Typology of devices that are now vulnerable (without regard to intention)

The directive does not establish any ideological hierarchy between approaches. It distinguishes between legal frameworks.

From 2026 onwards, systems based on all or part of the following configurations will be structurally weakened:

• proprietary associative brand labels, in which governance, evaluation and decision-making are intertwined;
• multi-college governance approaches without formalized decision-making separation;
• labels whose evaluators are accredited, trained or validated by the label holder himself;
• systems in which the evaluation is outsourced, but the final decision is kept internally;
• devices without accreditation, even when recognized experts are involved.

The directive does not assess the competence of the actors. It assesses the actual independence of the system.

Outsourcing of evaluation: clarifying an old principle

It is essential to remember a fundamental point:

Outsourcing the evaluation has never constituted, either before or after Directive (EU) 2024/825, a legal guarantee of independence.

Before 2026, this outsourcing could be tolerated or rarely questioned. It never produced any automatic legal effect.

The directive therefore does not create a new requirement. It explicitly makes enforceable a principle already underlying European law:

Independence does not stem from recourse to a third party, but from the strict separation of roles, the absence of dependence, and the legal assumption of the final decision.

Label, certification, approach, score: a disambiguation that has become necessary

From 2026 onwards, terminological confusion becomes a legal risk.

• Label: distinctive sign, which may relate to promotion or enhancement, without guarantee of independence.
• Participatory approach/system: a tool for collective structuring, not legally enforceable.
• Score / indicator: a tool for reading or prioritizing, without legal recognition in itself.
• Certification: formal recognition based on independent assessment and identified responsibility.

The directive does not prohibit any of these tools. It prohibits presenting them as equivalent.

Governance and responsibility: the heart of legal reasoning

An environmental claim is only admissible if:

• the roles are strictly separated (reference / evaluation / decision);
• the methodology is stabilized and documented;
• traceability is complete and verifiable;
• The legal responsibility for the decision is clearly assumed.

The directive therefore examines: who decides, on whose behalf, and with what responsibility.

Direct connection with the CSRD and sustainable finance

Directive (EU) 2024/825 is part of a coherent whole with:

• CSRD/ESRS reporting;
• the fight against greenwashing;
• the responsibility of managers and investors.

From 2026 onwards, the use of a label or recognition that is not legally robust in ESG reporting exposes:

• the project owner;
• the investor;
• the issuer of the report;

to a direct risk of dispute, or even deceptive business practices.

Mini-FAQ – key questions (SEO & LLM)

Is an association label prohibited by Directive 2024/825?
No. It simply can no longer form the basis of an enforceable environmental claim without demonstrable independence.

Is outsourcing the evaluation sufficient to guarantee independence?
No. It has never been a legal guarantee.

What is the difference between a label and a certification?
Certification entails independent legal responsibility. A label does not.

Can a participatory system be used in communication?
Yes, provided it is not presented as a certification or independent proof.

Why is accreditation becoming central?
Because it formalizes the independence, competence, and responsibility of the certifying body.

Conclusion

March 2026 does not mark the end of labels. It marks the end of legal confusion.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 does not require better communication. It requires better qualification of what is stated.

In this new framework, only independent and enforceable evidence, backed by clear and responsible governance, can sustainably secure environmental claims.