{"id":3248,"date":"2026-11-09T11:21:57","date_gmt":"2026-11-09T11:21:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/?p=3248"},"modified":"2026-11-09T11:21:57","modified_gmt":"2026-11-09T11:21:57","slug":"poland-environmental-claims-empco-delay-old-stock","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/poland-environmental-claims-empco-delay-old-stock\/","title":{"rendered":"Environmental Claims in Poland: Why Delayed EmpCo Rules Are No Reason to Wait"},"content":{"rendered":"

A large retail chain\u2019s purchasing team received two pieces of information: Poland\u2019s legislation implementing the EU\u2019s EmpCo Directive had been delayed by a year, and the consumer protection authority would \u201ctake a lenient approach to old stock.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

That decision overlooks a separate risk. The President of Poland\u2019s 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

If your business uses terms such as \u201ceco,\u201d \u201cgreen,\u201d or \u201cclimate neutral\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

Key Terms for Businesses Selling in Poland<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Term<\/th>\nMeaning<\/th>\nWhy it matters<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
EmpCo Directive (2024\/825)<\/strong><\/td>\nThe EU\u2019s Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition<\/em> Directive. It amends rules on unfair commercial practices and adds prohibitions concerning environmental claims.<\/td>\nIt has been in force at EU level since March 26, 2024, and requires implementation in national law.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Environmental claim<\/strong><\/td>\nMarketing that suggests a product, service, or business benefits the environment or is less harmful than alternatives\u2014for example, \u201ceco,\u201d \u201cgreen,\u201d or \u201cclimate neutral.\u201d<\/td>\nA claim without supporting evidence may be challenged as an unfair commercial practice.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Old stock<\/strong><\/td>\nProducts manufactured, ordered, or placed on shelves before the new rules\u2019 application date.<\/td>\nSuch stock is not automatically exempt from the new rules.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
CPC Network<\/strong><\/td>\nThe EU Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, through which consumer protection authorities coordinate enforcement.<\/td>\nIts common positions can influence national enforcement priorities, but they are not legislation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Greenwashing<\/strong><\/td>\nCreating a false or exaggerated impression of the environmental benefits of a product, service, or business.<\/td>\nUOKiK already addresses it under existing unfair commercial practices rules.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Two Timelines, Two Sources of Risk<\/h2>\n

The date when Poland\u2019s new EmpCo legislation will apply and UOKiK\u2019s ability to assess claims made today are separate issues.<\/p>\n

The new legislation.<\/strong> On September 2, 2026, committees of the Sejm, the lower house of Poland\u2019s 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<\/strong>. As of the article\u2019s publication, it is before the Senate. That date is therefore not formally final, although a change is considered unlikely.<\/p>\n

Existing Polish law.<\/strong> The prohibition on misleading consumers through environmental claims already follows from Articles 4 and 5 of Poland\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

UOKiK\u2019s recent cases illustrate the distinction. On July 29, 2025<\/strong>, its President brought allegations against Allegro Polska, DHL eCommerce Poland, DPD Polska, and InPost. The messaging challenged included \u201cgreen deliveries\u201d and claims about planting trees that were already growing; \u201cgreen fleet\u201d and \u201cenvironmental neutrality\u201d claims; and statements about parcel lockers reducing CO\u2082 alongside an emissions calculator that omitted data. On January 21, 2026<\/strong>, 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<\/a>; UOKiK announcement concerning Bolt, Tchibo, and Zara<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A delay to the implementing legislation therefore does not change how UOKiK can assess claims currently reaching Polish consumers.<\/p>\n

Why Old Stock Is Not Automatically Protected<\/h2>\n

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 \u201cgrandfathering\u201d exemption.<\/p>\n

What the CPC Network\u2019s Common Understanding Says<\/h3>\n

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<\/a>).<\/p>\n

According to the document:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Stock manufactured, ordered, or placed on shelves before the rules\u2019 application date is not exempt<\/strong> from the new requirements.<\/li>\n
  2. 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.<\/li>\n
  3. In justified cases, authorities are to favor preventive measures, such as explanations, over penalties.<\/li>\n
  4. The stated enforcement priorities are claims in online channels first, then practices most harmful to consumers, followed by claims displayed outside packaging.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Those points concern enforcement judgment, not a right to continue using a noncompliant claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Possible assumption<\/th>\nWhat the cited documents establish<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    All old stock has a transition or sell-through period.<\/td>\nNo general exemption; enforcement is assessed case by case.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Long-shelf-life products form a protected category.<\/td>\nNo such category is established in the Commission or CPC documents.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Slow-moving products form a protected category.<\/td>\nNo such category is established.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    UOKiK must follow the CPC approach.<\/td>\nThe Common Understanding is not an act of EU law binding national authorities.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    The EmpCo Directive itself<\/a> contains no grandfathering clause or sell-through period. As of this article\u2019s publication, no EU Member State had been confirmed as establishing binding grandfathering through legislation.<\/p>\n

    The Alleged UOKiK Letter<\/h3>\n

    An industry account refers to a supposed letter from UOKiK\u2019s President to Poland\u2019s Council of Ministers assuring that the authority would apply the Commission\u2019s recommendations to old stock. The existence of that letter could not be confirmed in a public source<\/strong>\u2014including UOKiK\u2019s Public Information Bulletin, official announcements, or transcripts of Sejm committee meetings.<\/p>\n

    Do not base packaging purchases or a decision to defer compliance work on an account of an authority\u2019s position that you cannot trace to a public document.<\/p>\n

    Which Claims Need the Closest Review?<\/h2>\n

    EmpCo amends Annex I to Directive 2005\/29\/EC by adding prohibitions that apply in all circumstances<\/strong>, without an individual assessment of their effect on consumers (Directive (EU) 2024\/825<\/a>). The approved source identifies three particularly high-risk groups:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
    Type of claim<\/th>\nExamples<\/th>\nConcern under the new prohibitions<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
    Generic environmental claims without a verifiable basis<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cEnvironmentally friendly,\u201d \u201cgreen,\u201d \u201cnatural,\u201d \u201csustainable,\u201d \u201ceco\u201d<\/td>\nThe claimed excellent environmental performance is not established by evidence.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Climate-neutrality claims based on emissions offsetting<\/strong><\/td>\n\u201cClimate neutral,\u201d \u201ccarbon neutral,\u201d \u201cnet zero,\u201d \u201cclimate compensated\u201d<\/td>\nThe claim relies on offsetting outside the value chain, which the Directive expressly prohibits in the circumstances described.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
    Proprietary labels that look like certifications<\/strong><\/td>\nA company-created \u201ceco\u201d or \u201csustainable\u201d mark, green leaves, or a \u201cgreen\u201d symbol<\/td>\nThe label is not based on a certification scheme or established by a public authority.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

    These specific new prohibitions are tied to the planned application of Poland\u2019s implementing legislation on September 27, 2027. That does not make similar messaging safe today.<\/strong> UOKiK has already challenged statements including \u201cgreen deliveries,\u201d \u201czero emissions,\u201d and \u201cenvironmental neutrality\u201d under existing law.<\/p>\n

    UOKiK\u2019s 2025\u20132026 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<\/a>; UOKiK announcement concerning L\u2019Or\u00e9al Polska<\/a>).<\/p>\n