The EU Commission intended the Packaging Directive when drafting it. In Recital 9 of the Directive 2024/825 The wording "example of a prohibited general environmental statement" is given as an example. „climate-friendly packaging“. In the same paragraph, the same paragraph lists the requirement that 100 percent of the energy used in the production of these packaging materials must come from renewable sources. Two paragraphs later, the second packaging example follows: A product may not be advertised as „made from recycled material“ if in fact only the packaging is made from recycled material. Since September 27, 2026 These requirements apply in Germany under the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Act. For the packaging industry, EmpCo is therefore not a marginal issue in marketing; it directly impacts product development, data sheets, offers, and supplier relationships.
What has been prohibited since September 27th
The Third Act amending the UWG, promulgated on February 19, 2026, adds new offenses to the list of business activities that are always inadmissible. For these, there is no individual case analysis more. The first concerns general environmental statements without recognized outstanding environmental performance. The directive lists as examples „environmentally friendly“, „environmentally sound“, „green“, „nature-friendly“, „ecological“, „environmentally responsible“, „climate-friendly“, „environmentally compatible“, „CO₂-friendly“, „energy-efficient“, „biodegradable“ and „biobased“. Consideration of reason 10 shows that such performance can be proven through: EU eco-label, state-recognized systems according to EN ISO 14024 or a high level of performance in accordance with other EU legislation, such as an energy efficiency class of A. Terms such as „sustainable“, „conscious“ or „responsible“ cannot even be so defined under the directive, because they also include social aspects beyond environmental characteristics.
The second element is the Part-aspect trapAn environmental claim about the entire product or the entire business activity is inadmissible if it only concerns one specific aspect. The person who produces the lid from recycled material may not market the cup as a recycled product. The third aspect concerns Climate statements on a compensation basis. Statements such as „climate neutral“, „certified CO₂-neutral“, „CO₂-positive“, „with climate compensation“, „climate-friendly“ or „with a reduced CO₂ footprint“ are only permitted for products if they are based on the actual impacts in the life cycle and not on compensation outside the value chain. Investments in climate projects may continue to be reported on, but the derivation of a product neutrality from them is prohibited. Fourthly, Sustainability seal only allowed if they are based on a certification system or have been established by government authorities. Company-owned logos without third-party verification are eliminated. Fifthly, Statements about future environmental benefits, For example, „climate neutral by 2040" can only be accepted with a detailed implementation plan with milestones, allocation of funds, and regular review by an independent external expert.
Pictures and colors also count
According to the Association of the German Paint and Printing Inks Industry (VdL), the requirements do not apply solely to text. Images and graphics can also be considered environmental statements. The directive itself makes it clear in Recital 9 that a statement can constitute a general environmental statement when combined with implicit elements such as colors or images. Anyone who uses leaves, trees, and green tones on the packaging should check them.
The burden of proof, the right to levy fines, and the Katjes line
Anyone who understands the cut-off date as the starting point overlooks German jurisprudence. The Federal Court of Justice had already ruled on this issue in 2009. June 27, 2024 in the Katjes case Decided that advertising with the term „climate neutral“ is misleading unless it is explained in the ad itself whether the neutrality was achieved through reduction or compensation. A reference via QR code to a website was not sufficient for the court. According to carbmee, a provider of CO₂ accounting, the BGH made it clear that for environmental advertising, similar strict standards apply as for health advertising. EmpCo is now legally establishing this line and at the same time shifting the Proof burden on the advertising company.
The UWG is not enforced in Germany primarily by authorities. According to § 8, paragraph 3, UWG, the following are authorized to impose fines: Competitors, qualified business associations such as the Competition Center, qualified consumer associations such as the German Environmental Aid Foundation, and the Chambers of Industry and Commerce. According to carbmee, the German Environmental Aid Association alone has compiled a preliminary list of 92 legal proceedings concerning allegedly climate-neutral products. Penalties of up to four percent of annual turnover apply only in EU-coordinated proceedings. The practical standard case is a warning with a request for rectification, reimbursement of costs, and compensation.
Another misunderstanding can be cleared up: EmpCo is not the Green Claims Directive. This included an advance review of each environmental statement by external experts. The Commission announced in June 2025 that it would withdraw the proposal; the procedure has since been on hold. This has no impact on the applicability of EmpCo.
