Sustainability is no longer merely a distinctive feature of corporate communications. For businesses engaging with consumers, it is increasingly a matter of compliance, transparency and documentary substantiation.

27 September 2026 is a significant date for the application in Italy of the provisions introduced by Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as the “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” (the “Directive”). The Directive amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (the “UCPD”) and the Consumer Rights Directive, with the aim of combating so-called “greenwashing”, misleading environmental information and certain practices that may contribute to the premature obsolescence of goods.

In Italy, the Directive was transposed by Legislative Decree No. 30 of 20 February 2026, published in the Official Journal on 9 March 2026 (the “Legislative Decree No. 30/2026”). Legislative Decree No. 30/2026 entered into force on 24 March 2026, but provides that its provisions shall apply from 27 September 2026.

The new regulatory framework amends the Consumer Code and introduces, among other things, new definitions of “environmental claim”, “generic environmental claim”, “sustainability label” and “certification scheme”, as well as new commercial practices that are deemed unfair in all circumstances.

“Greenwashing”: from reputational communications to compliance

The term “greenwashing” describes communications that attribute to a product, service or business positive environmental characteristics or performance that are not adequately substantiated or that, even if based on truthful information, lead consumers to perceive the situation more favourably than it actually is.

The rules do not introduce a general prohibition on communicating a business’s environmental commitments. They do, however, make the conditions for using such communications correctly more stringent.

The central issue is whether the message can be substantiated. The Consumer Code defines an “environmental claim” as any message or representation, including in textual, graphic or symbolic form, which suggests that a product, product category, brand or trader has a positive or zero impact on the environment, is less harmful to the environment than other products or traders, or has improved its environmental impact over time.

The concept is broad and may encompass not only an advertising slogan, but also packaging, product or brand names, symbols and other representations used in commercial communications.

A “generic environmental claim” means an environmental claim made without a clear and prominent specification in the same medium of communication and not included in a sustainability label.

It follows that “greenwashing” is no longer merely a marketing or reputational issue, because it raises issues relating to consumer law, advertising, compliance, intellectual property, product governance and risk management. Sustainability communicated to the market must be capable of being substantiated before it is communicated.

A trader claiming an environmental improvement must clearly indicate what the claim relates to, which data substantiate it and the methodology used to measure it. Where the commitment relates to a future objective, the business must also have a credible, public and verifiable plan, with clearly identified targets, milestones, resources and responsibilities.

Sustainability labels

The new regulatory framework addresses the proliferation of environmental marks, symbols and “badges” created directly by businesses and lacking a transparent verification system.

Among the commercial practices deemed unfair in all circumstances is displaying a sustainability label that is not based on a certification scheme or that has not been established by public authorities.

Businesses will therefore need to verify not only whether an environmental label exists, but also the nature and characteristics of the system that legitimises its use.

The certification scheme must provide for third-party verification and comply with requirements of transparency, accessibility, independence and conformity control.

The consequence is not a prohibition on every reference to the environment, but the need to distinguish between a simple environmental claim and a sustainability label. The latter cannot be used as a stand-alone indicator of reliability where there is no compliant certification scheme or public recognition.

Generic claims and half-truths

Expressions such as “green”, “eco-friendly”, “environmentally friendly”, “eco-sustainable”, “climate-friendly” or equivalent formulations are not prohibited outright. They are, however, prohibited where the trader is unable to demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance that is relevant to the claim and material to the product or activity to which the message relates.

Recognised excellent environmental performance may be evidenced, among other things, by the EU Ecolabel, national or regional type I ecolabelling schemes complying with EN ISO 14024 and officially recognised in the Member States, and the best environmental performance provided for under other applicable provisions of Union law.

A further prohibition concerns so-called environmental “half-truths”. In other words, an environmental claim about the product as a whole may not be made where the environmental benefit concerns only a component, part of the product or a specific aspect of the production process.

For example, a statement regarding the use of recycled material must clearly specify which part of the product or process the claimed benefit relates to. The test is whether the actual scope of the environmental benefit corresponds to the scope of the communication.

Climate neutrality

It is prohibited to claim, on the basis of the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Businesses using communications relating to climate neutrality will therefore need to distinguish between actual reductions in emissions over the product life cycle and offsetting activities, avoiding the use of offsetting as the basis for directly attributing climate neutrality or a positive impact to the product.

