How do you approach it when your own quality label – and the communications around it – need a thorough review in light of the EmpCo directive? A sector organisation that manages an established quality label for consumer products came to Pantarein with exactly that question. This case study shows what such a project looks like in practice.
The organisation in question manages a quality label that has been in place for many years and is widely recognised in its market. With the EmpCo deadline approaching, three questions arose:
Pantarein was asked to answer those three questions and translate them into concrete, actionable steps before 27 September 2026.
EmpCo sets specific requirements for a certification scheme: it must be open under transparent and non-discriminatory terms, be developed in consultation with relevant experts and stakeholders, provide for a procedure in the event of non-compliance, and be subject to independent third-party monitoring.
We assessed the organisation's certification scheme against each of these criteria, drawing on existing documentation and additional research with the parties involved.
The assessment brought several points to light. These did not concern the substance of the label, but rather the transparency with which it is communicated externally.
Alongside the label itself, we examined the wider consumer communication: the website and other consumer-facing materials. Every claim was assessed for the risk of being regarded as misleading under the new blacklisted practices set out in the directive.
This substantive review revealed a number of formulations that carried a genuine risk, including one claim so central to the label's positioning that simply rewording it would not be enough.
Dropping a core claim because it is no longer defensible does not weaken a label. It does, however, oblige you to explain again why that label is strong.
Together with the organisation, we developed a new positioning that starts from what is genuinely substantiated and defensible, rather than from the claim that had to go. That positioning was translated into concrete key messages and an initial proposal for restructuring the website, so that the strength of the label comes across more clearly to consumers and members.
The result was a set of concrete, immediately usable tools:
It is important to note that not every recommendation carried the same priority. Some actions – removing high-risk claims, publishing the information page and the member guide – had to be completed before the deadline. Others, such as the full repositioning and a possible reworking of the visual identity, were deliberately scheduled as a longer-term follow-up. Not everything has to happen at once.
A label that is sound in substance is no guarantee that the communication around it holds up as well. The two questions – does my label comply with the directive, and does my communication comply as well? – each call for a separate, thorough assessment. And as with any individual product claim, the same holds true: a claim you have to drop is a reason to make your story stronger, not weaker.
Do you manage a label, quality mark or certification scheme yourself – or do you make claims that rely on one? Arrange a no-obligation conversation with one of our experts at mail@pantarein.be. Together we will look at where the risks lie and what a realistic path towards 27 September could look like.
