.avif)
“Sustainable neighborhood,” “climate-friendly building,” “future-proof property”: stricter rules for such claims have been in effect since September 27, 2026. For real estate companies, this involves more than just new marketing guidelines. It is about how clean the connection between building performance, verification, and public promises actually is. The EmpCo Directive tends to strengthen the importance of credible, transparent, and independent certification systems because it makes blanket green claims more difficult and favors evidence-based statements.
Sustainable. Climate-friendly. Future-proof.
These terms, along with “green” and various superlatives, have become a fixed part of the real estate industry’s vocabulary. They appear in brochures, on project websites, and in corporate presentations. They are intended to provide guidance, but on their own, they say very little. What exactly is sustainable about a neighborhood? Does “climate-friendly” refer to the heating supply, energy demand, building materials, or emissions offset elsewhere? Does “future-proof” describe a state already achieved or a goal for the coming years? Ambiguities have become risky since the new requirements for implementing the European EmpCo Directive came into force in Germany. They tighten the requirements for environmental and sustainability claims in business-to-consumer communication. Responding with more cautious language would be the obvious choice, but it would miss the real problem: often, it is not just the term that is too broad—it is the lack of a robust connection between what a building demonstrably achieves and what is publicly claimed about it.
A claim is not created in a single step
When the admissibility of a sustainability claim is discussed, the project website is often already largely finished. The brochure is designed, the visualization commissioned, and the sales team is waiting for a catchy message; sales pitches are formulated by marketing experts, not by the engineers involved. Only subsequently is it checked—usually under economic aspects—whether the project will become a “sustainable neighborhood” and what exactly that is supposed to mean. By this time, the claim has, at best, already traveled a long road. It may have started with an honorable, politically driven, or economically sound intention to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the planned properties. This was followed by rough calculations, communication among several parties with corresponding interpretations of the content—and finally, a shortening and punchy formulation for marketing purposes.
In the worst-case scenario, environmental claims are used for advertising without having undergone any prior technical or economic assessment. Without buyers or tenants, there is no financing, and without that, there is no certainty or knowledge of the budget. The framework and basis for verifying which measures can be financed or amortized are therefore missing. The primary goal is thus to secure buyers or tenants.
In both scenarios, a calculated emission reduction compared to a reference becomes a “significant CO₂ reduction.” The brochure then refers to a “climate-friendly building.” The website eventually promises “climate-neutral living.” Each formulation sounds a little better and claims a little more.
Where a good measure becomes an overblown promise
The EmpCo Directive (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition) does not ban every green adjective in the real estate industry; rather, it ensures that companies must disclose what a claim refers to, how far it extends, and what technical basis it rests upon. Simplified, and therefore legally untenable or imprecise: certificate instead of value judgment. Key figure instead of buzzword. Proof instead of promise. The new rules apply to general environmental claims, product-related climate claims, future promises, and sustainability labels. This also includes images, symbols, and brand or product names.
The real estate industry rarely advertises with completely fabricated environmental benefits; more often, a real measure is communicatively overstretched: a photovoltaic system can be sensible, but it does not automatically make the entire building sustainable. A green roof is a concrete measure, but it is not proof of a “green neighborhood.” And a mobility concept describes mobility, not the fulfillment of required social and functional standards. A building certification does not necessarily lead to a “climate-neutral building.”
The amended Unfair Competition Act (UWG) therefore covers incorrectly described scope boundaries that give the impression that an environmental performance applies to the entire product or business activity, even though only a partial aspect is affected. Correct communication specifies what the measure refers to: the building volume, site boundaries, specific components, exclusions, etc. The line between a goal and an achieved state is similarly sensitive. A planned value is not a measured value; an intended certification is not a completed certificate. And a decarbonization goal is not yet an achieved emission reduction. Future-oriented environmental claims must therefore be based on verifiable commitments and a realistic implementation plan. This includes measurable and time-bound goals as well as regular, independent verification. Those who communicate ambitious goals do not have to downplay them, but they should make it clear what is already being achieved today and what is yet to be reached.
“Climate-neutral” remains a particularly demanding claim
The new legal situation becomes particularly clear regarding the claim of “climate neutrality.” Technically, climate neutrality means that the climate impact caused by an activity, product, building, or company is net zero. This is interpreted differently in common usage. The climate is influenced by various greenhouse gases, yet the claim is usually reduced to one of these gases (albeit the one with the supposedly greatest influence): carbon dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the statement would need to be specified: namely, by the measured indicator, the methodology, etc. In the future, the claim will no longer be permissible if it is based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 certificate trading, reforestation projects, etc.). This eliminates a significant economic incentive for purchasing voluntary compensation certificates (Carbon Credits, Voluntary Carbon Market).
