Biodiversity, labels and regulatory compliance with European Directive 2024/825

Q: Is a biodiversity approach sufficient to comply with Directive 2024/825?

Not necessarily. Compliance depends on the framework in which the allegation is made (scope, evidence, phase) and the existence of a formalized and enforceable decision.

Q: Does an external evaluation make a label compliant?

No. An external assessment can be useful, but it is not sufficient to establish enforceable compliance. The key point is the legal nature of the assessed system and the decision-making framework.

Q: Can an accredited body certify any label?

No. Accreditation applies to specific devices and a defined scope. It does not automatically extend to a third-party label assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Q: Do we need to change our approach to be compliant?

Not necessarily. An existing approach can retain its operational value, provided it is consolidated within a clear framework of evidence and, if necessary, a certification decision.

Q: When does biodiversity certification become essential?

When the project needs to legally secure commitments (communication to the public, investor requirements, compliance, potential litigation) and have an independent, traceable and enforceable decision.

Q: Does a comprehensive environmental certification automatically make the biodiversity component of a project compliant?

No. A global certification may incorporate biodiversity criteria, but this does not automatically mean that a specific biodiversity performance is subject to an independent and enforceable decision.

Biodiversity is now being integrated into a growing number of real estate and development projects.
Labels, voluntary approaches, territorial frameworks, scoring tools and support mechanisms have multiplied, each responding to specific objectives.

European Directive 2024/825 does not create new labels, but strengthens the requirements for clarity, evidence and accountability associated with environmental claims, particularly in the area of biodiversity.

With the entry into force of the European directive 2024/825 on environmental claims, a question becomes structuring for project owners, investors and compliance departments: does a biodiversity approach, a label or a score really allow one to claim enforceable regulatory compliance?

This page offers a unique and comprehensive framework applicable to all biodiversity initiatives, regardless of their name or positioning.
It allows for the verification of a situation , the correction of an erroneous interpretation , and the securing of a project when the level of regulatory requirements increases.

1. Check: Is a biodiversity approach inherently compliant?

No, not by nature. The conformity of a biodiversity approach does not depend on its title, its notoriety, or its sectoral recognition.

It depends on the framework in which the allegations are made, assessed and validated , and on the ability of the mechanism to produce a legally enforceable decision.

To be considered compliant with European requirements, an approach claiming biodiversity commitments must be able to demonstrate:

an explicitly defined perimeter,
objective criteria,
a clear separation between support and decision-making,
a formalized decision
rendered by an independent third party
accompanied by an enforceable liability.

An approach can be relevant, serious, and useful without fulfilling these conditions.

In this case, it is not necessarily illegitimate, but it is not sufficient with regard to the directive.

2. The central point of confusion: external evaluation ≠ regulatory compliance as defined by the directive

A flawed line of reasoning is very widespread today.

👉 The presence of an external evaluation does not make a label or approach compliant with the European directive.

This shortcut is based on a confusion between three distinct elements:

the existence of an evaluation,
the reputation or general accreditation of the evaluator,
and the legal status of the device being assessed .

The determining criterion is not the evaluator, but the object being evaluated

An organization can be recognized or accredited for certain specific devices,
without this recognition automatically extending to a third-party label or an approach evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this case :

The assessment does not constitute certification .
The evaluation body does not assume responsibility for the label.
No regulatory equivalence can be deduced.

Equating such a situation with a compliant certification constitutes a legal error.

3. Why this confusion is problematic

When the distinction between assessment, score And certification is not clearly established:

Project leaders may believe they are covered,
Biodiversity claims can be made incorrectly
An implicit equivalence may be perceived by clients, investors, or authorities.

However, any communication suggesting non-existent compliance may fall under the category of misleading advertisingThis risk arises when it creates a misleading representation of the actual level of guarantee. This risk does not appear at the time of communication.

It appears at the time of control, regulatory reporting or litigation .

4. Correction: Should we abandon an existing biodiversity approach?

No.

A committed biodiversity approach:

retains its full operational value,
can continue to structure the project,
can serve as a working and database basis.

The issue is not abandonment, but the consolidation.

An existing approach can be incorporated into a compliant framework when the level of regulatory requirements increases.

This is the principle of regulatory continuity .

5. Producing evidence: the role of the BPS (Biodiversity Performance Score)

Before any compliance decision is made, one question is crucial: On what objective basis is biodiversity performance demonstrated?

THE BPS – Biodiversity Performance Score intervenes precisely at this level.

What is BPS?

The BPS is a biodiversity performance assessment tool, based on:

objective indicators,
traceable data,
an explicit methodology,
a clearly defined perimeter.

The BPS:

produced proof,
does not make a decision,
does not constitute a certification.

This distinction is deliberate and essential.

Why BPS is indispensable

The main obstacle observed in the market is the following:

An evaluation exists
sometimes carried out by a third party
but it is not legally qualified , nor is it linked to an enforceable decision.

The BPS allows:

to objectify performance,
to structure the data,
to enable a robust certification decision.

Certification without proof is weak.
Proof without a decision is not legally binding.

In the current context, the BPS constitutes a reference tool to objectify biodiversity performance before any certification decision.

6. Securing: when certification becomes necessary

Above a certain threshold, in terms of public claims, investor requirements, and compliance obligations, a project must have:

of an independent decision ,
delivered within a formalized framework,
traceable and enforceable.

It is at this stage that IRICE, as an independent third party. Certification Effinature allow :

to consolidate existing approaches,
to rely on objective evidence (including BPS),
to legally secure biodiversity commitments.

Effinature does not replace upstream steps.

It comes into play when the project needs to cross the threshold of enforceability .

7. Interaction with other environmental frameworks

Territorial, sectoral or building-related approaches retain their own role.

A project can:

to participate in a local or sectoral approach,
to be covered by a comprehensive environmental certification,
and, when required, specifically consolidate its biodiversity dimension within an independent framework.

This logic of coordination applies in particular to housing certifications issued by organizations such as Cerqual / Prestatere Certification / Promotelec / CertiveaThis is not about competition, but about sequencing of responsibilities.

8. The decisive criterion to consider

An action is not proof.

An evaluation or a score is not a certification.

A certification without proof is legally weak. Compliance relies on a clear link between:

process → proof (BPS) → decision (certification).

Is a biodiversity approach sufficient to comply with Directive 2024/825?

Not necessarily. Compliance depends on the decision-making framework and the associated level of allegation.

Does an external evaluation make a label compliant?

No. Only a certification issued within an enforceable framework can meet this requirement.

Can an accredited body certify any label?

No. Accreditation relates to specific devices and does not automatically extend to labels assessed for third parties.

Do we need to change our approach to be compliant?

No. An existing approach can be consolidated within an independent certification framework.

When does biodiversity certification become essential?

When the project needs to legally secure its commitments or meet stricter regulatory requirements.

Does a comprehensive environmental certification automatically make the biodiversity component of a project compliant?

No. A comprehensive environmental certification may incorporate biodiversity criteria, but this does not mean that biodiversity performance is subject to an independent, enforceable and specifically framed decision.