Note: This article was originally published as a guest contribution in ESG.Table Briefings on September 4, 2026.
At the end of this month, EmpCo comes into force. The EU’s “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” directive is meant to protect consumers more effectively against greenwashing, and to that end it tightens the rules on sustainability communication. Germany has transposed the directive into its Act Against Unfair Competition, expanding, among other things, the “blacklist” of practices that count as unfair — and therefore prohibited — in every case, without any assessment of the individual circumstances. So far, so good.
The trouble is that sustainability communication is rarely black and white in practice. It’s more like fifty shades of green. The European Commission’s FAQ sketches concrete use cases and scenarios only vaguely and incompletely, which makes implementing EmpCo with any legal certainty difficult in this early phase. For many companies, and until the first case law lands, it becomes a question of risk management. Which claims do we dare put out in public? Where is the risk of a warning letter — and potentially steep fines, up to 4 per cent of annual turnover for large companies — simply too high? How much room does the legal department give its colleagues in marketing and communications? The first impulse, then, is the quick reach for the red pen and the deletion of every sustainability claim.
From a compliance standpoint, that’s one possible route. Strategically, it’s the wrong one — and in reality often unworkable. Over the past decade, sustainability claims have not only found their place on the website subpages set aside for them; they’ve quietly worked their way into a company’s entire communications. “Sustainable”, “eco-friendly” and the rest have become the sprinkles on the cake, making sure the green-company image reaches consumers with every bite.
So many now face reviewing several hundred environmental claims — a mammoth task they’ve underestimated, not least because no transition period has been announced so far (Austria at least grants one for goods), while some environmental associations are already waiting in the wings to issue warning letters or reach for injunctions. Beyond the usual suspects of sustainability communication, such as the corporate website or press releases, the entire online shop and any consumer-facing communication need to be checked.
The board and other company representatives will want training too, because spoken statements also fall within EmpCo’s scope — and it applies to claims about social matters as well, such as the much-preached “fair conditions in the supply chain”. In the end, though, it comes down to the individual case: what does a statement refer to, in what context does it sit, what else is on the packaging, the page, or in the particular medium?
Anyone assuming that a quick check by their own legal department or an external partner will do the job misjudges the challenge. First, lawyers are bad at writing for an audience — as anyone who has ever received a letter in legalese will know — so the review is followed by a rewrite. And second: no company has ever communicated sustainability for its own sake. It was always an image- or brand-building move.
Classic green claims are meant, as advertising always is, to differentiate above all. Taking the red pen to them would therefore mean losing that differentiation — at a time when sustainability may not top the political agenda but still matters to consumers. Your average shopper has never heard of EmpCo and would be puzzled to see a company stop claiming to be “good for the planet” in an age of climate crisis, wildfires and heatwaves.
The real task, then, is to develop sustainability communication that is relevant to its audience — not merely legally safe. For many companies, honestly, that will be the first time this is the actual point of the exercise. The sweet spot lies in the balancing act between storytelling and compliance, and our work over recent months with companies in fashion, fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) and finance shows plainly that the red pen is not the right tool for it.
What it takes instead is a clear-eyed look at where the material issues for a company overlap with what’s relevant to its audiences. Where does close scrutiny actually pay off? Which claims do we take apart down to the last detail and rebuild to be EmpCo-compliant? And how do we make sure sustainability is once again not just sprinkles on top, but the moist filling and the core of a compelling story about the future?
Brands and companies that are serious about sustainability should therefore treat EmpCo as a prompt to talk about it better — not less. They carry the responsibility of making society want it, because politics can’t be relied on right now.
If you need help updating your sustainability communication, we check and rewrite your claims, facilitate workshops and learning journeys for your marketing department or develop toolkits to empower your inhouse team and external partners.