Biodiversity claims
European Directive 2024/825
Legal framework for environmental communications in real estate: understanding what is permitted, responsibilities and withdrawal obligations.
The legal framework: EU Directive 2024/825
European Directive 2024/825 on environmental claims redefines communication rules for all sectors, including real estate. Its objective: to combat "greenwashing" by requiring independent substantiation of claims.
Fundamental principle
Environmental claims made by developers, communicators, and asset managers must be substantiated by independent verification . Communication without formal proof exposes the operator to sanctions from the DGCCRF (French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control).
Three distinct levels of evidence
1 Approach
Internal, operational. Ecological design process, environmental management, team involvement.
Example: “Design based on ecological mitigation principles” or “Adaptive management of on-site biodiversity”.
2 Assessment
External, measured. Score, analysis, diagnosis carried out by a third party (but not necessarily accredited).
Example: "BPS score of 85/100" or "Effinature® diagnosis level Very Good".
3 Certification
Independent, formal, accredited. Third-party proof by an accredited body according to ISO/IEC 17065, guarantee of regulatory compliance.
Example: "Biodiversity certification issued by an ISO/IEC 17065 accredited body" or "Effinature® certification validated".
Note: Under Directive 2024/825, only level 3 (certification by an accredited body) produces a fully legally defensible claim.
What is allowed, what is not
Structured comparison: claims that are defensible in the face of Directive 2024/825 and those that present a legal risk.
✓ Allowed
"Effinature® certified operation, Very Good level"
Formal certification with independent audit. Documented third-party evidence.
"BPS score of 82/100 — external audit completed"
Measurable, documented and verified evaluation by an independent third party.
"Biodiversity certification issued by an ISO/IEC 17065 accredited body"
Formal, accredited, documented proof. The strongest legal guarantee.
“BREEAM New Construction certification”
Recognized third-party scheme, formalized independent audit.
"Documented ecological design approach"
Internal process statement. Allowed if no unsubstantiated claim is attached.
✗ Risky / Forbidden
"A project that respects biodiversity"
Allegation without formal proof. Potential greenwashing. Risk of DGCCRF (French Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control) intervention.
"Biodiversity label obtained"
If self-declared or without third-party accreditation. No independent substantiation.
“Zero net loss commitment”
A promise without independent verification or formalized follow-up. An unverifiable commitment.
“More environmentally friendly”
Vague comparison without objective criteria or documented third-party evidence.
"Self-assessed Effinature score"
Internal evaluation without external audit. No independent substantiation.
Responsibility and withdrawal of allegations
Who is responsible?
The person responsible for the allegation is the one who makes it. Directive 2024/825 and DGCCRF case law establish that:
- • The promoter or communicator is responsible for substantiating each claim they make publicly or in B2B communication.
- • The certification body is not responsible for how the operator uses or adapts the certification in its communications.
- • However, if the certification itself is suspended or cancelled, the operator must immediately withdraw any claim based on it.
Legal obligations to withdraw
You must withdraw or correct an allegation immediately if:
-
1
Certification revoked: The certifying body has withdrawn or suspended your certification. The allegation is no longer substantiated.
-
2
DGCCRF request: The supervisory authority has identified a non-compliance or greenwashing. You have a legal obligation to remedy the situation.
-
3
DGCCRF Conviction: An administrative or judicial decision has established the misleading nature of the allegation.
-
4
Revoked reference: The standard or norm on which your claim is based has been withdrawn or invalidated.
Withdrawal mechanism and deadlines
Legal time limit: Upon notification, you generally have 14 to 30 days to demonstrate compliance or withdraw the allegation.
Scope of the removal: All communications and materials publicizing the allegation (website, marketing materials, social media, press, reports) must be updated. Simply removing the allegation from the website is insufficient if it appears in printed reports or contractual documents.
Three levels of proof, one communication strategy
The key is to articulate the three levels according to your context and audiences. One level alone is not enough for a strong claim; it is their combination that creates a robust narrative.
| Level | Function | Legal Substantiation | Public allegation? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | Internal ecological process, design, governance | None. Internal evidence only. | With caution |
| Assessment | Measurement, diagnosis, scoring performed by a third party | Partial. Need for a full independent audit. | Recommended with audit |
| Certification | Formal, accredited, independent third-party proof | Full. Legally defensible substantiation. | Allowed |
Four scenarios for articulation
Scenario 1: Solo Approach
Context: Small project, internal communication, no public claim.
Use: Documentation of the ecological approach, justification to teams and internal stakeholders. No public claims.
Scenario 2: Approach + Evaluation
Context: B2B communication, investors, market pre-qualification.
Use: Documented approach + audited BPS or Effinature® score. Can support mild statements ("measured approach", "X score") but not strong claims without certification.
Scenario 3: Process + Evaluation + Certification
Context: Large project, strong public claims, ESG/SFDR investors, marketing.
Use: All levels articulate the narrative: process (the what and the why), evaluation (the measurable), certification (the proof). Fully defensible public claims.
Scenario 4: Claims without substantiation (To be avoided)
Risk: Greenwashing. DGCCRF exposure.
Example: "Biodiversity certified project" without actual certification. Formal notice + fine.
Key principle
The more public the claim and the wider the audience (investors, media, advertising), the more independent and formal the substantiation must be. The accredited certifier is the sole risk-taker under Directive 2024/825.
To go further
Formulating Hub
Clause templates, communication models, sector guides for promoters and communicators.
Access the hub →Public procurement
BREEAM, Effinature, biodiversity access criteria for public tenders.
Securing my tenders →Typologies and criteria
Understanding the Effinature, BPS, BREEAM, HVE standards and their levels.
Compare the reference frameworks →Legal assistance
Need to clarify the status of an allegation? Contact the IRICE team.
Contact us →Are you making a biodiversity claim?
Check your substantiation. Three questions to test your conformity: