A large retail chain’s purchasing team received two pieces of information: Poland’s legislation implementing the EU’s EmpCo Directive had been delayed by a year, and the consumer protection authority would “take a lenient approach to old stock.” The first was true. The second could not be verified in any public document. Yet the team had already decided to revisit the issue in 2027.
That decision overlooks a separate risk. The President of Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has brought allegations against seven major companies over environmental messaging under laws that have been in force for years. UOKiK has indicated that a fine of up to 10% of turnover may apply to each challenged practice.
If your business uses terms such as “eco,” “green,” or “climate neutral” on products sold in Poland, in advertising, or in online listings, the proposed delay does not give you a year free of scrutiny. Here is what the existing rules mean, why old stock offers no automatic protection, and how to prioritize a review.
Key Terms for Businesses Selling in Poland
| Term | Meaning | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| EmpCo Directive (2024/825) | The EU’s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive. It amends rules on unfair commercial practices and adds prohibitions concerning environmental claims. | It has been in force at EU level since March 26, 2024, and requires implementation in national law. |
| Environmental claim | Marketing that suggests a product, service, or business benefits the environment or is less harmful than alternatives—for example, “eco,” “green,” or “climate neutral.” | A claim without supporting evidence may be challenged as an unfair commercial practice. |
| Old stock | Products manufactured, ordered, or placed on shelves before the new rules’ application date. | Such stock is not automatically exempt from the new rules. |
| CPC Network | The EU Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, through which consumer protection authorities coordinate enforcement. | Its common positions can influence national enforcement priorities, but they are not legislation. |
| Greenwashing | Creating a false or exaggerated impression of the environmental benefits of a product, service, or business. | UOKiK already addresses it under existing unfair commercial practices rules. |
Two Timelines, Two Sources of Risk
The date when Poland’s new EmpCo legislation will apply and UOKiK’s ability to assess claims made today are separate issues.
The new legislation. On September 2, 2026, committees of the Sejm, the lower house of Poland’s parliament, adopted an amendment postponing the legislation implementing EmpCo by one year. The Sejm passed the legislation on September 4, 2026. Its planned application date is September 27, 2027. As of the article’s publication, it is before the Senate. That date is therefore not formally final, although a change is considered unlikely.
Existing Polish law. The prohibition on misleading consumers through environmental claims already follows from Articles 4 and 5 of Poland’s Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices and Article 24 of its Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. The implementing legislation will make prohibitions more specific and increase sanctions; it will not create consumer protection from scratch.
UOKiK’s recent cases illustrate the distinction. On July 29, 2025, its President brought allegations against Allegro Polska, DHL eCommerce Poland, DPD Polska, and InPost. The messaging challenged included “green deliveries” and claims about planting trees that were already growing; “green fleet” and “environmental neutrality” claims; and statements about parcel lockers reducing CO₂ alongside an emissions calculator that omitted data. On January 21, 2026, allegations followed against Bolt, Tchibo, and Zara. These actions relied on existing law, not the EmpCo Directive (UOKiK announcement concerning Allegro, DHL, DPD, and InPost; UOKiK announcement concerning Bolt, Tchibo, and Zara).
A delay to the implementing legislation therefore does not change how UOKiK can assess claims currently reaching Polish consumers.
Why Old Stock Is Not Automatically Protected
Businesses may hope to sell through products or packaging ordered before the new rules apply. The public documents discussed here do not establish a general “grandfathering” exemption.
What the CPC Network’s Common Understanding Says
On June 30, 2026, the European Commission announced a Common Understanding adopted by the CPC Network concerning enforcement of the EmpCo Directive. It addresses old stock (European Commission announcement).
According to the document:
- Stock manufactured, ordered, or placed on shelves before the rules’ application date is not exempt from the new requirements.
- When enforcing the rules, authorities are to consider factors including stock volumes, product shelf life, the technical feasibility of changes, the seriousness of an infringement, and the circumstances of the case.
- In justified cases, authorities are to favor preventive measures, such as explanations, over penalties.
- The stated enforcement priorities are claims in online channels first, then practices most harmful to consumers, followed by claims displayed outside packaging.
Those points concern enforcement judgment, not a right to continue using a noncompliant claim.
| Possible assumption | What the cited documents establish |
|---|---|
| All old stock has a transition or sell-through period. | No general exemption; enforcement is assessed case by case. |
| Long-shelf-life products form a protected category. | No such category is established in the Commission or CPC documents. |
| Slow-moving products form a protected category. | No such category is established. |
| UOKiK must follow the CPC approach. | The Common Understanding is not an act of EU law binding national authorities. |
The EmpCo Directive itself contains no grandfathering clause or sell-through period. As of this article’s publication, no EU Member State had been confirmed as establishing binding grandfathering through legislation.
The Alleged UOKiK Letter
An industry account refers to a supposed letter from UOKiK’s President to Poland’s Council of Ministers assuring that the authority would apply the Commission’s recommendations to old stock. The existence of that letter could not be confirmed in a public source—including UOKiK’s Public Information Bulletin, official announcements, or transcripts of Sejm committee meetings.
