ECGT Directive 2026: The EU's New Rules on Sustainability Claims

Sustainability messaging has become mainstream. Terms like "eco-friendly", "climate neutral", and "sustainable" appear across product packaging, advertising, and websites. For many businesses, these labels have been a quick route to differentiation.

From 27 September 2026, this will change in the EU.

The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) Directive, formally Directive (EU) 2024/825, is the EU’s latest move to tackle greenwashing. It updates EU consumer protection law to crack down on misleading environmental and social claims, and sets clear standards for how sustainability is communicated to consumers.

If a business makes an environmental claim in the EU market, it must be able to demonstrate what that claim means and how it is calculated.

What is the ECGT Directive?

The ECGT Directive amends the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to explicitly address sustainability claims. Its purpose is to reduce greenwashing and improve the reliability of environmental and social information presented to consumers.

It applies to B2C communications and covers claims made in:

• Product packaging
• Advertising and promotional materials
• Websites and digital channels
• Sustainability labels and logos
• Corporate messaging aimed at consumers

What changes from 27 September 2026?

Four key changes take effect:

1. Generic green claims must be defined and substantiated

Vague terms such as “green”, “eco-friendly”, or “sustainable” cannot be used without clear explanation and objective evidence.

Businesses must be able to demonstrate what the claim covers and how it has been assessed.

2. Sustainability labels require independent verification

Environmental logos and sustainability badges must be based on recognised certification schemes and independently monitored.

Self-created labels that resemble official certifications without oversight are unlikely to meet the directive’s requirements.

3. Future climate targets must be credible

Statements like "net zero by 2035" must be backed by a clear implementation roadmap, measurable targets, and monitoring mechanisms. Aspirational commitments without defined pathways are likely to be challenged.

4. Offset-based "climate neutral" claims face tighter scrutiny

Claims relying on carbon offsets must use recognised certification systems and must not imply that no emissions are produced. Offsetting alone cannot create a misleading impression of zero impact.

Which businesses are at risk?

Any business that sells to consumers in the EU, regardless of where it is based, falls within the scope of ECGT. This is similar to how data privacy laws like GDPR operate: the location of the company is not the deciding factor. What matters is whether EU consumers are being targeted.

In practice, this affects a wide range of consumer-facing businesses, including manufacturers, retailers, and brands selling products into the EU market.

Businesses most exposed include those that:

• Make environmental or sustainability claims on products, packaging, or websites visible to EU consumers
• Use sustainability labels, certifications, or logos in EU marketing
• Reference future climate commitments or net zero targets in consumer-facing materials
• Use offset-based claims such as "carbon neutral" or "climate positive"

This affects businesses globally that communicate in the EU market. It also has implications for B Corps and other certification holders: while B Corp is independently assessed, any reference to certification must avoid misleading consumers about the scope of what is and isn't certified.

Enforcement sits with national consumer and competition authorities in each EU Member State. Consequences can include fines, corrective action orders, or mandatory withdrawal of claims.

Implications for B Corp and other certification schemes

Certification schemes are also affected by the ECGT Directive, particularly where certification marks are used in consumer-facing communications.

B Corp provides a useful example of how this plays out in practice.

Many B Corps display their certification prominently on packaging, websites, and marketing materials. That visibility is part of the value of certification. However, under ECGT, the key question is not only whether a label is legitimate, but whether the way it is communicated could mislead consumers about what it covers.

B Lab is already responding to this. To meet ECGT requirements for recognised sustainability labels in the EU, B Corps will need to recertify under B Lab’s updated standards (Version 2.1). These introduce third-party verification using ISO 17021-1 accredited providers. B Lab’s guidance recommends that companies affected by ECGT submit for recertification by 15 June 2026 to ensure verification can be completed before the September deadline.

However, recertification alone does not remove all compliance considerations. ECGT also governs how certification is communicated.

Businesses need to ensure that:

• Public statements accurately reflect the scope of B Corp certification, which applies at the company level rather than automatically to individual products
• Marketing language does not overstate product-level environmental impact
• Claims linked to certification remain specific and evidence-based

In practice, this means certification cannot act as a general environmental signal without supporting evidence. Organisations still need the underlying data to substantiate specific claims.

Companies that can clearly separate what certification demonstrates from what their own data supports will be in a much stronger position as ECGT comes into force.

Why ECGT is fundamentally a data issue

The ECGT Directive regulates marketing claims. But compliance ultimately depends on the data behind them.

To substantiate an environmental claim, businesses must be able to:

• Quantify emissions and environmental impacts
• Explain calculation methodologies
• Define the boundaries of what a claim covers
• Document reduction strategies
• Maintain clear audit trails

For businesses managing sustainability data across spreadsheets or disconnected teams, this becomes complex quickly. Fragmented data means a higher risk of non-compliance and of claims being challenged.

ECGT also sits within a broader EU regulatory direction. Frameworks like CSRD are moving the same way: sustainability claims must be backed by structured, defensible data. ECGT is one more step in that journey.

The opportunity for businesses that get this right

The ECGT Directive doesn't prevent sustainability communication. It raises the standard for businesses making these claims.

Businesses that can clearly demonstrate measurable impact, reference recognised methodologies, and align consumer-facing messaging with verified operational data are well placed to build stronger trust with customers, partners, and investors.

In a market where scrutiny over greenwashing is increasing, being specific and transparent becomes a differentiator. Businesses that have already built strong data foundations won't just be compliant. They'll be better positioned to communicate credibly at a time when many competitors can't.

Companies that treat ECGT as more than a compliance deadline will find it easier to adapt as sustainability regulation continues to evolve.

How Zevero supports credible sustainability claims

Zevero supports organisations by measuring and managing emissions across Scope 1, 2, and relevant Scope 3 categories using GHG Protocol-aligned methodologies, creating a clear, auditable carbon footprint that can underpin environmental claims. Alongside the platform, Zevero's in-house climate experts support teams with methodology, documentation, and reduction planning, helping ensure that sustainability claims are grounded in verifiable evidence.

Zevero focuses on emissions measurement and reduction, rather than relying on offsets, which aligns directly with the direction regulators are moving on "climate neutral" claims.

For organisations selling into the EU, having that data foundation in place before September 2026 isn't just a compliance consideration. It's a strategic one.