Biodiversity claims
EU Directive 2024/825
Legal framework for environmental claims in real estate: understanding what is permitted, liabilities and withdrawal obligations.
Compliance marker
Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as "Empowering Consumers" (ECGT), was adopted on 28 February 2024. Member States must transpose it by 27 March 2026, for application from 27 September 2026, identically across all 27 Member States. It places the burden of proof on the advertiser, the party that makes the claim, and only permits a sustainability label if it relies on a certification scheme verified by an independent third party. Sanctions: the EU-coordinated cap (Omnibus Directive 2019/2161) is at least 4% of turnover; under French law, the fine for a misleading commercial practice can be raised to 10% of average annual turnover or 50% of the expenditure incurred.
The legal framework: EU Directive 2024/825
EU Directive 2024/825 on environmental claims redefines the 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, marketers and asset managers must be substantiated by independent verification. Communication without formal proof exposes the operator to sanctions from the enforcement authority (DGCCRF in France).
Three distinct levels of proof
1 Approach
Internal, operational. Ecological design process, environmental management, team involvement.
Example: "Design based on ecological mitigation principles" or "Adaptive on-site biodiversity management".
2 Assessment
External, measured. Score, analysis, diagnostic carried out by a third party (but not necessarily accredited).
Example: "BPS score of 85/100" or "Effinature diagnostic level Very Good".
3 Certification
Independent, formal, accredited. Third-party proof by an accredited body under ISO/IEC 17065, guaranteeing 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.
BiodivPass : express biodiversity diagnostic
Ten questions to identify your regulatory exposure (CSRD, Directive 2024/825) and the level of proof your project actually needs, from an indicative score to accredited certification.
Start the diagnosticWhat is permitted, what is not
Structured comparison: defensible claims under Directive 2024/825 versus those presenting legal risk.
✓ Permitted
"Operation certified Effinature level Very Good"
Formal certification with independent audit. Documented third-party proof.
"BPS score of 82/100 — external audit completed"
Measurable, documented assessment verified 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"
Recognised third-party scheme, formalised independent audit.
"Documented ecological design approach"
Statement of internal process. Permitted if no unsubstantiated claim is attached.
✗ Risky / Prohibited
"Biodiversity-friendly project"
Claim without formal proof. Potential greenwashing. Enforcement risk.
"Biodiversity label obtained"
If self-declared or without third-party accreditation. No independent substantiation.
"Zero net loss commitment"
Promise without independent verification or formalised monitoring. Unverifiable commitment.
"More environmentally friendly"
Vague comparison without objective criteria or documented third-party proof.
"Self-assessed Effinature score"
Internal assessment without external audit. No independent substantiation.
Liability and claim withdrawal
Who is liable?
The party liable for the claim is the advertiser: the one who makes it bears the burden of proof. Directive 2024/825 and enforcement practice establish that:
- • The developer or marketer (the advertiser) is responsible for substantiating every environmental claim made to the consumer or the public (B2C). For B2B reporting (investors, financiers), the applicable frameworks are rather CSRD (ESRS E4), SFDR and the taxonomy.
- • The certification body is not responsible for how the operator uses or adapts the certification in their communications.
- • However, if the certification itself is suspended or revoked, the operator must immediately withdraw any claim referencing it.
Legal withdrawal obligations
You must withdraw or correct a claim immediately if:
-
1
Certification revoked: The certification body has withdrawn or suspended your certification. The claim no longer has a basis.
-
2
Enforcement authority request: The enforcement authority identifies a non-compliance or greenwashing. You have a legal obligation to remedy.
-
3
Enforcement ruling: An administrative or judicial decision has established the misleading nature of the claim.
-
4
Framework revoked: The standard or norm on which your claim is based has been withdrawn or invalidated.
Withdrawal mechanism and timelines
Legal timeline: Upon notification, you generally have 14 to 30 days to demonstrate compliance or withdraw the claim.
Scope of withdrawal: All communications and materials publicising the claim (website, marketing documents, social media, press, reports) must be updated. Simply removing the claim from the website is insufficient if it also appears in printed reports or contractual documents.
Three levels of proof, one communication strategy
The key is to combine all three levels according to your context and audiences. A single level is not sufficient for a strong claim; it is their combination that creates a robust narrative.
| Level | Function | Legal substantiation | Public claim? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Approach | Internal ecological process, design, governance | None. Internal evidence only. | With caution |
| Assessment | Measurement, diagnostic, score by a third party | Partial. Requires full independent audit. | Recommended with audit |
| Certification | Formal, accredited, independent third-party proof | Full. Legally defensible substantiation. | Permitted |
Four articulation scenarios
Scenario 1: Approach only
Context: Small project, internal communication, no public claim.
