The EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive — officially Directive 2024/825/EU, but almost always called the ECGT Directive — entered into force in March 2024. Member states have until March 2026 to transpose it into national law. That window sounds comfortable, but enforcement is already underway in several jurisdictions, and the legal standard for a "misleading commercial practice" under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive applies now regardless of transposition status.

Most coverage of this regulation has focused on the list of banned phrases. That's understandable — Annex I of the directive is concrete and searchable, which makes it easy to scan for. But the phrase list is only part of the picture. The harder obligations live elsewhere.

What the Directive Prohibits

Annex I to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, as amended by ECGT, is where the bright lines are drawn. It now prohibits, without exception, commercial claims that:

• Use generic environmental descriptors — "eco-friendly," "green," "sustainable," "natural," "environmentally responsible," and similar — without substantiation
• Display voluntary sustainability labels that are not certified under an approved third-party scheme or established by a public authority
• Make carbon offsetting claims that present the product or company as having neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact

These are per se prohibited. That means there's no proportionality assessment, no room for context, no argument that the claim was "broadly true." If a phrase falls under Annex I, it's banned.

What Requires Substantiation

Beyond the prohibited list, Articles 6 and 7 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (as amended) set out obligations for claims that are permitted but must be backed by evidence. This includes:

Specific performance claims. "Made with 40% recycled polyester" is allowed — but you must be able to demonstrate the figure through supplier documentation, audit trails, or third-party testing. The obligation is to substantiate the claim, not merely believe it to be true.

Comparative claims. Saying your product is "30% less water-intensive than the industry average" requires you to specify the reference point, use current data, and apply a consistent methodology. Vague comparatives — "better for the environment than our previous collection" — without a defined baseline fall into prohibited territory.

Future performance claims. Net-zero commitments, carbon neutral by 2030, and similar pledges must be backed by a credible implementation plan, published and subject to independent verification. Aspirational language without a plan doesn't qualify.

What the Directive Doesn't Settle

The ECGT Directive is a framework, not a technical standard. It doesn't define what counts as adequate substantiation for most claims. That determination is left to the competent national authorities — and in practice, to the legal assessment of what "scientific evidence and best available technical knowledge" means for a specific sector.

For fashion specifically, there's no settled EU standard for what constitutes a verified sustainability claim on a fabric. The Global Organic Textile Standard, OEKO-TEX MADE IN GREEN, and Cradle to Cradle are widely used, but none of them automatically satisfy ECGT requirements across all claim types. A brand using GOTS-certified materials can't necessarily make a blanket "sustainably made" claim about its supply chain.

This ambiguity is intentional in some respects — the directive wants to encourage a rigorous evidence standard rather than create checkbox compliance. But it does mean that brand-level compliance requires more than auditing your phrase list.

The Practical Implication

The most common mistake we see is treating ECGT compliance as a copywriting exercise. Teams scan their product pages, remove the word "eco-friendly," replace it with "certified by X standard," and consider the job done. The problem is that the standard then becomes the claim, and if that standard doesn't actually cover what's being asserted, you've traded one prohibited claim for a misleading specific one.

A better starting point is to work backward from your evidence. What can you actually prove? What documentation exists in your supply chain? What independent assessments have been conducted? The claims you make should be a direct expression of what you can substantiate — not the other way around.

That's not a counsel of silence. It's a counsel of precision. There's nothing wrong with being specific: "this fabric is certified to OEKO-TEX Standard 100 for harmful substance limits" is a clear, defensible claim. "This garment is made sustainably" is neither.

---

References: Directive 2024/825/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council; Directive 2005/29/EC (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) as amended; Annex I to the UCPD as updated by ECGT.