The EU’s new greenwashing rules: red tape or a licence to speak up?

Ellie Ashton-Melia

Greenwashing is a word that can make even the most experienced sustainability team nervous.

Get it wrong and you risk a reputational backlash. Say too much and you could be accused of making claims you can’t substantiate.

I’ve spoken to plenty of event businesses that have stopped talking about their ESG progress altogether because they’re afraid of getting it wrong. So when you mention the new EU sustainability regulation to a marketing team, you can almost watch the shoulders drop.

The EU’s EmpCo legislation came into effect last month, and as with any new laws, there are a lot of questions need answering. Is this actually just another layer of red tape? Or is it the push the industry needs to tackle greenwashing - and give businesses the confidence to talk about what they’re actually doing? And as event professionals, what do we need to do about EmpCo?

What is EmpCo?

EmpCo stands for Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition. It is a European Union law (EU 2024/825) that came in across all EU member states last month (September 2026).

The law is designed to stop misleading environmental and social claims, and the use of false eco-labels across products, services, campaigns, and company initiatives. EmpCo isn’t really an environmental law, rather it’s an advertising and consumer protection law that amends the earlier Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

It’s believed that 40 per cent of green claims made online could be misleading, and 53.3 per cent of examined green claims on products are vague, misleading or unfounded [1, 2]. Their use as a marketing tactic and point of differentiation has brought sustainability communications under scrutiny, and such claims will now be evaluated against the same rules on fake reviews, hidden charges and misleading product benefits.

What the law covers and what it doesn't

The purpose of the law is to enable consumers to have access to more accurate information and encourage better consumption choices over competing products.

Take biodegradable plastic cups. You pay a premium, with the intention of moving away from single-use plastic. However, few local authorities have the industrial composting facilities to dispose of biodegradable plastics correctly. It can’t go in with plastic recycling either, so it often ends up in landfill. The marketing of such products shares little information about correct waste management, misleading consumers into believing they’re making a more conscious choice when that may not necessarily be true. This is where EmpCo strives to improve transparency and traceability.

It isn’t just advertising copy. The directive also applies to imagery, logos, labels, colours (particularly the use of green), or even company names that imply that the product or service delivers improved sustainability impact. Many of the adjectives deployed in sustainability communications like “eco-design”, “sustainable” and “responsibly sourced” must now become verbs, requiring a detailed explanation or evidence of the chain of custody, or a realistic implementation plan to substantiate any claim made. Offset-based 'carbon neutral' claims are banned outright.

This doesn’t mean a claim requires lengthy technical detail. It could be as simple as making the statement “our venue electricity comes from renewable sources” followed by the detail “40 per cent generated from onsite solar panels, the remainder is backed by guarantees of origin”, instead of claiming it’s a “green venue” because it has solar panels. Now, it’s hardly sexy marketing, but being specific and accurate within a defined scope is important. If you make a claim, just always ensure you can back it up on the same page.

B2C vs B2B. Where is the line drawn?

Now, you might think the events industry is largely exempt from such legislation given that firstly it’s a consumer law, so B2B communications are out of scope, and second, that we deliver services, which the law treats as products.

However, it’s much blurrier for events than it looks. If a claim is made within the public domain, then the EmpCo rules apply. That could be anything from in a press release, or on a website or ticketing page, to on signage, in a social post, or on a public-facing report that is likely to reach or influence consumers in the EU. The same applies to any consumer events and exhibitions, experiential brand activations, hotel stays, public venues, and leisure destination marketing within any EU country.

EmpCo isn’t legislation in the UK, so if your claims don’t reach consumers in the EU, EmpCo itself won’t apply to them. That doesn’t make them unregulated, however. The CMA Green Claims Code and the DMCC Act still apply here at home for consumer-facing claims, and misleading B2B marketing is already prohibited under UK law. Across the EU, misleading advertising between businesses is prohibited, and in countries such as France and Spain, competitors can take each other to court over green claims.

