Implementation tracker for the EmpCo Directive - Netherlands

No.

Yes.

Unknown - On 22 December 2025, the Legislative Proposal implementing the EmpCo Directive has been submitted to the Dutch House of Representatives. An annex to a parliamentary letter of 2 February 2026 indicates that the implementation is not on track.

No.

No. However, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has issued Guidelines on Sustainability Claims (2023) which, although adopted prior to the EmpCo Directive, provide relevant interpretative guidance that is closely aligned with the Directive’s concept of a “generic environmental claim”. In those guidelines, the ACM explains that the evidentiary threshold for absolute, general or vague environmental claims is extremely high, such that these claims should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. The ACM further states that an absolute environmental claim requires proof that the product has no negative impact on the subject matter of the claim (e.g. humans, animals and/or the environment), substantiated by robust methodologies such as a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). According to the ACM, meeting this standard is currently virtually unattainable for almost all products.

Yes. In the Netherlands, Milieukeur and the EKO quality mark qualify as EN ISO 14024 Type I ecolabelling schemes. 

The Legislative Proposal implementing the EmpCo Directive amends Book 6 of the Dutch Civil Code to strengthen the rules on unfair commercial practices. In addition to the civil law remedies available, breaches of these provisions may be subject to administrative enforcement, as the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) is empowered to impose administrative fines on traders that infringe the statutory prohibitions on unfair commercial practices.

The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM).

There is limited civil case law in the Netherlands concerning environmental claims. A key judgment was delivered in 2024 by the Amsterdam District Court in Fossielvrij v KLM (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512), concerning misleading environmental advertising. The court held that fifteen advertising statements issued by airline KLM were misleading and therefore unlawful. It found that KLM had misled the average consumer by presenting sustainability aspects of its services and corporate operations in vague, insufficiently concrete and, in some instances, overly absolute terms. The court emphasised that the assessment of such claims must be situated within a broader regulatory framework, in which public‑law guidance, most notably the ACM’s Guidelines on Sustainability Claims (2023), as well as self‑regulatory standards applied by the Dutch Advertising Code Committee (RCC), serve as important benchmarks for the formulation and substantiation of sustainability claims and inform the interpretation of the applicable civil‑law standard.
In addition, the RCC has dealt with a significant number of cases concerning misleading sustainability claims. These rulings are based on the self regulatory Code for Sustainability Advertising (Code voor Duurzaamheidsreclame). In its decision 2021/00190, the RCC set out a substantiation standard for absolute environmental claims, holding that an absolute environmental claim must be supported by solid, independent, verifiable and generally recognised evidence. This decision is frequently cited in subsequent rulings of the RCC and continues to guide the assessment of environmental claims in self regulatory practice.