Do not base packaging purchases or a decision to defer compliance work on an account of an authority’s position that you cannot trace to a public document.
Which Claims Need the Closest Review?
EmpCo amends Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC by adding prohibitions that apply in all circumstances, without an individual assessment of their effect on consumers (Directive (EU) 2024/825). The approved source identifies three particularly high-risk groups:
| Type of claim | Examples | Concern under the new prohibitions |
|---|---|---|
| Generic environmental claims without a verifiable basis | “Environmentally friendly,” “green,” “natural,” “sustainable,” “eco” | The claimed excellent environmental performance is not established by evidence. |
| Climate-neutrality claims based on emissions offsetting | “Climate neutral,” “carbon neutral,” “net zero,” “climate compensated” | The claim relies on offsetting outside the value chain, which the Directive expressly prohibits in the circumstances described. |
| Proprietary labels that look like certifications | A company-created “eco” or “sustainable” mark, green leaves, or a “green” symbol | The label is not based on a certification scheme or established by a public authority. |
These specific new prohibitions are tied to the planned application of Poland’s implementing legislation on September 27, 2027. That does not make similar messaging safe today. UOKiK has already challenged statements including “green deliveries,” “zero emissions,” and “environmental neutrality” under existing law.
UOKiK’s 2025–2026 announcements indicate that it expects, as relevant, quantitative data on materials and their percentage shares, information on where materials come from, emissions calculation methods with a clearly defined scope, and transparent criteria for private rating systems. A certificate or expert involvement does not automatically substantiate a claim (UOKiK announcement concerning Allegro, DHL, DPD, and InPost; UOKiK announcement concerning L’Oréal Polska).
Who Can Be Responsible for a Claim?
Potentially, the manufacturer, importer, distributor, and retailer. Under Article 4(1) of the Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices, responsibility is linked to the business using the practice, not solely to the product’s manufacturer. The assessment considers how the product is presented, including packaging and labeling, under Article 5(1)–(3).
- Retail chain: If it places, approves, or distributes an environmental claim, it faces its own risk. This is especially significant for private-label products, where the chain controls the message.
- Manufacturer: It is responsible for claims on packaging and in marketing materials.
- Importer or distributor: It may be responsible if it actively participates in product communications.
- Online store operator: Its product description may be assessed as a separate marketing activity, independently of the physical packaging.
Responsibility can arise in parallel. A retailer cannot assume that “the manufacturer wrote it” protects a claim the retailer has published in its own online store.
If you need to identify which claims in your portfolio to address first, contact us.
A Practical Review Plan: Inventory, Evidence, and Packaging Orders
Waiting for September 2027 risks increasing both the volume of affected stock and the cost of correction. A review should cover three places where consumers encounter claims, then assign priorities and deadlines.
1. Inventory Claims Across Three Channels
Create one record for each claim and name the business owner responsible for it.
| Channel | What to check | Possible internal owner |
|---|---|---|
| Packaging | Wording, labels, and symbols on physical products | Packaging manager or category manager |
| Advertising and sales materials | Creative assets, briefs, point-of-sale materials, and catalogs | Marketing head or brand manager |
| Website and online product pages | Product descriptions, landing pages, and ESG messaging | E-commerce head or content manager |
2. Test Each Claim Against Today’s Rules
Start with the Act on Counteracting Unfair Commercial Practices and the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection, not just the forthcoming legislation. Ask whether the message is fair and whether you hold evidence supporting what consumers will understand it to mean. If the evidence is missing, the risk exists now.
3. Prioritize Online Corrections
The CPC Common Understanding identifies online claims as its first enforcement priority. Online text is also generally faster and less costly to change than printed packaging: a product page can be revised quickly, while an existing packaging print run cannot.
4. Set a Stop Date for Risky Packaging Orders
Compare ordering dates with production lead times. Decide when you will stop ordering packaging that bears a claim that has not passed review. Packaging ordered before September 27, 2027, with a claim that later fails verification could create relabeling, disposal, or withdrawal costs as well as potential enforcement risk.
5. Escalate the Highest-Risk Claims
Prioritize withdrawal or substantiation of:
- Broad, unverifiable language such as “eco” or “green” without context.
- Climate-neutrality claims based on emissions offsetting.
- Company-created marks that visually resemble independent certifications.
6. Document the Plan
Record what you reviewed, changed, and scheduled for later action—and why. The compliance timeline is more than an internal project document: it may help demonstrate the reasoning behind your approach if UOKiK opens proceedings.
Potential Penalties Under Existing Polish Law
Until the EmpCo implementing legislation enters into force, the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection remains the basis for the greenwashing penalties discussed here.
| Legal basis | Conduct | Potential amount |
|---|---|---|
| Article 106(1), concerning the Article 24 prohibition | A practice infringing the collective interests of consumers | Up to 10% of turnover generated in the year before the penalty is imposed |
| Article 106(2)(2) | Failure to provide information requested by UOKiK’s President, or provision of false information | Up to 3% of turnover |
| Article 106(5)–(6) | The stated limit for small businesses with turnover of EUR 100,000 or less, or no turnover | Up to EUR 10,000 |
Sources: UOKiK information on penalties and Article 106 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection.
