<\/p>\n
In our Q1 newsletter<\/a>, we presented the regulatory basics of the EmpCo Directive (read it here). In the Q2 issue<\/a>, we used a current project to show you what the new legislation specifically means for your corporate communication.<\/p>\n The practice test revealed something that goes beyond the individual case: false green claims rarely arise from bad intent. Rather, they arise because sustainability management, procurement, product development, sales and communication each know only part of the truth \u2013 and nobody brings the pieces together into a robust claim.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This raises a question that goes beyond EmpCo and which we will examine more closely here: how must corporate communication change when every environmental claim has to be substantiated?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Anyone applying the EmpCo requirements to existing communication for the first time almost always encounters the same pattern:<\/p>\n The problematic wordings are not the obviously exaggerated ones.<\/strong><\/p>\n It is the casual statements such as \u201cproduced in a climate-friendly way\u201d, \u201cfrom responsible production\u201d or \u201ca step towards climate neutrality\u201d \u2013 most of which were certainly formulated in good faith and without any manipulative intent. However \u2013 and this is the crux with EmpCo \u2013 nobody took care to back these statements up with data. It seemed obvious and self-evident.<\/p>\n It is precisely this self-evidence that EmpCo brings to an end. The Directive no longer requires (subjective) honesty \u2013 which was present in most cases anyway. It requires objective verifiability. And that is a qualitatively different standard:<\/p>\n It is not enough for a statement to be true. It must be possible to prove why it is true, who verified it and on what data basis.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The shift from \u201cit\u2019s true, isn\u2019t it?\u201d to \u201cit\u2019s proven\u201d cannot be achieved through more careful wording. It requires a process. What is needed is<\/p>\n Without this process, any adjustment of individual wordings remains piecemeal. At best, it remedies a symptom, not the cause. The regulatory bomb is not defused. The risk remains.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Companies that recognise this connection early gain an advantage that goes beyond mere regulatory compliance: those who can prove what they claim ultimately communicate more credibly \u2013 not despite, but precisely because of the stricter requirements. Words now carry more weight \u2013 and they do not get lost in a flood of identical words from competitors.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n When EmpCo takes effect on 27 September 2026, the theoretical requirement will become everyday practice. For companies that review their communication now, this is more of an opportunity than a burden. There is still time to calmly sort out the relationship between claim and evidence, rather than having to correct it later under time pressure.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Together with our partner agency bcomm<\/a>, we have bundled what such a process can look like in practice into a consulting package. It combines regulatory review and communication implementation from a single source, ranging from the claim check to traceable documentation of the underlying data.<\/strong><\/p>\nA question in search of an answer<\/strong><\/h4>\n
From (subjective) honesty to (objective) verifiability<\/strong><\/h4>\n
From wording to process<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
Game, set and match<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Looking ahead<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Our offer<\/strong><\/h4>\n