Use: Documentation of the ecological approach, justification to teams and internal stakeholders. No public claim.
Scenario 2: Approach + Assessment
Context: B2B communication, investors, market pre-qualification.
Use: Documented approach + audited BPS or Effinature score. Can support light statements ("measured approach", "score of X") but no strong claim without certification.
Scenario 3: Approach + Assessment + Certification
Context: Major project, strong public claims, ESG/SFDR investors, marketing.
Use: All three levels structure the narrative: approach (the what and the why), assessment (the measurable), certification (the proof). Public claims are fully defensible.
Scenario 4: Claims without substantiation (To avoid)
Risk: Greenwashing. Enforcement exposure.
Example: "Biodiversity-certified project" without actual certification. Formal notice + fine.
Key principle
The more public the claim and the broader the audience (investors, media, advertising), the more independent and formal the substantiation must be. The risk-bearer under Directive 2024/825 is the advertiser: the party that makes the claim bears the burden of proof. Accredited certification does not transfer that liability to the certifier: it gives the advertiser the least contestable proof to carry it.
Carbon claims: the same rules apply
Directive 2024/825 does not only cover biodiversity claims. It applies to all environmental claims, including those relating to carbon and climate. For real estate, the most exposed claims are:
At-risk carbon claims
- "Low-carbon construction site" without actual measurement or documented methodology
- "Carbon-neutral building" through simple offsetting without effective reduction
- "RE2020 outperformed" without data verifiable by a third party
- "Carbon footprint reduced by X%" against an undocumented baseline scenario
Substantiated carbon claims
- CBCA label (Low Carbon Construction Site) — actual measurement + label issued by IRICE
- Efficarbone measurement with EN 15978 methodology, modules A4-A5 documented
- Primary data auditable by a third-party body
- Measured reduction against a transparent baseline scenario
The principle is identical to biodiversity claims: the more public and quantified the claim, the more independent the proof must be. A developer claiming a "low-carbon construction site" in their commercial communication is exposed to the same sanctions as an unsubstantiated biodiversity claim — enforcement notice, formal demand, fine.
Carbon substantiation tools: Efficarbone — construction carbon measurement · CBCA label · ESRS E1 — climate
Going further
Formulate Hub
Clause templates, communication models, sector-specific guides for developers and marketers.
Access the hub →Public procurement
BREEAM, Effinature and biodiversity access criteria for public tenders.
Secure my tenders →Typologies and criteria
Understand the Effinature, BPS, BREEAM and HVE frameworks and their levels.
Compare frameworks →Legal assistance
Need to clarify the status of a claim? Contact the IRICE team.
Contact us →Frequently asked questions
Directive (EU) 2024/825 was adopted on 28 February 2024 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 March 2024. Member States must transpose it by 27 March 2026, for application from 27 September 2026, identically across all 27 Member States. Environmental claims are, moreover, already regulated under existing consumer protection law, and the enforcement authority (DGCCRF in France) is active.
The advertiser, i.e. the party that publicly makes the claim (project owner, developer, property company), bears the burden of proof and the risk of sanction. The owner of a label is not the advertiser and is not responsible for how the advertiser uses that label in its communication.
The Directive only permits displaying a sustainability label if it relies on a certification scheme based on verification by an independent third-party body, or if it is established by a public authority. In practice, a certification issued by a body accredited to ISO/IEC 17065 by a national accreditation authority (Cofrac in France) meets this condition.
A certification issued by an accredited body (such as IRICE, Cofrac Accreditation No. 5-0655) provides the strongest legal evidence for substantiating an environmental claim. Directive 2024/825 admits verification by an independent third-party body as a means of proof, which ISO/IEC 17065 accreditation satisfies.
Yes. Directive 2024/825 covers all environmental claims without distinction. A carbon claim (e.g. "low-carbon construction site") must be substantiated by verifiable data in the same way as a biodiversity claim.
Making an environmental claim?
Biodiversity or carbon: verify your substantiation. Three questions to test your compliance:
- 1 Do you hold a certification issued by a body accredited under ISO/IEC 17065?
- 2 Was the assessment carried out and audited by a documented independent third party?
- 3 Can you immediately justify every public claim in the event of an enforcement authority request?
If the answer is "no" to any of these questions, review your communication before publication.