In 2024, the EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (“ECGT”) Directive introduced new rules that significantly tighten the regulation of environmental claims and sustainability labels, directly targeting greenwashing practices. The new rules should apply from 27 September 2026.
Belgium is currently in the process of transposing the Directive. On 6 March, the Council of Ministers approved a legislative proposal to transpose it, proposal which has now been submitted to the Council of State for advice.
At national level, the Belgian Code of Economic Law will need to be amended accordingly. In particular, the proposal provides for:
- amendments to Book I, including the insertion and clarification of key definitions;
- amendments to Book VI, notably extending pre-contractual information obligations and strengthening the rules on misleading and prohibited commercial practices.
The developments are expected to have significant implications for companies’ ESG marketing and labelling practices.
While the new framework increases regulatory scrutiny, it is not intended to discourage sustainability communication. Rather, it aims to enhance the reliability and transparency of environmental claims, and enable well-substantiated claims to remain a key lever for differentiation and competitive advantage.
To support businesses in anticipating and adapting to this evolving regulatory landscape, we outline below the key changes introduced by the ECGT Directive. Given its full harmonisation nature, the Belgian transposition is expected to closely mirror the Directive’s substantive provisions.
1. Restrictions on Environmental Claims
Specification of generic environmental claim
The ECGT Directive sets out stricter requirements for so-called “generic environmental claims”, i.e. claims which (i) are not included in a recognised sustainability label and (ii) are not accompanied by a clear and prominent specification on the same medium (e.g. “climate-friendly”, “green” “environmentally friendly”).
In particular, making such a claim without being able to demonstrate recognised “acknowledged excellent environmental performance” relevant to the claim will be prohibited. The proof is deemed provided, for example, if the criteria for the EU Ecolabel are met or if maximum environmental performance is achieved under other EU law. More generally, generic environmental claims will only be permitted if they are clearly and prominently substantiated on the same medium (e.g. on the product packaging, website, or advertisement). In practice, this requires businesses to provide sufficiently precise information explaining the claimed environmental benefit, enabling consumers to understand its meaning and scope.
The level of detail required for this specification must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and take into account (i) the overall impression conveyed to the average consumer and (ii) the characteristics and constraints of the medium used (e.g. limited space on packaging versus more flexibility online).
Forward-looking environmental claims
Under the new framework, environmental claims relating to future performance will be subject to stricter requirements. Such claims must be supported by a detailed and realistic implementation plan, including measurable and time-bound targets, and should be subject to independent third-party verification. The underlying commitments must be clear, objective, verifiable and publicly accessible.
In the absence of such substantiation, forward-looking claims may qualify as misleading commercial practices. For example, a statement such as “the company’s environmental footprint will be reduced by 20% by 2025” is likely to be problematic if it is not supported by clear, objective, verifiable and publicly available commitments.
In a judgment of 23 October 2025, the Paris Judicial Court ruled that communications on TotalEnergie’s website affirming its “ambition to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050” and presenting itself as “a major player in the energy transition” constituted misleading practices likely to deceive consumers on the scope of Total Group’s environmental commitments. While the Court (obviously) did not apply the ECGT Directive as such, it explicitly relied on its logic to assess when future environmental claims shall be considered misleading.
Ban on offset-based climate claims
Under the expanded list of commercial practices deemed unfair in all circumstances, traders will no longer be allowed to claim that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive environmental impact where such claims are based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions.
This effectively prohibits claims such as “carbon neutral” or “climate positive” where they rely on emissions compensation schemes outside the product’s value chain.
Businesses may still communicate genuine CO₂ reductions, provided these are based on the product’s actual lifecycle impact (covering production, use and disposal) and not on offsetting mechanisms. In practice, this will require companies to substantiate such claims with clear and detailed information on how emissions reductions are achieved and calculated.
It is important to note that the risks of non-compliance associated with offset-based climate claims already emerged from national case law. For instance, in a judgment of 27 June 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof BGH) held that a ‘climate neutral’ claim used by the confectionery company Katjes was misleading where neutrality was achieved through carbon offsetting. The Court emphasised that emissions reduction and offsetting are not equivalent, and that environmental claims require a specifically high level of clarity. Importantly, it also found that providing additional information via a website (QR code or URL) is insufficient: the claim had to be adequately substantiated directly in the advertisement itself.
2. Implications for labelling practices
A “sustainability label” is any voluntary trust mark, quality mark or equivalent, either public or private, that aims to set apart and promote a product, a process or a business by reference to its environmental or social characteristics, or both. Examples include the “Certified B Corp” certification and the “Fairtrade” label.
Companies may only use sustainability labels that are established by a public authority or based on a recognised certification schemes, i.e. third-party verification process that ensures a product, process or business complies with specific requirements. These schemes must be based on publicly available criteria and meet minimum standards of transparency, fairness and non-discrimination, including consultation of relevant experts and stakeholders. A useful tool are certification marks, registered under trademark law as EU or Benelux trademarks with rules governing the use of this mark. Labels registered as certification marks can efficiently be protected and enforced.
3. Key takeaways
- Application date: 27 September 2026.
- Stricter substantiation standard: Environmental claims must be specific, evidence-based and, where relevant, supported by lifecycle analysis and third-party verification.
- Generic claims under pressure: Vague claims (e.g. “green”, “climate-friendly”) will be prohibited unless clearly specified and substantiated on the same medium.
- Forward-looking claims scrutinised: Climate targets and transition statements must be backed by credible, measurable and publicly available commitments.
- End of offset-based neutrality claims: “Carbon neutral” or similar claims based on offsetting outside the value chain will be banned.
- Increased compliance burden: Companies will need to review marketing practices, internal validation processes and documentation supporting environmental claims.
- Full harmonisation: In view of the full harmonisation approach of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the transposition under Belgian law shall not deviate from the text of the Directive (EU) 2024/825.
- Sanction: Non-compliance can lead to fines of up to 4% of turnover (Article XV.83, 13° and XV.70, 2° Belgian Code of Economic Law).
Although many of the amendments largely reflect the guidance on the interpretation and application of Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2021/C 526/01), the ECGT Directive should not be underestimated. It introduces more stringent and operational requirements that are likely to significantly impact companies’ practices, particularly in relation to environmental claims, labelling and marketing strategies.
However, this evolving framework does not have to lead to “greenhushing”. On the contrary, it creates an opportunity to enhance the credibility, comparability and impact of sustainability communication. Companies that adopt a rigorous, transparent and well-documented approach to environmental claims will be better placed to build consumer trust, mitigate legal risks and stand out in an increasingly scrutinised market. Some of these provisions are included in the black list of misleading and therefore unfair practices. Besides, undertakings should be aware of the powers of the economic inspection and the level of administrative fines that can be used to enforce these rules.
Strategic (final) Takeaway
Sustainability claims and labels remain a powerful commercial tool, provided they are precise, substantiated and embedded in a credible strategy.
For any questions or assistance, please contact the authors: Eric De Gryse or Cédric Henet.
***
This newsletter is not a legal advice or a legal opinion. You should seek advice from a legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this newsletter.