UOKiK has indicated that a fine of up to 10% of turnover may be imposed for each challenged practice, rather than as one combined fine for the entire proceeding. Each claim may be treated separately. Other consequences can include an order to publish a decision, withdrawal or relabeling of packaging, and reputational harm affecting ESG communications.
How PPWR and EmpCo Intersect on Packaging
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste—the PPWR—entered into force on February 11, 2025, and applies from August 12, 2026 (PPWR on EUR-Lex).
Among other matters, it addresses labeling of packaging materials. It also expressly notes that the EmpCo Directive treats noncompliant voluntary sustainability labels as an unfair commercial practice.
A packaging statement such as “recyclable” or “made from recycled material” may therefore raise two related questions: whether the packaging meets applicable PPWR requirements and whether the message to consumers complies with the EmpCo rules when they apply. Meeting a minimum PPWR requirement should not be marketed as though it were a distinctive environmental benefit of the product.
Verify Claims About an Authority’s “Position”
The unverified account of a UOKiK letter illustrates how a statement in an industry newsletter or at a conference can become the basis for an operational decision. Before relying on a supposed position of a Polish authority:
- Check UOKiK’s Public Information Bulletin and its official announcements, decisions, and published positions.
- Check Sejm committee records and transcripts on the Sejm’s website.
- Establish the context of any official’s remarks. According to the approved source, a comment by a UOKiK Vice-President during a committee debate circulated as a signal of leniency even though it was made as an argument against a transition period.
- If you cannot identify the document or reliably establish the statement’s context, do not use it as the basis for a purchasing or marketing decision.
Reviewing Claims with Legal Support
We help FMCG, e-commerce, and retail businesses assess their environmental messaging in Poland at three levels:
- Rapid online review: Identify the highest-risk claims on websites and product pages, where changes may be possible within days rather than months.
- Full claims inventory: Review packaging, advertising, sales materials, and online channels in one risk register, assessing both current law and the forthcoming legislation. Align the correction schedule with packaging orders.
- Broader compliance support: Analyze the implementing legislation, establish legal review before approving “eco” creative assets or print runs, train marketing and purchasing teams, and organize supporting evidence for potential UOKiK proceedings.
The starting question is the same in each case: What claims are on your shelves, in your advertising, and online—and what evidence supports them? Contact us to discuss where to begin.
Key Takeaways
The planned one-year delay to Poland’s EmpCo implementing legislation is time to prepare, not a reason to postpone a review. Existing Polish law already prohibits misleading environmental claims, and UOKiK is using it. Old stock has no automatic exemption, while the Commission’s and CPC Network’s guidance does not bind the Polish authority.
Start with online claims, set a stop date for orders of packaging bearing unverified claims, and document your decisions. Do not rely on an alleged assurance from an authority unless you can verify it at the source.
Frequently Asked Questions
If the new legislation is planned to apply from September 27, 2027, what is the risk in 2026?
Existing Polish unfair commercial practices and consumer protection laws already address misleading environmental claims. UOKiK’s President brought allegations against seven companies in 2025–2026 without waiting for EmpCo implementation. UOKiK has indicated a potential fine of up to 10% of turnover for each challenged practice.
Can we sell through stock or packaging ordered before the rules change?
The CPC Network’s June 2026 Common Understanding creates no general old-stock exemption. Factors such as stock volume, shelf life, and the feasibility of changes concern enforcement decisions, not whether compliance is required. EmpCo contains no grandfathering clause; as of this article’s publication, no EU Member State had been confirmed as adopting a binding statutory sell-through mechanism.
Will European Commission or CPC guidance protect us in UOKiK proceedings?
Not automatically. The Common Understanding is an administrative enforcement agreement, not an EU legal act binding businesses or national authorities. The Commission FAQ and old-stock document are guidance. UOKiK may consider them but is not required to do so.
Which claims should we address first?
Focus on generic claims without context and evidence, such as “eco,” “green,” or “natural”; climate-neutrality claims based on offsetting outside the value chain; and proprietary marks that resemble third-party certifications without being based on a recognized certification scheme.
Are distributors and retailers responsible for a manufacturer’s wording?
They can be responsible for their own use of it. A distributor or retailer that places, approves, or shares a claim—in a store, online, or in marketing materials—cannot assume that the manufacturer alone bears the risk. Manufacturers, importers, and distributors may face responsibility in parallel.
Could September 27, 2027, still change?
Yes. As of this article’s publication, the legislation is before the Senate, which may propose amendments for the Sejm to consider before the legislation is sent to Poland’s President for signature. A date change is considered unlikely but remains formally possible. Treat September 27, 2027, as a likely—not final—date and monitor the remaining legislative process.
