Answer: The scope of EmpCo is target market oriented (i.e. consumers in EU countries), addressing everyone who is in the EU. This includes not just citizens and full-time residents, but also those who are temporarily visiting the EU (e.g., tourists, students), regardless of their nationality.

As such, the Directive applies to all companies that market products or services that can trigger commercial transactions within the EU – regardless of where the company is based. In some cases, stricter legal regulations may apply in the countries where the company is based, as some countries already have their own laws on this matter, for example:

• UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) - Green Claims Code
• State of California - Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Act (AB 1305)
• Government of Canada - Environmental claims and the Competition Act
• Japan Ministry of Environment (MOE) - 環境表示ガイドライン
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) - Guidance on environmental and sustainability claims

Answer: Changes are theoretically possible, although unlikely. Our recommendation is, independent of such possibilities, we should use this awareness that EmpCo is creating as a chance for us to strengthen our own practices in sustainability communication. It's also important to remember that all businesses already operate within the legal frameworks that prohibit unfair and misleading claims.

Answer: This is actually nothing new. Companies should not misrepresent their products and services - and indeed are not permitted to do so (for instance, one cannot claim to offer a feature that does not exist), because doing so would be unfair business practice. While this is primarily a matter of consumer protection, it also concerns sound, sensible business practices that should be part of running a competitive, healthy, and responsible company.

Answer: No! It is true that the new rules place additional pressure on companies that are genuinely working on sustainability and - rightly - want to communicate about their efforts. But this should not discourage companies from communicating about our sustainability actions and commitments.

Answer: If any aspects of sustainability performance by partner businesses are used as evidence of your destination's sustainability commitment, then such examples must be backed up by evidence, in a way that is allowed within the context of the EmpCo requirements (e.g. a certificate by an officially allowed certification system).

Answer: While there is a strong emphasis on claims related to ecological sustainability, in the context of the directive both ecological and social aspects are relevant, including claims regarding social, cultural and economic sustainability (e.g. working conditions, equal treatment, human rights or animal protection).

Answer: The directive applies to companies of all sizes whose business activities are—or could be—directed at consumers in the EU.

Answer: In general, we recommend following the rules of avoiding generic claims without substantiating them, and focusing on communicating about measurable steps (what you are actually doing, not just saying) and concrete outcomes (actual achievements you can stand behind).

Answer: Ideally, the marketing messages that use sustainability claims should be already formulated in a way that the context of the evidence is clear. When adding a link (or a QR code) to provide evidence, it needs to be clearly visible on the same page or the same area as the claims themselves, and NOT hidden under small prints elsewhere. This is also true for social media posts.

Answer: The question is not whether we market experiences in nature, but whether that promotion includes any claims that suggest environmental benefits. Highlighting natural landscapes on its own does not constitute making misleading claims, but if the descriptions of the natural beauty of the landscapes also include claims around environmental performance (e.g. "a trip to ___ is an eco-friendly experience"), then according to the EmpCo requirements such claims would need to be backed by evidence, or else is not allowed.

Answer: The answer is a clear "yes": such practices are classified as impermissible if the label or award implies to the guest that a certain level of sustainability performance has been achieved. The EmpCo Directive strictly prohibits the use of sustainability labels unless they are based on an officially verified certification system. A compliant system requires transparent criteria developed by experts, mechanisms for handling complaints and revoking certification, and objective monitoring by competent, independent third parties. A mere collection of customer opinions can never substitute for this.

Answer: No, unfortunately, you cannot rely on that at all. Competition law is uncompromising on this point: if you use a seal or award in your marketing, you—as the company doing the advertising—bear full and independent liability for it. Under the law (Recital 7 of the EmpCo Directive), you have a clear, independent obligation to verify compliance. Before including any label in your marketing, you must satisfy yourself, using publicly available criteria, that the system which provides that label meets minimum standards regarding transparency, independence, and objective monitoring (e.g., via ISO 17065 accreditation). From a legal standpoint, a positive response from the issuer of the label constitutes nothing more than a non-binding self-declaration. If you seek genuine legal certainty regarding liability, you must not rely on the issuer's declaration. The only solution is to critically examine the seal’s statutes yourself or to obtain a sound, external legal risk analysis from a specialized law firm.

Answer: From a legal standpoint, "current communication" covers any form of business communication—whether text, imagery, logos, or brand or product names—that is visible and accessible to consumers before, during, or after a transaction. Consequently, the scope of your review is not determined by a fixed timeframe, but solely by current availability. In addition to your current website and printed flyers still on display at the destination, this includes older content that remains accessible online (such as past social media posts or archived blog articles) since, under the new regulations, any actively accessible material is fully liable to legal challenge.

Answer: Yes, you must delete, archive, or adjust old social media posts if they are publicly accessible online. There are no transition periods or grace periods for existing portfolios. Since social media feeds are considered permanently available online assets, the excuse that a post is part of an “old campaign” is not legally sufficient.