Legislative Decree 30/2026 radically changes the rules for self-declared sustainability certifications
The problem
Over time, thousands of Italian companies have built their ESG communications around “self-produced” sustainability labels and logos: names registered as European or national trademarks, “green” pictograms, product labels with environmental claims – all created and managed by the company itself without the involvement of a third-party verifier. These are the so-called “self-declared” labels.
From 27 September 2026, their continued use in commercial communications is seriously at risk.
What the new legislation says
Legislative Decree No. 30 of 20 February 2026, transposing Directive (EU) 2024/825 ("Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition"), introduces into the Consumer Code a particularly strict ban on the use of sustainability labels or marks not based on independent and transparent certification schemes, or not approved by recognised public authorities.
The legislation is unequivocal on a point that many businesses tend to underestimate: registration as a trade mark with the EUIPO or the UIBM does not equate to sustainability certification. The registered trade mark enjoys protection as a distinctive sign, not as a certification of the environmental qualities it conveys. These are two entirely distinct legal matters.
A self-declared sustainability trademark, however duly registered and however long it has been on the market, may therefore be classified as a prohibited commercial practice under the Consumer Code, regardless of the company’s subjective intention.
Individual, collective and certification marks: a distinction that matters
The Industrial Property Code distinguishes between individual trademarks, collective trademarks and certification marks. In practice, however, the vast majority of ESG environmental trademarks are registered as individual trademarks, the category that is structurally most exposed, as it does not involve any third-party verifier. The certification mark, entrusted by law to an independent body and accompanied by rules of use, is the model that most closely meets the requirements of the new legislation, but only if the rules provide for scientifically sound criteria and audits by accredited bodies. The collective mark occupies an intermediate position that requires a case-by-case assessment.
Requirements for approved certification schemes
For a sustainability label to continue to be used legitimately in commercial communications, the underlying system must cumulatively meet requirements of independence, transparency and verifiability, including:
objective, scientifically sound and publicly accessible criteria;
management by a third party independent of the beneficiary company;
periodic audits and verifications by accredited bodies;
a complaints mechanism accessible to third parties;
regular updating of the criteria in light of scientific and technical progress.
These elements reflect the structure of the certification systems referred to in the Directive and in European regulations on sustainability labels and certification schemes.
It is not sufficient to entrust the verification to a formally external body: it is the overall structure of the system that must be compliant.
Options for businesses
Companies holding self-declared labels essentially have two options:
Establishing their own compliant certification system The label is retained but linked to a bespoke independent verification system, involving an accredited body (Bureau Veritas, DNV, TÜV, SGS or equivalent). This is the solution that preserves brand value, but typically requires 6–12 months of implementation— s incompatible with the 27 September 2026 deadline for those who have not already started the process—as well as entailing potentially significant implementation and maintenance costs.
Withdraw the mark and migrate to an existing certified system For businesses that are not yet in a position to meet the requirements, the precautionary suspension of the mark pending completion of the compliance process is strongly recommended.
Reviewing B2C and B2B contracts: an often-overlooked step
Risk exposure is not limited to commercial communications. In B2C relationships, general terms and conditions of sale and product sheets often refer to the product’s environmental characteristics: if based on a self-declared label that is non-compliant, they expose the company to consumer claims as well as AGCM proceedings. In B2B relationships, supply and distribution contracts frequently contain representations and warranties regarding regulatory compliance, the breach of which may trigger indemnity or termination clauses; similarly, tender specifications with ESG clauses impose certification standards on suppliers, the failure to meet which constitutes a breach of contract. The review of active contracts is therefore an integral — and not merely ancillary — part of ESG due diligence.
Time is running out: ESG due diligence can no longer be postponed
Implementing corrective measures typically requires 1–2 months of structured work. Those who have not yet initiated a systematic review of their environmental brands and claims now face a real risk, given that the 27 September 2026 deadline allows for no extensions.
Targeted ESG due diligence must cover: mapping all environmental trademarks and claims used in communications; verifying their compliance with the new requirements; assessing compliance options; identifying active contracts — B2C and B2B — containing references to environmental trademarks or claims and analysing the relevant warranty and compliance clauses; and defining a prioritised remediation plan.
The penalties for non-compliance are significant — potentially up to 4% of annual turnover generated within the European Union in cases covered by the Consumer Code — and are compounded by the reputational risk arising from the publication of the AGCM’s penalty decisions.
