EmpCo and greenwashing: act passed by the Sejm. What should businesses check?

07.09.2026 ESG and sustainability

Updated: 7 September 2026

On 4 September 2026, the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish Parliament, passed an act amending the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices and the Consumer Rights Act, implementing Directive (EU) 2024/825 — EmpCo. The legislative process is still ongoing: passage by the Sejm does not mean that the act is already in force.

The version passed by the Sejm provides for entry into force on 27 September 2027. Meanwhile, the EU Directive still requires the new rules to apply from 27 September 2026. The Polish postponement should not be treated as an extra year of freedom to make environmental claims. General prohibitions on misleading consumers already apply.

We originally published the Polish article on 1 September 2026, before the act was passed by the Sejm. Below, we present the updated status and practical guidance for businesses.

Generic green slogans, self-created environmental labels, climate neutrality claims and presenting one positive aspect as a feature of an entire product — these messages require particular care. Directive (EU) 2024/825 strengthens consumer protection against unreliable environmental claims. Regardless of how the Polish legislative process develops, businesses should organise their communications, supporting evidence and responsibility for approving claims.

EmpCo: two dates and an unfinished legislative process

Directive (EU) 2024/825 entered into force on 26 March 2024. Member States were required to adopt and publish implementing provisions by 27 March 2026 and to apply them from 27 September 2026. These are separate deadlines: the Directive entering into force does not automatically mean that all its new prohibitions already apply directly to businesses.

In Poland, the Sejm passed the implementing act on 4 September 2026. A total of 236 MPs voted in favour of the act as a whole, and 199 against. The version passed by the Sejm provides for entry into force on 27 September 2027. As at the date of this update, this date should not be presented as a deadline arising from a promulgated act already in force: the subsequent stages of the legislative process must be monitored.

The difference between the EU deadline and the version passed by the Sejm does not change the existing prohibition on misleading consumers. Nor does it postpone deadlines under the laws of other EU Member States where a company sells to consumers. Businesses operating in several markets need a separate assessment of their obligations in each of them.

Changes extending beyond packaging

The rules primarily concern practices directed at consumers. An environmental message may appear on a website, in advertising, on social media, in a service description, on a product label or on packaging. What matters may be not only the wording, but also the overall presentation — for example, images, symbols and colours suggesting particular environmental benefits.

EmpCo also covers information on durability, reparability, updates and guarantees, as well as practices associated with the early obsolescence of products. For B2B companies, relevant issues may include data supplied to business partners and subsequently used in consumer communications; this does not, however, mean that all the new prohibitions apply identically to every B2B relationship.

What about existing products and packaging?

At the third reading, an amendment proposing an additional 24-month transitional mechanism for certain claims, labels and information on products or their packaging placed on the market before the act entered into force was rejected. The version passed by the Sejm does not include this specific arrangement. This does not automatically establish an obligation to destroy stocks — the assessment should be based on the final act, the type of message and the enforcement approach.

The European Commission has published a common approach by consumer protection cooperation authorities to legacy stocks of products and packaging carrying environmental claims or sustainability labels prepared before 27 September 2026. It envisages a proportionate assessment of individual cases and expects timely compliance efforts made in good faith. This is an approach to enforcement, not a new statutory exemption or an unconditional guarantee that existing stocks may be sold through.

UOKiK is already investigating greenwashing under existing rules

A company's preparations should not be based solely on waiting for work on the act to be completed. The President of Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) is already conducting proceedings concerning environmental communications under existing consumer protection rules.

In January 2026, UOKiK announced allegations against Bolt, Tchibo and Zara. The authority is examining, among other things, generic slogans, missing information about the scale and conditions of the claimed effect, attributing a feature of one element to an entire business, symbols suggesting environmental friendliness, and messages about “zero emissions” and “100% renewable energy”. If the allegations in these proceedings are confirmed, fines may reach up to 10% of turnover for each challenged practice.

This does not mean an automatic fine of 10% of turnover for every imprecise word. It does, however, demonstrate that the risk of scrutiny and proceedings already exists, and that the entire way a product or business is presented may be assessed.

What is an environmental claim?

The Directive defines this concept broadly. It covers a voluntary message in commercial communications — text, an illustration, a graphic, a symbol, a label, a trade name, a company name or a product name — which states or implies a positive, neutral, reduced or improving environmental impact of a product, brand or trader.

The assessment should therefore not be limited to individual words. The whole context of the message may matter: the headline, clarification, image, colours, symbol, place of publication and what the average recipient may expect from the communication.

What do communication reviews reveal in practice?

