+34 603 445 673
Thousands of cosmetic brands right now have packaging sitting in a warehouse or on a distributor’s shelf. That packaging was manufactured months ago, with words like “eco” or “sustainable” printed permanently on it. The question coming up most often these weeks is not just how to comply with the Greenwashing Directive going forward. It is also what happens to everything that is already manufactured. Published in June 2026, the official answer is more nuanced than many brands expect.
Old stock does not exempt compliance, but the Greenwashing Directive is not a brick wall either
The Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC), which brings together consumer authorities from across the EU, published a common understanding document in June 2026 on “old stock situations.” It defines old stock as any product or package carrying environmental claims that was manufactured, ordered, distributed or placed on a distributor’s shelf before 27 September 2026.
Its first principle is clear: companies cannot rely on old stock to avoid compliance. Brands must move towards compliance without delay and in good faith, since unfair commercial practice rules already applied to environmental claims before this directive. There is, therefore, no automatic moratorium for clearing inventory carrying outdated messaging.
What authorities can actually take into account
Here is the important nuance: national authorities may apply a graduated approach if old stock creates genuine and specific transition difficulties. Specifically, the CPC document identifies several factors that will be taken into account:
- The size of the company, its available resources and its economic capacity.
- Practical constraints, such as packaging production cycles, stock volumes, orders already placed or supply-chain dependencies.
- Product shelf life: fast-turnover products will have less room for tolerance than long-shelf-life ones.
- Whether the claim had already been subject to enforcement action by authorities under the previous rules, in which case there is less room for tolerance.
In other words, this is not a fixed rule, but a case-by-case assessment that weighs the genuine adaptation effort made, not merely the existence of old stock.
What corrective measures actually address an old-stock case
The CPC document lists specific corrective measures that authorities may consider reasonable and proportionate:
- Correcting or removing claims on digital channels, which can be updated immediately.
- Updating advertising and promotional materials before touching physical packaging.
- Adapting future packaging orders and designs, even if current stock takes time to sell through.
- Using corrective stickers or removing labelling where feasible.
- Displaying corrective information at the point of sale, including online channels.
- Coordinating with suppliers and other actors in the chain.
- Keeping a documented record of the measures taken and their dates, including internal compliance policies.
This last point deserves attention. Specifically, the document makes clear that authorities expect evidence that action has been taken, not just a verbal explanation after an inspection.
What authorities should avoid demanding
The document also protects brands against an overly strict interpretation. For instance, it explicitly states that authorities may refrain from requiring the destruction or withdrawal of products as a way to resolve genuine transition problems. In addition, a measure may be considered disproportionate if it generates excessive costs or unnecessary environmental harm, such as destroying perfectly sellable stock just because of an outdated label.
The overall approach, according to the document itself, prioritises guidance towards compliance over sanctions during this initial phase. This includes awareness campaigns, guidance, requests for information and reasonable adaptation periods, before moving to enforcement.
Two very different situations under the same rule
The CPC’s own criteria acknowledge that not all old-stock situations carry the same weight. Consider two common examples in cosmetics.
A brand manufactured a large batch of sunscreen eight months before the application date, with the word “eco” printed directly on the tube. It is a long-shelf-life format, with an order already closed with the supplier well before the CPC criteria existed. This is precisely the kind of case where some tolerance can be expected, provided that the brand has already corrected its website and advertising, and can document that the new packaging order will no longer include that claim.
Compare that with a fast-turnover lip gloss, which sells out and is restocked every few weeks, whose website still shows the same uncorrected claim. Here the room for tolerance is much narrower: there is no genuine transition difficulty. That is because both the digital channel and the product’s own restocking cycle allow it to be corrected almost immediately.
The difference does not lie in the type of claim. Instead, it lies in whether a genuine transition difficulty exists and whether the brand can demonstrate it has already acted where it could.
What your brand should do about the Greenwashing Directive before summer ends
The room for tolerance depends directly on being able to show that you have already acted. Before 27 September, it is worth:
- Taking stock of which references carry environmental claims on packaging, advertising or digital channels.
- Documenting each step: date, person responsible and reason for each correction, to have evidence if an authority asks.
- Assessing, reference by reference, whether the stock volume and shelf life justify a temporary solution (stickers, point-of-sale information) or already require a redesign.
- Carrying out a documented technical validation of every claim that is kept, backed by data and evidence, not just the supplier’s word.
- Updating the relevant regulatory notifications in each country where you sell, so they reflect the claims already corrected.
At Cosmeservice, we help cosmetic brands prioritise these decisions, reference by reference. We also document the adaptation process so that it holds up under an eventual review by the authorities. In addition, we keep you up to date on regulatory changes, since the Greenwashing Directive will keep being refined through new guidance and criteria from the authorities after 27 September. If you would like an assessment of your old-stock situation, you can fill in our contact form or write to us at info@cosmeservice.com.
FAQs
Can I keep selling my old stock carrying environmental claims after 27 September?
There is no automatic exemption. However, authorities may tolerate an adaptation period if you can demonstrate genuine transition difficulties, especially if you have already corrected what is technically immediate, such as digital channels.
What counts as “old stock” under the CPC’s criteria?
Specifically, any product or package carrying environmental claims that was manufactured, ordered, distributed or placed on the shelf before 27 September 2026, whether on the packaging itself, on digital channels or in advertising.
Can an authority force me to destroy my old stock?
It is unlikely. The CPC document explicitly states that authorities may avoid requiring the destruction or withdrawal of products. This applies when it would cause disproportionate cost or unnecessary environmental harm.
What should I correct first if I have limited resources?
Digital channels, since there is no technical justification for continuing to display an outdated claim. Physical packaging and orders already placed have more room for tolerance if you can demonstrate genuine production or supply-chain constraints.
Is this document legally binding?
No. The CPC itself clarifies that it does not constitute a formal position or a legally binding interpretation of the Directive. However, national authorities are expected to take it into account when exercising their powers consistently across the EU.
What happens if my company has not done anything yet?
The later the adaptation effort is demonstrated, the less room for tolerance can be expected. The CPC’s own criteria value good faith and measures already taken, not a future intention to correct.