Even a certificate does not speak for itself
Building certifications create structure, comparability, and provide technically verifiable evidence that supports the requirements of the EmpCo. A certificate confirms what was tested within the respective system and scope of assessment. This assumes that these are proven, externally verified certification systems, and differentiates them from labels without verification or accreditation. Jurisprudence is expected to further sharpen this distinction in the coming months.
In communication, building certificates are occasionally interpreted more broadly than the subject of the assessment allows. Scope, status, and methodology must not be blurred. A pre-certificate is not a final certificate, an intended award is not an achieved result, and a certificate is not confirmation of climate neutrality, etc. The established systems provide customers with clear guidelines regarding external communication through their rules and contracts. Unfortunately, these have repeatedly been interpreted freely and creatively in the context of marketing. In the future, this could have legal consequences.
A certificate is strong evidence, but it is not a blank check for a positive environmental promise.
What needs to be put to the test now
A complete audit of all communications is not necessarily the best place to start. It makes more sense to begin with statements that have a particularly wide reach or high visibility. This includes climate neutrality and CO₂ claims, blanket terms like "sustainable" or "green," long-term environmental goals, and statements about entire buildings, districts, or companies. Certification representations, proprietary labels, and highly ecologically charged visuals also deserve a second look. A good early warning sign is a claim for which no one internally can quickly name the technical basis. In such cases, the problem is not just the wording; information has been lost along the way from project knowledge to public communication.
Conclusion: A better claim starts with the building
For the real estate industry, the tightening of rules for sustainability communication is primarily an opportunity to review its own translation chain. After all, there are several stages between technical planning and public promises. A concrete building performance can quickly turn into a statement that encompasses more than was originally calculated or certified. Anyone who only asks whether a "green" term is still permissible shortly before publication is starting too late. Those responsible must answer this question very specifically: What statement does the actual performance of this building support? Anyone who can answer this clearly does not need to downplay sustainability, but can instead speak about it much more precisely—and that is ultimately more convincing than any interchangeable green adjective.
Would you like to check which environmental and sustainability statements your building data actually supports? We will work with you to examine the connection between building performance, evidence, and communication, and show you where statements are robust and where they need to be sharpened.
For a rough overview, we have answered the first questions for you at the end of this article. This article serves as general professional information and does not constitute legal advice. The legal assessment depends on the wording, the subject matter, the medium, the target audience, and the overall impression in each individual case.
Sources: [eur-lex.europa.eu], [gesetze-im...nternet.de], [ihk.de] [tww.law], [ihk.de], [ihk.de]
Frequently asked questions about the EmpCo Directive in the real estate industry
What is the legal basis for EmpCo, and what does the name stand for?
EmpCo stands for the "Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive." EU 2024/825 was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council on February 28, 2024. It amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) and the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU). Its goal is, among other things, to better protect consumers from misleading environmental claims and non-credible sustainability labels.
Why does the EmpCo Directive only become binding two years after its enactment?
EU regulations apply directly in all member states. EU directives set a goal, and implementation is carried out by member states through national laws, which are bound by specified deadlines. For the EmpCo Directive, the requirement was to implement the necessary legal and administrative provisions by March 27, 2026, with the implementation applying from September 27, 2026.
Who does the EmpCo Directive apply to?
The EmpCo Directive protects "consumers," not professional or institutional market participants. The directives on unfair commercial practices (UCPD) and consumer rights, as amended by EmpCo, are aimed at protecting "consumers." In EU law, a "consumer" is defined as any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside their trade, business, craft, or profession—in other words, B2C transactions. Institutional investors, funds, REITs, insurance companies, banks, pension funds, or real estate companies are therefore not consumers. The consequence for the real estate sector: EmpCo directly affects, above all, advertising to private buyers, the marketing of apartments to private individuals, statements to private tenants, and sustainability claims in consumer advertising. The new requirements apply directly here.
Does EmpCo also affect the B2B real estate sector?
When institutional investors, asset managers, funds, or insurers purchase or advertise real estate, the EmpCo Directive does not apply directly. This does not mean that false statements would be without consequences. Other legal regimes apply here, such as competition law (UWG), contract law, prospectus liability, capital market law, SFDR, the Taxonomy Regulation, AIFM/MiFID regulations, and claims for damages due to false information in the due diligence process, etc.
EmpCo will have at least an indirect effect if the requirements formulated there regarding the verifiability and robustness of sustainability claims become established in the future—as is expected—as a benchmark for courts, investors, and market participants in the B2B sector.
What is an environmental claim?
The directive introduces the term "environmental claim" as an independent legal concept. An environmental claim can appear as text, an image, a graphic element, a symbol, a label, a brand name, a company name, or a product name. It conveys, either explicitly or indirectly, that a product, brand, or company has a positive, neutral, or lesser impact on the environment, or has improved its environmental performance.
