How to Substantiate Future Environmental Claims Under EmpCo
Future environmental performance claims may be misleading if not supported by clear, objective, publicly available, and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan.
The EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, commonly known as EmpCo, strengthens the EU consumer-protection framework by targeting misleading environmental claims, non-credible sustainability labels and certain practices linked to early obsolescence. It amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the Consumer Rights Directive, focusing on how products, brands and companies are presented to consumers, and whether sustainability-related messages are clear, reliable and substantiated.
See also ISS-Corporate’s July article, “What the ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive’ Means for Environmental Claims” »
EmpCo applies to sustainability-related claims and information used in business-to-consumer communications concerning a product, service, brand, or trader. The Directive covers environmental claims, information regarding certain social characteristics of products and traders, and claims relating to product durability, reparability, and circularity. Because the Directive focuses on the overall impression created for consumers, assessments should consider communications as a whole, including wording, imagery, graphics, symbols, labels, qualifications, presentation, and the likely interpretation of the average consumer.
The Directive introduces specific restrictions and transparency requirements for several categories of sustainability-related claims. These include generic environmental claims, sustainability labels that are not based on recognised certification schemes, whole-product or whole-business claims based on only one characteristic or activity, and certain product-level greenhouse gas claims relying on offsetting outside the value chain. While EmpCo covers a broad range of sustainability communications, future environmental performance claims are among the areas subject to the most detailed substantiation expectations.
Future environmental performance claims warrant particular attention because the promised outcome has not yet been achieved. Under EmpCo, these claims may be misleading if they are not supported by clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan. That plan should include measurable, time-bound targets, appropriate resource allocation, and regular verification by an independent third-party expert whose findings are available to consumers. Our verification work shows that weaknesses rarely sit in one document. More often, challenges emerge when claim wording as well as imagery, scope, supporting evidence, implementation plans, and governance arrangements are not aligned.
Key consideration: Under EmpCo, environmental claims are assessed based on the overall consumer impression, not just the words used. Scope, imagery, qualifications, placement and supporting information all affect how a claim may be understood.
From Ambition to Evidence: How to Substantiate Future Environmental Claims with EmpCo
Drawing on practical experience from verification and readiness assessments, ISS-Corporate external review experts Ioana Bejan and Marta Farina share what companies should prioritise now, and what distinguishes a credible implementation plan from a statement of intent.
Why Future Environmental Claims are Difficult to Substantiate
Ioana Bejan: In practice, one of the first verification challenges is defining exactly what is being claimed. A statement such as “net zero by 2040” may appear clear, but an assessment still needs to establish whether it covers a product, brand, business unit or the entire company; which operations, emissions scopes and geographies are included; and whether material exclusions are visible. Defining the precise scope of the claim is often the foundation for the entire substantiation exercise.
Example: claim scope mismatch
A consumer-goods company promotes a “net zero product by 2040”. The supporting plan covers only EU manufacturing sites and excludes purchased materials, logistics and non-EU markets. The question is not only whether the company has a plan, but whether the plan matches the breadth of the claim. If it does not, the claim should be narrowed or clearly qualified.
The second challenge is moving from aspiration to measurable commitment. A target needs a metric, baseline, methodology, target date and interim milestones. Supporting assumptions, such as technology uptake, expected business growth or emissions factors, also need to be documented. Organisations face a difficult balancing act: long-term ambitions may extend decades into the future, yet the further the time horizon, the greater the uncertainty surrounding technologies, markets, regulation and business conditions. A credible future-performance claim therefore requires not only an end goal, but a realistic explanation of how the organisation expects to progress toward that outcome, supported by milestones, governance arrangements, resources and mechanisms for monitoring progress and updating plans as circumstances evolve.
The third challenge is evidence fragmentation. In practice, relevant information is often spread across sustainability reports, transition plans, methodologies, governance papers, investment plans and operational systems, with inconsistent boundaries, dates or terminology. For EmpCo purposes, that evidence needs to be connected, reconciled and traceable to the exact claim being communicated. A large volume of disclosure is not a substitute for a coherent substantiation trail.
Starting point: Define the claim before testing the evidence. Confirm the entity, product or brand covered; the relevant operations, emissions scopes and geographies; the baseline and methodology; the target date and milestones; and every material exclusion.
What a credible EmpCo implementation plan needs to show
Marta Farina: A recurring weakness in verification is that the “plan” simply restates the target or lists broad initiatives without showing how they will deliver it. A credible implementation plan identifies the actions or levers expected to deliver the result, phases those actions into measurable milestones, assigns responsibility to identifiable functions or roles, and explains how operational boundaries align with the headline claim. Each material component of the claim should be traceable to an action, owner, timing assumption and source of evidence.
A credible plan must also demonstrate that the projected trajectory is achievable. Companies should document the assumptions behind delivery, including technology maturity, supply-chain dependencies, the timing of replacing, upgrading or investing in long-lived assets, and regulatory approvals; identify the risks most likely to disrupt progress; and assign potential mitigation responses, owner and review point to each material risk.
