The ESFC EmpCo Certification Scheme — where EmpCo refers to Directive (EU) 2024/825 on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition — is a methodology-neutral framework under which independent Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) validate provider pathways and verify live claims. Scheme licences are issued by ESFC on the basis of the CAB's validation statement.
The ESFC EmpCo Certification Scheme defines a normative floor that all certified pathways must meet: ISO 14067:2018 alignment at product level, a two-layer scientific review process, claim and label use rules, QA outcome requirements, and change management obligations. Provider pathways operate above this floor, with each provider declaring their specific choices on the variation surface (rating system, functional unit, LCI database, calculation engine, gap-filling logic).
Certification is conducted by an independent Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) accepted under the scheme, either Route A (accredited under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 to ISO/IEC 17029 + ISO 14065) or Route B (accepted by ESFC without accreditation, where the body demonstrates conformance to the same standards in writing before the engagement starts). ESFC issues the scheme licence on the basis of the CAB's validation statement. ESFC administers the scheme but does not perform conformity assessment.
Version v1.0 (21 August 2026)
Download PDFRulebook v1.1 is in preparation and expected shortly. Key changes: Section 1.1 updated to “independent substantiation of environmental claims”; clarifying note added to Section 4 on the two-function structure and separate CAB contracts; mandatory QR/URL digital access link requirement removed from Section 10.8.
Version v1.0
Download PDF| Version | Date | Status |
|---|---|---|
| v1.0 | 21 August 2026 | Adopted for pilot use |
| v0.5 | 19 August 2026 | Working Group review draft |
| v0.3 | — | Earlier draft |
The scheme splits conformity assessment into two separate functions, each with its own contracting party. The CAB serving Function 1 may differ from the CAB serving Function 2.
Provider ↔ CAB
Contracted between the CAB and the Provider
Output: validation statement confirming the methodology is sound
Initial engagement + re-certification at smaller scope every 3 years or whenever triggered by changes
ESFC ↔ CAB
Contracted between the CAB and ESFC
Output: verification statement to ESFC & provider
Repeats annually
Any provider operating a food carbon footprint calculation system may apply. The scheme does not mandate a single calculation engine.
Conformity Assessment Bodies accepted under the scheme (Route A: accredited; Route B: ESFC-accepted) conduct the validation and annual surveillance. ESFC issues the scheme licence on the basis of the CAB's validation statement.
Certified providers must contractually bind their trader (operator) clients to scheme claim rules via Annex C pass-through clauses.
All methodology and database updates are classified (Major/Minor) and follow defined release and regression-testing obligations.
Designed for compliance with Directive (EU) 2024/825 (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition), with claim wording rules and complaint routing built into the framework.
Each organisation operating a food carbon labeling calculation system submits a Provider Pathway Registration (Annex A) declaring its specific choices within the scheme's variation surface. This document becomes a validated pathway upon the CAB's validation statement and ESFC licence decision. Both pathways below are currently in applicant status, preparing for the initial CAB validation engagement.
Eaternity AG · Zurich, Switzerland · eaternity.org
Registration version 1.6.7-draft · 18 August 2026
Eaternity AG is the founding applicant pathway of the ESFC EmpCo Certification Scheme. The Eaternity EOS is a food carbon footprint calculation system covering climate, water, nutrition, animal welfare, and deforestation indicators. Under EmpCo, the climate-impact claim is the certified scope.
| Dimension | Declaration |
|---|---|
| Functional unit | Daily Food Unit (DFU), VpF revision (2,000 kcal / 60 kg reference frame) |
| LCI database | Eaternity Database (EDB) 2026.1-Alpha — UVEK/BAFU background data |
| Calculation engine | Environmental Operating System (EOS) — 27 gap-filling modules, matrix-based LCA |
| Rating system | A–E letter grades across 5 indicators; climate scope for EmpCo |
| Assurance modes | Individual Assurance (Eaternity Score) and Collective Assurance (Eaternity Gastro) |
| Product scope | Food service and retail recipes |
| Geographic scope | DACH region and broader European markets |
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Rating scale | A–E letter grades |
| Indicators in EOS | Climate (CO2), Water Scarcity, Vita-Score (Nutrition), Animal Welfare, Deforestation |
| EmpCo-certified scope | Climate (CO2) only — September 2026 release |
| Rating | Threshold | vs. benchmark |
|---|---|---|
| A | ≤ 1,644 | 50% below benchmark — science-based target |
| B | ≤ 3,289 | At or below benchmark |
| C | ≤ 6,578 | Up to 2× benchmark |
| D | ≤ 13,156 | Up to 4× benchmark |
| E | > 13,156 | Exceeds 4× benchmark |
Benchmark: 3,289 g CO2eq / DFU (2026-08 re-baselined value; consumption-weighted average, ~194,260 recipe observations across ~150 restaurants, Switzerland and EU, 2019–2021)
| Rating | Threshold |
|---|---|
| A | ≤ 106.93 |
| B | ≤ 213.86 |
| C | ≤ 427.72 |
| D | ≤ 1,237.18 |
| E | > 1,237.18 |
Benchmark: 106.93 L scarce water eq / DFU (2026-08 re-baselined value; ladder 1× / 2× / 4× / 11.57×)
| Rating | Threshold |
|---|---|
| A | ≤ 270 |
| B | ≤ 340 |
| C | ≤ 410 |
| D | ≤ 450 |
| E | > 450 |
Benchmark: 336 points / DFU (FU-weighted, 6,067 recipes). Note: lower Vita-Score = better nutrition (inverts Nutri-Score direction).
