On 27 September 2026, new rules for sustainability claims take effect across the EU, and they directly affect the text on your packaging, your product pages and your advertising. A number of phrases you see everywhere today will no longer be allowed, however good your intentions. Is one of those claims on your product? In this article, we go through seven common claims: what is wrong with them, an example of what no longer works, and right alongside it, how to tell the same story in a way that does.
Banned or substantiated: how the law works
The new rules, known as the Empower Consumer Act (EmpCo), work in two ways. A small number of claims go on a blacklist: they are always considered misleading, no matter how much evidence you put behind them. For all other claims, the familiar test applies: a claim must be clear, specific and substantiated, and the Dutch regulator ACM was already strict about that before EmpCo existed. So it is rarely a matter of staying silent about what you do. Usually, it comes down to saying more precisely what you do, and having the evidence ready. What the law changes and who enforces it, we discussed earlier in our article on the Empower Consumer Act. Here, the focus is on practice: your claim.
1. Recycled, when it refers to one part or has no percentage
“Made from recycled material” on a product where only the packaging is recycled, or “recycled polyester” without saying how much. Both claims are incomplete, and that is exactly the problem. A claim that seems to cover the whole product but refers to one part is on the blacklist from 27 September; consumers simply read that sentence as a statement about the product itself. And without a percentage, nobody knows whether it is a small share or nearly all of it. That is why the ACM asks for a specific, measurable benefit, and for clarity on whether the claim is about the product, an ingredient or the packaging.
Example that is no longer allowed: “100% recycled material” on a box containing white paper. Does it refer to the box or to the paper? This example comes straight from the ACM guidelines.
How to say it instead: “This box is made from 100% recycled material”, or for clothing: “70% recycled polyester”. The evidence is a recent certificate from an independent party, and nothing else on the product may suggest that the product itself is recycled.
2. Climate neutral based on offsetting
“Climate neutral product” has been a popular claim for years, usually backed by carbon credits or planted trees. From 27 September, that claim is on the blacklist as soon as it relies on offsetting outside your own value chain, and the same goes for variants such as “COâ‚‚ neutral” or “reduced carbon footprint”. The reasoning is simple: offsetting elsewhere does not reduce the emissions of the product itself, while consumers think it does. You can of course keep telling people that you support a reforestation project. You just cannot link a climate effect of the product to it.
Example that is no longer allowed: “Climate neutral product”, based on purchased carbon credits.
How to say it instead: “COâ‚‚ emissions per product have fallen by 31% since 2022, independently verified. We also support a reforestation project.” Your own reduction and the offsetting are kept separate, and the evidence consists of the verified measurements for 2022 and for the most recent year.
3. Recyclable, but only if the consumer does something first
“Recyclable packaging”, when that is only true after removing the plastic window. A condition like that belongs in the claim itself, not in the small print. Without it, the packaging ends up in the paper bin window and all, and in practice the claim does not hold. The ACM applies the same principle in its guidelines to a washing machine that is only more efficient in eco mode: a benefit that only exists under a condition may not be claimed without that condition.
Example that is no longer allowed: “Recyclable packaging”, when the plastic window has to be removed first.
How to say it instead: “Recyclable with paper waste, after removing the plastic window.” You do need to be able to show that the packaging without the window actually fits the Dutch recycling stream, for example with a recyclability check of the packaging.
4. A sustainability logo you designed yourself
A self-designed green leaf with the words “sustainability approved”, or a third-party label with no verification behind it, is on the blacklist from 27 September. A sustainability label must be established by public authorities or be based on a certification scheme with public requirements, monitored by an independent third party. After all, consumers see a label as a judgment from outside, and a logo of your own is not that. The ACM adds that you may only use logos of standards for which your product has been officially certified.
Example that is no longer allowed: your own logo saying “sustainability approved” on the packaging, with no certification behind it.
How to say it instead: a recognized label, such as the EU Ecolabel or an officially recognized label under EN ISO 14024 type I, with the license number on the packaging. If you do not have such a license, we recommend leaving the logo off and writing down in plain words what you do. That is usually more convincing than a picture.
5. Sustainable, green or eco-friendly, without explanation
This is the best-known category. Words like eco-friendly, green, ecological or eco promise a lot and say little: consumers cannot tell where the benefit lies. From 27 September, such a generic environmental claim is on the blacklist, unless it is backed by recognized excellent environmental performance, such as the EU Ecolabel. The way out is the explanation: if the specification appears clearly and prominently in the same place as the claim, the claim is no longer generic and is allowed, as long as you can substantiate it. “Sustainable” is even trickier than “green”, because that word can refer to working conditions just as easily as to the environment.
Example that is no longer allowed: “Eco-friendly packaging”, with no further explanation on the packaging itself.
How to say it instead: “100% of the energy used to produce this packaging comes from renewable sources.” Or, for a broader word like sustainable: “This coffee is organically grown and certified by an independent certification body, and the farmers work according to the standards of the International Labour Organization.” The evidence, such as an energy contract or an organic certificate, does not have to be on the packaging, but the claim must be clear and the company must have sufficient, up-to-date and verifiable evidence.
6. Climate neutral by 2030, with no plan behind it
So far, this has been about what exists today. “We will be climate neutral by 2030” is about the future, and until now, promises like that came without obligations. From 27 September, a future claim requires a detailed and realistic plan: measurable targets with a date, allocated resources, publicly available, and regularly verified by an independent expert whose findings are also available to consumers. An ambition without that plan counts as misleading. The ACM was already moving in that direction: you must have started on the approach and also show what you have achieved so far.
Example that is no longer allowed: “We will be climate neutral by 2030”, with no plan or interim steps behind it.
How to say it instead: “By 2030, our COâ‚‚ emissions will be 40% lower than in 2023. Our plan and our progress so far are on our website.” What is then publicly available: the plan with interim steps and budget, the results so far and the latest report from the independent verifier.
7. A benefit that is not an achievement
“This paper contains no tropical hardwood.” That sounds good, but tropical hardwood is not used for paper. You are presenting a standard feature as an achievement, and the same applies to something that is legally required anyway, such as a deodorant without CFCs. From 27 September, advertising a benefit that does not stem from a feature of the product is explicitly considered misleading, and presenting a legal requirement as a distinctive feature is on the blacklist. A benefit that does exist must of course not be made bigger than it is; that falls under the regular test.
Example that is no longer allowed: “This paper contains no tropical hardwood.” The ACM mentions this example literally in its guidelines.
How to say it instead: “Paper made from 100% recycled fibers”, as long as an independent party has verified that share.
What a substantiated claim gives you
If you put the rewritten versions next to the originals, you see that each new claim is more concrete, and therefore stronger. If your measurements and certificates are in order, you can tell more sharply what you do from 27 September, while vague words around you disappear. How to build that story, we described earlier in eight strategies for communicating sustainability.
In doubt about a phrase of your own? Run it through our free Greenwashing Check. The AI reads your claim, and the verdict comes from a fixed set of rules from EmpCo and the ACM guidelines: after a series of questions, you get a verdict per criterion, with the legal basis and, where needed, a wording that does fit. Before the launch, we tested the check on 63 claims that the ACM, a court or the Dutch Advertising Code Foundation had already ruled on. Not a single misleading claim got through. The check does not assess the evidence itself; that remains human work. If it turns out the substantiation is not there yet, an ESG strategy that sets out targets and measurements is the logical next step.