Can a property, product, or construction service still be described as "sustainable"?
Under the EmpCo Directive, a property cannot simply be described as "sustainable" in B2C transactions. This is the fundamental difference between previous practice and the new requirements. The advertiser must be able to prove that the targeted consumers will not misunderstand this claim and that the stated performance can be objectively substantiated. In principle, the EmpCo only permits general environmental claims where a recognized, outstanding environmental performance (including social and governance issues in the case of the term "sustainability") can be proven, for example, through the attainment of officially recognized eco-labels and comparable evidence—though even this is subject to conditions.
Which terms or environmental claims should real estate companies be particularly careful with?
General terms such as "sustainable," "green," "environmentally friendly," "climate-friendly," "resource-efficient," "climate-neutral," "CO₂-neutral," "climate-positive," and "emission-free" require particularly close scrutiny. Whether these can be used depends on the exact context, the scope of the claim, and the legal requirements for substantiation.
Is it still permissible to advertise a building as "climate-neutral"?
The EmpCo itself does not explicitly answer this question. Clarity will only come through future case law and regulatory practice. Until then, the appropriate strategy is to use precise technical statements rather than the blanket claim of "climate-neutral," including specific details on observation periods, scope (operational vs. embodied carbon, user emissions), quality and metrics of energy sources, calculation methodology, etc.
The claim is NOT permissible if it is based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions (carbon credit trading, reforestation projects, etc.) and thereby creates the impression that a product or company has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact. This represents a paradigm shift from offsetting to decarbonization. This is precisely where many of the classic consulting services provided by ibak Hamburg are focused.
Can a neighborhood development still be advertised as "sustainable"?
As with individual properties, the general term "sustainable" must be replaced in the future with precise statements. It must be clear which buildings, open spaces, criteria, and life-cycle phases were assessed using which methodology, what benchmarks they were compared against, to what extent they were implemented, and who verified them. Individual measures such as photovoltaics, landscaping, or mobility concepts do not justify a comprehensive sustainability claim. This requires concrete evidence that is technically and legally sound, verifiable, and robust. Neighborhood certifications, the Good Mobility Standard, or comparable procedures can provide a foundation here.
Are DGNB, LEED, or BREEAM certifications sufficient as proof of a property's sustainability?
The directive does not imply that a DGNB, LEED, or BREEAM-certified building can be blanketly described as "sustainable." One cannot automatically derive every further environmental claim from a certification. However, attributes can be substantiated by specifically naming the system, the system version, the certification level, and the degree of achievement. Such references constitute verifiable statements. Corresponding formulation guidelines can be found in the trademark policies, style guides, and contracts of the system providers and—if applied correctly—are nothing new to the market.
Is it permissible to advertise an intended certification?
The EmpCo does not fundamentally oppose advertising with certifications; rather, it encourages the use of comprehensible, verifiable evidence (including that obtained during certification processes) instead of blanket environmental promises, especially when validated by accredited third parties. However, there are requirements regarding the form of the advertising. The specifications from the system providers' trademark policies, style guides, and contracts must be followed, including references to the targeted or achieved goals and the status quo of the assessment. An intended certification must not be presented as an already achieved result. Phrases such as "certification sought," "registered for certification," and "certified" denote different project stages and must not be conflated. No further claims may be derived from certifications unless they can be substantiated. For example: "LEED Gold, therefore climate-neutral" or "DGNB certified and therefore green."
How can real estate companies avoid greenwashing under the EmpCo?
By avoiding blanket promises, disclosing the subject matter and system boundaries, separating planning from measured reality, citing comparative values, and using only those statements that are supported by appropriate technical foundations.
What do project developers need to change now?
They should audit existing claims, prioritize critical statements, assign and supplement project and building documentation, revise unclear wording, and implement a regulated approval process. It is particularly important to involve planners, contractors, marketing departments, and legal counsel at an early stage.
Are websites and social media also affected?
Yes. Environmental communication is not limited to advertisements or printed brochures. Companies should also review project websites, corporate websites, social media posts, and other publicly accessible communication channels.
Are previously published materials affected?
The new rules have been in effect since September 27, 2026, with no general grandfathering for existing environmental communications. Consequently, older content that remains publicly accessible on websites, social media, and in marketing materials should also be reviewed.
How does ibak Hamburg support you with these new requirements?
Please consult legal counsel for the formal assessment of EmpCo compliance. ibak Hamburg provides support with the technically and professionally robust derivation and documentation required to substantiate sustainability and environmental claims. We achieve this through ESG and technical due diligence, certifications, and taxonomy audits at the macro level, as well as calculations, simulations, audits, measurements, and material testing at the detailed level. We assist you at the intersection of building data, assessment, documentation, and communication.