Packer manufacturer: The claim that no longer works downstream
Legally, EmpCo is directed at communication with consumers. Pure B2B communication does not fall within the scope of application. For manufacturers of foils, folding boxes, labels or plastic containers, this is still not a cause for alarm, and for three reasons that carbmee lists in its analysis. First, the statement no longer applies downstream: Anyone who sells climate-neutral material on a compensation basis cannot claim this characteristic on the consumer packaging from September 27 onwards. The characteristic for which an surcharge was requested loses its purpose. Secondly, the customer’s liability reaches the supplier as a data request. Brand manufacturers need evidence from the value chain for everything they print and obtain it through supplier contracts, questionnaires and specifications. A supplier that answers with an industry average delivers an unverifiable statement to its customer. Thirdly, many industrial companies are themselves brand manufacturers and thus fall directly within the scope. Carbmee concludes that EmpCo is applicable to B2B suppliers. First a revenue question, and only then a compliance question be.
What is considered reliable is described by carbmee with four requirements: a defined system boundary, primary data from its own supplier base instead of industry averages, a method that is understandable to third parties, for example according to ISO 14067 or the GHG Protocol, and a recalculation as soon as input variables change. As an example, the company mentions Ravensburger, which, according to its own statements, has achieved this by replacing shrink wrap with plastic labels. Packaging emissions down by 80 percent This is a specific statement about a named aspect, traceable to a material change and a product carbon footprint.
Practical example: The Five-Questions Claim Check
How a packaging manufacturer can actively take advantage of the new situation is shown Karl Knauer. The folding carton manufacturer from Biberach has published its own EmpCo page with a five-question claim check for marketing, purchasing and packaging development: Is the statement specific? Is the reference clear, i.e. product, packaging, material or company? Is the claim verifiable? Is the seal acceptable? Is the presentation understandable? The company emphasizes that it does not offer legal advice but supports packaging development, material selection, and the available technical information. The advice is to involve marketing, packaging development, and legal early on, because design, material, and documentation can be aligned more precisely the more specific the desired statement is.
Packaging companies: First the inventory, then the rollout plan
For brand manufacturers and distributors, the work begins with a Inventory of all environmental statements. The VdL recommends reviewing the environmental communication of texts and visual elements, as well as product labeling and sales materials. „The new requirements make it clear that environmental claims must be documented even more reliably in the future,“ says Bettina Heyne, Head of Marketing & Innovation at Keim and Chair of the VdL Communications Committee. The association advises against Rollout plan for necessary re-labeling and change of packaging materials; With remaining stocks, overprinting or additional markings may be required.
What happens when the space on the packaging is not enough for a specification is shown by the case of the Berlin-based manufacturer Einhorn. According to their own statements, they can over two million tampons Because of the new rules regarding advertising claims, they are no longer sold regularly in retail stores, even though nothing has changed about the product itself. The company is offering them at a discount. The reason is not a lack of documentation, but the fact that the space on the packaging is insufficient to fully communicate the claim.
Old stocks: transitional arrangement until September 2028
For such cases, the Bundestag decided on a transitional arrangement on September 24, 2026. Goods already manufactured that have future unacceptable environmental claims may until September 26, 2028 remain in commerce if their destruction would be disproportionate or not sustainable, for example at very high costs or an disproportionate effort for retrieval. Also, lack of serious fault can be taken into account. The arrangement is not a general postponement: Newly produced packaging and the associated communication must comply with the requirements that have been in effect since September 27th.
That consumers prioritize specific characteristics above labels is suggested by a study by Simon-Kucher. 49 percent of the respondents cited a low material use As an important characteristic of sustainable packaging, only 26 percent are official environmental labels. The advisory sees this as a strategic opportunity for companies that have invested in material reduction, recyclability, or the use of recycled materials and can demonstrate these advancements.
Mechanical engineering and service providers: The obstacle to „energy efficiency“
For manufacturers of packaging machines and for service providers in the packaging sector, the concern lies less in consumer packaging than in their own communication once it reaches end customers or is passed on by customers. The term „energy efficient“ is explicitly listed as an example in the directive. It can only be generally stated as an outstanding environmental performance, which the directive calls Class A under the Energy Consumption Labeling Regulation 2017/1369. Where such a classification does not exist, only the specification in the same medium remains: the measured consumption per cycle, the savings compared to the predecessor model in percent, the basis for the measurement. The same applies to statements by companies. Anyone who gives the impression that they are exclusively using renewable energy while individual plants are still operated using fossil fuels violates the partial aspect rule under Recital 11; the precise and verifiable indication of a reduction in fossil energy for the entire business activity remains permissible.
What else can be said
Translating the prohibition catalogue into practice results in the same mechanism for all three groups as the directive sets out in Recital 9: The specification must be clearly and prominently displayed on the same medium., In the commercial spot, on the packaging, and on the sales floor. This ensures that recyclate content percentages, weight reduction, recyclability, and the name and environmental footprint data of the testing institute remain the claims that still make packaging marketable. Those who can deliver them have an argument since September 27 that competitors cannot use without data backing it up.