In a review of an industrial company's website carried out by Ecothesis, eight recurring groups of risk were identified. Without disclosing the client's identity, the following typical problems can be highlighted:

a headline claim about a “green transition” without specifying a measurable effect;
the phrase “more environmentally friendly” without identifying the subject and method of comparison;
a “lower carbon footprint” claim without a value, unit, baseline and methodology;
descriptions of “green hydrogen” without explaining the energy source and the solution's stage of development;
promises of future results worded as effects already achieved;
combining an environmental claim with a superlative about market position;
attributing a feature to the whole company when it is substantiated only for one product, process or location;
using self-created symbols or icons that may resemble independent conformity labels.

In most cases, it is not necessary to remove all communications. An effective change may involve replacing an assessment of impact with a description of a product's function, narrowing the scope of a claim, or adding a figure, unit, baseline, methodology and the date to which the data relate.

Which practices require particular attention?

1. Generic environmental claims

Terms such as “eco-friendly”, “green”, “environmentally friendly”, “climate-friendly”, “biodegradable” or “energy efficient” can create a very broad impression. If a claim is not clearly specified on the same medium, the trader should be able to demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to that claim.

An arbitrary justification or certificate is therefore not enough. In practice, a precise message limited to an aspect that has actually been measured is safer. Instead of the generic “climate-friendly packaging”, it is better to specify a particular, substantiable parameter — provided it is true, up to date and does not omit important context.

2. Self-created sustainability labels

The new rules are intended to restrict the use of voluntary labels and signs which appear to confirm independent environmental quality but are not based on a certification scheme and have not been established by a public authority.

A certification scheme must meet specific legal requirements. This does not mean that every piece of environmental information requires an independent certificate. A company should compile an inventory of its own symbols, “green seals”, icons and certificate-like messages, and establish who created them, which requirements underpin their award and whether they are subject to independent verification.

3. Extending one positive aspect to an entire product or company

Evidence concerning packaging does not automatically substantiate a claim about the entire product. An improvement at one site does not necessarily support a message about the trader's entire business. The scope of the claim should match the scope of the data.

Before publication, it is worth asking two questions: what exactly does the claim refer to, and could the recipient interpret it more broadly than the evidence supports?

4. Climate neutrality based on offsetting emissions

The Directive introduces a prohibition on claiming — based on greenhouse gas emissions offsetting — that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

This does not prohibit communicating investments in climate projects or purchases of carbon credits. However, the message must not create the misleading impression that the product itself has thereby become climate-neutral.

5. Environmental targets for the future

Statements such as “net zero by 2040” or “a 100% green company by 2030” require more than aspiration. They should be based on clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments, a detailed and realistic implementation plan, measurable targets with deadlines, specified resources and regular verification of progress by an independent expert. The findings of that verification should be available to consumers.

Who is affected?

The Directive primarily amends the rules on business-to-consumer commercial practices. It therefore most directly concerns B2C communications: packaging, advertising, online shops, product websites, social media, labels and information provided before purchase.

This does not mean that companies operating mainly in B2B can ignore the issue. The same claims are often repeated across the supply chain, in offers, reports, clients' materials and corporate communications. An inconsistent or undocumented claim may create regulatory, contractual and reputational risk beyond conventional consumer advertising.

How can you conduct a practical communication review?

A useful starting point is a single table covering all of the company's environmental claims. For each claim, it is worth establishing:

Where does it appear — on a website, packaging, social media profile, in an offer, presentation, ESG report or sales material?
What exactly does it concern — a product, packaging, process, transport, site or the whole company?
How might the average recipient understand it?
Which data, studies, certificates or calculations support it?
Is the evidence up to date, and does it cover the same scope as the message?
Have the method, limitations, period and data source been stated?
Who approved the claim, and when will it be reviewed again?

The outcome need not be the removal of all environmental communications. It is often enough to narrow a claim, add a specific parameter, identify its scope, supplement the evidence, or drop an element that creates an overly broad impression.

Review environmental claims and labels with Ecothesis

Ecothesis can support your company in:

compiling an inventory of claims and labels on websites, packaging, product sheets, social media, offers, presentations and reports;
assessing the scope of messages and the available supporting evidence;
classifying risks and identifying claims that require clarification, updating or withdrawal;
preparing recommended wording with explanations;
developing an evidence matrix: claim, scope, data source, methodology, owner and next review date;
preparing an anti-greenwashing checklist and a communication approval procedure;
running a workshop for marketing, ESG, sales and product teams.

This type of review combines environmental, operational and communication perspectives. It does not replace a formal legal opinion, but helps organise the material and reduce risk before publication.

If you would like to review your company's environmental communications, contact us: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., +48 530 778 650.