Claims also have a habit of travelling. When a venue’s “carbon neutral” proposal is repeated on an organiser’s ticketing page, a B2B claim has become a consumer-facing one, so in practice very few claims stay B2B for long. What might be accepted in the UK isn’t necessarily accepted in the EU either. For UK planners, the best bet is to use EmpCo as best practice, even if it’s B2B, as it safeguards your communications and keeps you ahead of any future tightening.

Making the right claims across the supply chain

Greenwashing rarely starts in the sustainability team. It happens in a sales deck, a bid document, social posts or supplier copy, so everyone who communicates should approve the same language. Here are a few simple theoretical scenarios to put EmpCo into practice.

● “We’re going to be Net Zero by 2030” on a public-facing website. This is a future environmental claim, and requires a detailed, publicly available implementation plan that is regularly verified by an independent third party.

● “This was a zero waste and carbon neutral event”. There are two parts to this statement. First, if the waste was incinerated or partially diverted from landfill then it’s not zero waste. Second, a carbon neutral claim based on offsetting is banned outright, even with a reduction plan in place. To improve this statement, use data to share the percentage reductions made across waste and carbon, and how it was achieved.

● “Europe’s greenest city”. A destination or DMO is also a shared B2C and B2B brand and this is both a generic and comparative claim. Instead, use specific facts with the method stated.

One version of the truth across every team

EmpCo is best practice, so even if the majority of your work is B2B, you should be communicating this way anyway.

Transparency, credibility and traceability are the very foundations of sustainability, especially with the proliferation of misinformation that exists today.

Create one version of the truth across every team within your business so everyone can feel confident to communicate without the fear of greenwashing.

Here is a simple EmpCo self-audit exercise:

Inventory - do a stock check of every word, logo, award and target associated with sustainability across the website.
Test each claim - ask yourself three questions. Is it specific? Can this be proved? Would we be comfortable if a journalist or regulator asked for the evidence tomorrow?
Screen it - use AI tools like a free website scan from Typetone or an AI assistant to do a first pass of any webpages or outgoing communications.
Fix claims - rewrite against the seven dials for green shouting. Be creative, use your brand tone of voice, and don’t go silent and remove a claim unless it can’t be evidenced.
Build a claims library - approved wording, scope and evidence for each claim, shared with every team and key suppliers.
Set a sign-off step - implement sustainability checks alongside legal and brand approval for new campaigns.

Resources and tools to help

I wouldn’t suggest you go through the directive. There are extensive user-friendly resources available for you to check any communication against, many of which helped me write this article. Here are the ones I would recommend and why:

Proof Not Promises, GDS-Movement and European Travel Commission. The most sector-relevant guide for destinations and business events.
Commission Q&A on EmpCo - The Commission’s own interpretation guide answering specific questions from the original legislation.
EmpCo plain-English guide, developed by Typetone (an AI compliance scanning platform) covers everything. Bans, labels, accepted language, timelines in an easy-to-understand format.
Greenwashing, Greenhushing, Greenshouting by Climate for Creatives. Reframes EmpCo as permission to shout about what you can prove. Use the seven dials for green shouting for marketing teams.
CMA Green Claims Code and checklist - 6 core principles with a yes/no checklist. UK relevant but good discipline elsewhere.
ICC Framework for Responsible Environmental Marketing Communications - International standard for global communications.

Photo by Miha Rekar on Unsplash

So, red tape or not?

Strictly speaking, EmpCo is a consumer law, so if your communications genuinely never reach the public, it may not apply to you directly. But treating that as a reason to carry on as before misses the point. EmpCo doesn't stop us from talking about sustainability. It helps us do it better. The days of vague language and unbacked jargon are numbered, and I welcome it. Clearer rules push us towards specificity and better storytelling with data.

For years, our industry has called on governments to step in, arguing that regulation is what turns good intentions into real change. Now that it's arriving, it isn't red tape. It's the clarity we asked for, a shared standard that rewards businesses doing the real work and exposes those relying on adjectives. Use it as best practice in every communication, whether aimed at consumers, clients or suppliers.

References

Competition and Markets Authority (2021) https://www.gov.uk/government/news/global-sweep-finds-40-of-firms-green-claims-could-be-misleading
European Commission (2023) https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1692