Resource allocation is often sensitive. Companies may be reluctant to disclose budgets, staffing or technology investment. EmpCo nevertheless identifies resource allocation as part of the credibility test. In verification, the relevant question is not whether every commercially sensitive figure is published, but whether sufficient evidence shows that funding, accountable capacity and enabling systems are reasonably aligned with the delivery pathway. Generic references to future investment provide limited assurance.
Offset reliance also needs careful treatment. For relevant climate targets, the implementation plan should distinguish reductions within the value chain from any use of offsets, quantify their respective contributions where reliable quantification is available, and explain the sequencing. There is no single, universally applicable quantitative threshold for residual emissions or offset use across portfolio and underwriting activities. This is particularly relevant where financed or insurance-associated emissions are material to the overall net-zero claim and outcomes depend on counterparties, portfolio composition and the applicable transition pathway. Where a reliable, quantified residual-emissions level is not yet available, the plan should explain the methodology, scope, criteria used to identify residual emissions, responsibility for neutralisation, and when more specific quantification is expected. A qualitative explanation should not be treated as an exemption from providing evidence.
Example: plan without delivery levers
A retailer says its private-label range will be “fully circular by 2035”. The evidence includes a target date and design principles, but no phased actions, accountable owners, investment assumptions, supplier requirements or monitoring process. The claim remains difficult to substantiate because the plan does not yet show how the outcome will be delivered or corrected if progress falls behind.
EmpCo separately prohibits product claims of neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse-gas impact where those claims are based on offsetting outside the product’s value chain. This specific prohibition should not be generalised automatically to all trader-, entity-, portfolio- or underwriting-level claims, which require assessment against the applicable future-performance and misleading-practice provisions.
A credible plan answers five questions: What will change? Who is accountable? What resources are committed? Which dependencies could delay delivery? How will progress and corrective action be monitored?
How CSRD/ESRS disclosures can support EmpCo claims
Ioana Bejan: In many cases, the future environmental performance claims we review are based on commitments, targets and transition plans that are also disclosed under CSRD, following the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Those disclosures can form an important part of the evidence base supporting a claim.
However, CSRD and ESRS serve a different purpose from EmpCo. Sustainability reporting is designed primarily to provide transparent, decision-useful information to investors and other stakeholders. EmpCo focuses on business-to-consumer communications and whether environmental claims presented to consumers are clear, understandable and appropriately substantiated.
That distinction matters because the same underlying target may be assessed through different lenses. A company may disclose a net-zero commitment and related transition plan in accordance with ESRS requirements, and those disclosures can provide valuable evidence about the target, governance arrangements, actions and resources supporting delivery. However, neither the disclosure itself nor the associated sustainability assurance process is designed to assess how a claim is likely to be interpreted by consumers.
In practice, many organisations already have a strong foundation for substantiation because key elements of the supporting evidence exist within their sustainability reporting. The challenge is ensuring that the evidence behind those disclosures is translated into a substantiation package that addresses the specific consumer-protection objectives of EmpCo, including the scope of the claim, the information made available to consumers and the overall impression created by the communication.
Key principle: Reuse and connect credible evidence, but do not assume equivalence between frameworks. Start with the specific consumer-facing claim, then map the reporting evidence that supports each part of it.
Five Steps to Prepare for EmpCo Claim Substantiation
Companies can prepare in five steps:
- Inventory consumer-facing environmental claims across the company, its products and brands;
- Identify future-performance claims and broad or unqualified wording;
- Map each material claim element to evidence, milestones, ownership and resources;
- Resolve inconsistencies before publication;
- And assemble a concise evidence pack that an independent verifier can assess without reconstructing the substantiation case from disconnected sources.
The practical implication is straightforward: manage future environmental claims as evidence-backed commitments, not isolated marketing statements. Identify the claims consumers see, define their exact scope, and test whether the evidence, implementation plan milestones, resources, and governance support the message presented.
What should companies prioritize when preparing future environmental claims for scrutiny? Focus on the following areas:
- Scope first: clarify whether the claim applies to an entity, product, brand, geography, operation, emissions scope or time period.
- Evidence must match the claim: reporting disclosures and transition plans can support the evidence base, but they do not automatically substantiate a consumer-facing claim.
- Implementation matters: a credible plan should show actions, milestones, accountable owners, resources, dependencies, potential risks and management processes to define corrective actions.
- Readiness should start now: uneven national transposition should not delay claim inventories, evidence mapping and prioritisation of future performance claims.
In short, verification experience points to one practical test: ambition, claim wording, scope, evidence, implementation and governance should form a coherent and traceable chain. Where one link is missing or materially narrower than the consumer-facing message, the claim is unlikely to withstand scrutiny. As EmpCo application approaches, companies should treat future environmental claims as evidence-backed commitments and assess whether they can substantiate not only what they intend to achieve, but how they plan to get there.
Background
Member States were required to transpose the Directive by 27 March 2026, with national measures applying from 27 September 2026. Transposition has progressed unevenly across the EU, and some Member States are still finalising implementing legislation. While national implementation timelines differ, the Directive envisages a common application date across Member States and provides an important reference point for regulatory expectations and market practice.