That sounds like extra work. It is extra work. But step back and look at what it's actually doing.

For years, sustainability communications has been a credibility problem. The claims have been everywhere. The proof has been thin. Consumers have got wise to it: according to research by the European Commission, 53% of environmental claims in the EU were found to be vague, misleading, or unsubstantiated. Fifty-three percent. At that rate, the rational response is to disbelieve everything.

The Directive is clearing the field.

For companies that have overclaimed, who've built brand equity on "sustainable" when the reality is complicated and partial, yes, it's a problem. It should be. Claims should match reality. That's not a regulatory burden; it's just honesty.

But for companies that have been under-communicating, doing real work on materials, supply chains, energy use, and circularity, and staying quiet because the landscape felt hostile or because they weren't quite sure what they could say, the Directive creates something valuable: a verified lane.

A claim that's been properly substantiated and independently verified means something. It means something precisely because it's now harder to say. The companies with the rigour to meet the requirements will have communications that carry weight they couldn't have claimed before.

This is what substance before story looks like in practice. You don't build the story and then find the substance to back it up. You start with what's real, verify it properly, and say it clearly and specifically, without hedging and without overclaiming.

The companies that should be worried are the ones whose claims have been running ahead of their actions. The companies that should be relieved are the ones doing genuine work and not yet communicating it.

If you're not sure which category you're in, that's probably the most useful question the Directive has asked so far.