CO2 and Water thresholds are derived from the consumption-weighted benchmark using fixed multipliers (A = 0.5×, B = 1.0×, C = 2.0×, D = 4.0×). Vita-Score thresholds are derived from FU-weighted percentiles (A ≈ P10, B ≈ P50, C = P80, D = P90). The DFU is a standardised daily reference unit: DFU = average(protein/50g, fat/66g, energy/6,000kJ, water/2,500g, dry_weight/600g).
| Parameter | Previous | Current | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark / B | 3,894 | 3,728 | −4.3% |
| A ≤ | 1,947 | 1,864 | −4.3% |
| C ≤ | 7,788 | 7,456 | −4.3% |
| D ≤ | 15,576 | 14,911 | −4.3% |
| Parameter | Previous | Current | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark / A ≤ | 91.57 | 109.56 | +19.6% |
| B ≤ | 183.13 | 219.12 | +19.6% |
| C ≤ | 366.26 | 438.23 | +19.6% |
| D ≤ | 1,059.42 | 1,267.58 | +19.6% |
| Parameter | Previous | Current | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Benchmark | 340 | 336 | −1.2% |
| A ≤ | 280 | 270 | −3.6% |
| B ≤ | 340 | 340 | — |
| C ≤ | 420 | 410 | −2.4% |
| D ≤ | 468 | 450 | −3.8% |
| Date | Update |
|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | CO2 benchmark revised: 3,894 → 3,728 g CO2eq/DFU (−4.3%); all CO2 thresholds revised proportionally. Sample: 194,260 recipe observations. |
| Mar 2026 | Water benchmark revised: 91.57 → 109.56 L/DFU (+19.6%) due to improved water imputation. All water thresholds revised proportionally. |
| Mar 2026 | Vita-Score thresholds recalculated from FU-weighted percentiles (6,067 recipes): A≤270, C≤410, D≤450. |
| Jul 2024 | Vita-Score recalculated with updated dataset (24,540 recipes). |
| Aug 2022 | Water scarcity benchmarks updated with 3-year data. |
| May 2021 | CO2 benchmark established: 797.45 g CO2/FU (initial). |
Water Scarcity and Vita-Score (Nutrition) are operationally supported by Eaternity EOS but are not in the EmpCo-certified claim scope for the September 2026 release. A rating of C represents average performance relative to the benchmark; A represents a science-based target.
| Component | Current version | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Calculation engine | EOS — applicant pre-release | In validation preparation |
| LCI database | Eaternity Database (EDB) 2026.1-Alpha | June 2026 |
| Previous database version | EDB 2026.0 | January 2026 |
| Gap-filling modules | 27 modules — calibrated against PEFCRs | As above |
| Release | Date | Classification | Products affected | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EDB 2026.1 | 23 Jul 2026 | Minor | 2,234 / 2,331 (96%) | Switched all background processes from proprietary ecoinvent-based LCI database to UVEK/BAFU (LCI Workbench, public data basis). Previous ecoinvent-based values not published (proprietary licence). UVEK/BAFU values for EDB 2026.1 published in full. |
| EDB 2026.0 | Jan 2026 | Base version | — | Initial EDB version registered for the EmpCo pilot. Regression suite run on this version (Jun 2026 — see Regression Test Suite accordion). |
Pre-certification version history — published for transparency. Certified release changelog will appear here upon CAB validation.
The 97 unchanged products had identical values under both the proprietary and public database sources. Full product-level data for EDB 2026.1 is available to the Conformity Assessment Body on request. Certified releases will be classified as Major, Minor, or Non-substantive per Rulebook §12.8. A Major change (>2% rating shift across >5% of items) requires CAB pre-approval before deployment.
Pre-certification validation data — published for transparency. Certified release results will replace this section upon completion of the CAB validation engagement.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Suite size | 600 items |
| Cases | 3 (caterer, label_retail, full_specification) |
| Scope | Rating stability and CO2 reproducibility across cases |
| Run date | 13 June 2026 |
| Published | 7 July 2026 |
| EDB version tested | EDB 2026.0 |
| Case | Total items | Passed | Failed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caterer | 250 | 250 | 0 |
| Label / Retail | 200 | 197 | 3 |
| Full Specification | 150 | 150 | 0 |
| Total | 600 | 597 | 3 |
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Items outside tolerance | 3 / 600 = 0.5% |
| Rulebook threshold (§12.5) | ≤ 2% may change rating |
| Result | PASS — below materiality threshold |
| Rating | Count | Share |
|---|---|---|
| A | 241 | 40% |
| B | 182 | 30% |
| C | 110 | 18% |
| D | 36 | 6% |
| E | 28 | 5% |
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Median | 154 g/FU |
| Mean | 376 g/FU |
| Range | 0 – 6,755 g/FU |
The 3 items outside tolerance are in the label_retail case. Full item-level results are available to the Conformity Assessment Body on request.