The communication must clearly identify the subject matter of the claim, the scope of the emissions considered, the methodology applied and the distinction between reduction and offsetting.

Future environmental targets

The new rules also address statements concerning future environmental performance. Promises such as achieving climate neutrality or specific environmental targets by 2030 or 2050 may not be presented as mere programmatic statements without adequate support.

The trader must have a detailed and realistic implementation plan, with measurable targets and precise deadlines, as well as the resources and other elements necessary to support its implementation. The plan must be accessible to consumers and subject to periodic verification by an independent third party, with the relevant conclusions made available.

Forward-looking sustainability therefore takes on a dimension that is no longer merely reputational. The business must be able to demonstrate the substance of the announced pathway.

Requirements imposed by law

The new regulatory framework prohibits presenting as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer requirements that are mandatory by law for all products belonging to a particular category.

The principle prevents a general statutory obligation from being turned into an apparent element of commercial superiority. Communications must therefore distinguish between what a product must necessarily possess in order to be marketed and what instead constitutes an additional feature of the offer.

Comparison services

The rules also apply to services that enable products or traders to be compared on the basis of environmental or social characteristics or aspects relating to circularity, such as durability, repairability or recyclability. Where a trader provides a comparison service, information also becomes relevant regarding the method used for the comparison, the products and suppliers compared, the sources and criteria used and the measures put in place to keep the information up to date.

Environmental comparisons may therefore not be presented as a stand-alone result without a methodology. Consumers must be able to understand what was compared, according to which criteria and on the basis of which information.

Durability and premature obsolescence

The Directive is not limited to “greenwashing” in the strict sense. A significant part of the reform concerns the durability of goods, repairability and goods with digital elements. The new practices deemed unfair in all circumstances include, in particular:

• where the trader has the relevant information, failing to inform the consumer that a software update may adversely affect the functioning of the good or the use of digital content or digital services;
• presenting as necessary a software update that only improves certain functionalities;
• marketing a good with a feature introduced to limit its durability, where the trader has the relevant information;
• falsely stating that a good will last for a specified period;
• presenting a good as repairable when it is not;
• inducing the consumer to replace or replenish consumables before this is technically necessary;
• where such information is available, failing to inform the consumer of any functional limitations resulting from the use of non-original consumables, spare parts or accessories, or falsely stating that such limitations will occur.

The sustainability of a product is therefore assessed not only by reference to its environmental footprint, but also by reference to its actual durability, repairability and the possibility of using it over time.

Pre-purchase information

The reform amends the pre-contractual information requirements laid down in the Consumer Code.

For goods, consumers must receive more detailed information on the legal guarantee of conformity by means of a harmonised notice. The legal guarantee of conformity and the commercial guarantee of durability remain distinct legal concepts: the former arises by operation of law, whereas the latter is a voluntary guarantee offered by the producer.

For goods with digital elements, where the relevant information is made available to the economic operator, the minimum period during which the producer or supplier will provide software updates must also be stated.

Where required by the EU legislation applicable to the product category, the repairability index must also be stated. Alternatively, where required by the applicable rules, information must be provided on the availability and estimated cost of spare parts, the ordering procedure, the availability of repair and maintenance instructions, and any restrictions on repair.

GARAN label

Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1960 laid down the format and content of the harmonised notice on the legal guarantee of conformity and of the harmonised label for the commercial guarantee of durability. The Regulation applies from 27 September 2026.

The GARAN label concerns only goods for which the producer offers, at no additional cost to the consumer, a commercial guarantee of durability which (a) lasts for more than two years, (b) covers the goods as a whole and (c) is communicated by the producer and made available to the trader.

The label contains the term “GARAN”, the harmonised symbol, an indication of the duration of the guarantee, a reference to the legal guarantee of conformity and a QR code for further information.

Not all products will bear the GARAN label, as its presence depends on whether the producer offers the specific commercial guarantee of durability provided for by the rules.

Trade marks, packaging and brand strategy

The new rules also have implications for intellectual property and brand strategy.

Trade marks, trade names, product names and other distinctive signs may fall within the concept of an environmental claim where, through their use in commercial communications, they suggest particular environmental characteristics.

