Regulation & developments

From 2026 onwards, climate claims made by companies will be examined more closely. This is less a disruption than a clarification. The new regulations essentially say: If you make a climate-related claim, you should be able to show how it was formed.

Many companies expect major upheaval. In practice, it is more the form that will change, not the substance. Claims will need a brief explanation — nothing more.
The EmpCo Regulation and the Green Claims Directive create a simpler framework for this: clear statements instead of open interpretations.

“Substantiation” sounds legalistic but is very simple. A substantiation is a short explanation: Which data was used? Which method? What result does it lead to?

It is not about writing long reports. For most companies, a small note that transparently shows how the claim was formed is entirely sufficient.
The new rules aim for transparency, not bureaucracy. Companies do not need to reinvent anything — only explain what they are already doing.

From 2026 onwards, only a small part becomes truly mandatory. The core remains: claims must not be misleading, and they need a short explanation.
Many feared requirements will remain optional or apply only to specific sectors or products. 

Companies don’t need to know every document — only what applies to them.
The new rules are more reassuring than burdensome: they make clear what is necessary and what does not fall within a company’s responsibilities.

Regulatory developments often appear complex, but very few apply directly to most companies. A calm look is usually enough: Is this a requirement? A recommendation? Or a debate?

It helps to observe developments periodically instead of reacting constantly.
This creates an easy overview of EmpCo, GCD and other climate-related rules — without needing to reorient yourself every week.

The volume of documents can make it seem as if everything is important. In practice, only a fraction has direct relevance.
What matters are the rules that directly impact climate claims, products or reports. Much of the rest is background information.

A clear filter saves time: What affects us directly? What affects us indirectly? What can we ignore?
With this perspective, the requirements of the Green Claims Directive or ISO frameworks become much easier to place.

ISO 14068 describes how companies can present climate neutrality in a traceable way. The standard is not a legal obligation but a helpful guide — especially for structuring processes or claims. 

It clarifies how reduction, residual emissions and offsetting relate to one another.
In the legal environment, the standard acts as guidance, not as a prescription. It helps companies classify climate claims without creating legal complexity.

Not every new rule affects every company. Many developments are signals, not binding obligations. What matters is knowing what is relevant — and what can safely be ignored.

A clear view helps: What affects us directly? What does not? Where is it enough simply to stay informed?
Regulation & developments do not require constant adaptation — mostly just occasional alignment. Significant extra effort is rare.

For small and medium-sized enterprises, it is not about legal details. It is about basic orientation: Which claims need explanation? Which steps make sense? Where is simple transparency enough?

Most requirements can be summed up in three or four clear ideas.
SMEs do not need to become experts — they just need good guidance.

Legal developments show: the wording itself is less important than the explanation behind it.
A simple sentence that shows the reasoning is legally stronger than a sophisticated term.

Clarity builds trust — internally and externally. It also makes claims less vulnerable.
Transparency is therefore not an add-on but the simplest path to legally robust communication.

Regulations are not an obstacle. They essentially reflect what a solid climate strategy already requires: measure, reduce, explain.

Those who act first and communicate second automatically remain in a safe space. New rules support this approach rather than complicating it.
Law and strategy reinforce each other — making claims more traceable, not more complex.

Most regulations do not take effect overnight. There are transition periods, phased introductions and time to adapt. Companies rarely need to act “immediately.”

A realistic view helps: What applies when? What has time? Where is later adjustment entirely sufficient?
This removes pressure from the topic — and allows gradual integration of EmpCo and GCD requirements.