reduces the legal risk but also increases meaningfulness for customers.

Practical checklist

• Identify and question blanket terms.
• Document a concrete reference and evidence for every claim.
• Replace vague terms with measurable statements.
• Use comparisons only with disclosed methodology.
• When in doubt, obtain an individual legal review.

Conclusion

Generic environmental claims are no longer safe ground under the EmpCo Directive. "Sustainable" and "eco-friendly" remain usable, but only with substance: specifically worded, correctly framed and substantiated. The shift from slogans to verifiable facts is at the same time an opportunity to gain credibility. Since national implementation may vary, a separate review is advisable for cross-border advertising.