The issue does not necessarily concern the validity of the trade mark as an intellectual property right. Rather, it concerns the specific manner in which the sign is used in the market and the overall impression it produces on the average consumer.

For this reason, expressions or names referring to concepts such as “Green”, “Eco”, “Nature”, “Planet”, “Zero Carbon” or equivalent should be assessed not only from the perspective of registrability and protection of the sign, but also in light of the rules on unfair commercial practices.

Depending on the circumstances, the review should extend to trade marks and naming, packaging, labels, websites and e-commerce, advertising campaigns, social media, promotional materials, catalogues, B2C communications, licences and franchising agreements.

It should be noted, however, that attention to the verifiability and substantiation of green claims did not begin on 27 September 2026, but has long been a matter of scrutiny, including in judicial proceedings. In July 2026, for example, the Court of Venice, in collective injunctive proceedings brought by Codici – Centro per i Diritti del Cittadino against Acqua Minerale San Benedetto, ordered the removal from the company’s website and social media channels of five sets of communications containing environmental claims.

The case is also significant for the relationship between administrative and judicial protection. According to the reasoning of the decision, AGCM proceedings and collective injunctive proceedings operate on separate planes: the Authority’s intervention therefore does not, in itself, preclude a judicial assessment of the fairness of commercial communications.

A system is thus taking shape in which the fairness of green claims may be subject to different forms of scrutiny, both at administrative and judicial levels.

Role of AGCM and sanctions

The rules on unfair commercial practices remain, to the extent relevant, within the remit of the Italian Competition Authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, “AGCM”).

The Consumer Code defines as unfair commercial practices conduct that, contrary to the requirements of professional diligence, materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer.

Where an unfair practice is identified, AGCM may prohibit its dissemination or continuation, adopt interim measures where necessary and impose an administrative fine of between EUR 5,000 and EUR 10 million, taking into account, among other things, the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the trader’s economic and financial position.

For businesses, therefore, the risk is not exclusively reputational. An inadequately substantiated green claim may give rise to administrative consequences, litigation, the removal or amendment of commercial materials and costs of adapting communications.

Operational conclusions

From 27 September 2026, consumer-facing commercial communications must be supported by a documentary framework capable of substantiating the claims used and demonstrating their relevance and scope.

The review must cover not only advertising campaigns, but also packaging, naming, trade marks, e-commerce sites, social media, catalogues and pre-contractual communications.

Compliance for green claims therefore requires an integrated ex ante review involving the marketing, legal, product and sustainability functions, together with evidence management. For each claim, it will be appropriate to verify at least (i) the precise subject matter of the claim, (ii) the scope of the stated benefit, (iii) the methodology and date of the data used, (iv) the availability of up-to-date documentary evidence, (v) whether any certifications or public recognitions exist, (vi) consistency between the message, packaging, website, social media and promotional material, (vii) the distinction between actual emissions reductions and offsetting, and (viii) the compatibility of the claim with the applicable sector-specific rules.

Sustainability communicated to the market can no longer be treated as a generic promise; it must instead be specific, relevant, verifiable and consistent with the actual characteristics of the product or the business’s activities.

For businesses, a compliance programme may begin with a dedicated audit of green claims.

CHECKLIST
	Activity	Status
1.	Mapping of environmental claims used on websites, social media, in packaging, on labels, in advertising campaigns and in commercial materials
2.	Review and collation of supporting documentation, ensuring that each claim is supported by data, methodologies and documents consistent with what is actually communicated
3.	Review of generic claims, with particular attention to expressions such as “green”, “eco”, “sustainable”, “zero impact” and similar formulations
4.	Verification of sustainability labels, confirming the presence of a certification scheme complying with the requirements laid down by the new rules or of a basis established by public authorities
5.	Review of climate-neutrality statements, with particular attention to the role attributed to emissions offsetting.
6.	Analysis of future environmental targets, verifying the existence of plans, measurable targets, deadlines, resources and independent verification systems
7.	Review of trade marks, naming and packaging, particularly where the sign used contains environmental references
8.	(where applicable) Updating pre-contractual information relating to guarantees, durability, repairability and software updates.
9.	(where applicable) Review of products with digital elements, with particular attention to the duration of updates and information on their effects;
10.	Internal coordination between functions: legal, compliance, marketing, e-commerce and product.