Individual Assurance traders — status register
Suspended:—
Terminated:—
Collective Assurance traders — status register
Suspended:—
Terminated:—
Klimato AB · Stockholm, Sweden · klimato.com
Provider Pathway Registration 0.2-draft · 10 August 2026
Klimato AB provides a food carbon labeling system for on-menu recipes in the food service sector. The Klimato Carbon Labeling pathway calculates the climate impact of recipes and assigns an A–E rating aligned with Paris Agreement science. The pathway uses Klimato's proprietary Food Carbon Footprint Database, which has been reviewed by IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute and the WRI Coolfood initiative.
| Dimension | Declaration |
|---|---|
| Functional unit | Choice between kg CO2e per serving, per 100g or 400g |
| LCI database | Klimato Food Carbon Footprint Database (Mothership v2.9, 4,000+ ingredients, 20,000+ variations) |
| Calculation engine | Klimato Carbon Labeling v1.0 — deterministic summation: CF_recipe = Σ EF_i × Q_i |
| Rating system | A–E letter grades with traffic-light colour coding |
| Assurance mode | Collective Assurance (pilot) |
| Product scope | Food service |
| Geographic scope | EU and EEA markets |
| Grade | Threshold | Scientific basis |
|---|---|---|
| A — Very Low | carbon intensity < 0.40 kg CO2e | Paris Agreement well-below-2°C food budget (72% reduction vs. 2015 by 2050) |
| B — Low | 0.40 kg CO2e ≤ carbon intensity < 0.90 kg CO2e | WRI Coolfood Meal standard (38% reduction by 2030) |
| C — Medium | 0.90 kg CO2e ≤ carbon intensity < 1.80 kg CO2e | TCRE metric at 2.5°C warming (2050) |
| D — High | 1.80 kg CO2e ≤ carbon intensity < 2.60 kg CO2e | TCRE metric at 3°C warming (2050) |
| E — Very High | carbon intensity ≥ 2.60 kg CO2e | Exceeds 3°C TCRE threshold |
| Component | Current version | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Calculation engine | Klimato Carbon Labeling v1.0 | August 2026 |
| LCI database | Klimato Food Carbon Footprint Database (Mothership v2.9) | 7 August 2026 |
| Coverage | 4,000+ food ingredients; 20,000+ production variations | — |
| Update cadence | Annual (typically Q1) | Next: Q1 2027 (LSRS alignment) |
| Release | Date | Classification | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mothership v2.9 | 7 August 2026 | Pre-certification (initial) | First version registered with ESFC for the EmpCo pilot. |
Suite specification
Size:300 recipes
Coverage:≥80% of ingredient/product categories in the Klimato database taxonomy (33 declared ingredient categories)
Borderline cases:capped at ≤15% of suite
Access:Available to the CAB on request; pass/fail status published here per release
Certified release results
No certified releases yet.
Pass/fail status will be published here for each release following the initial CAB validation engagement.
Collective Assurance traders
Active:—
Suspended:—
Terminated:—
(Aggregate counts published; individual listing on opt-in basis)
Are you an ESFC member operating a food carbon labeling system? You may submit a Provider Pathway Registration following the Annex A template. Contact: info@esf-coalition.org
EmpCo certification is open to any organisation making certified environmental performance claims on food or beverage products in the EU, including food producers, brands, retailers, and food service operators. If you use a third-party calculation platform, you apply as a trader using their certified pathway. If you operate your own calculation system, you apply as a provider under a self-managed pathway.
Start by downloading the scheme documents below.
Annex C (Trader Binding Clauses) is included in the Rulebook.
Submit your completed Annex A to ESFC using the form below. ESFC will complete the Layer 1 and Layer 2 administrative sections, including which questions the CAB will need to assess and which are already covered by existing reviews, and return the completed document to you.
Once you have received your ESFC-completed Annex A, send it together with your Annex B to one or more accepted CABs from the list below. You can request proposals from multiple CABs and compare offers before selecting one.
No accepted CABs are listed yet. ESFC will publish the list of accepted CABs, covering both Route A (accredited) and Route B (ESFC-accepted) bodies, after the pilot phase.
Sign the Participation Agreement and submit it to ESFC using the form below. ESFC will list you as "Applicant — pre-validation" on the portal.
Any party with a legitimate interest may submit feedback or file a formal complaint about an environmental assessment claim made under the ESFC EmpCo Scheme. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 business days and resolved within 30 calendar days.
Contact: info@esf-coalition.org — subject line: "EmpCo Complaint" or "EmpCo Feedback"
| Step | Action | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acknowledgement of receipt | 5 business days |
| 2 | Initial assessment and classification | 10 business days |
| 3 | Investigation | 20 business days |
| 4 | Response with findings | 30 calendar days |
| 5 | Corrective actions (if applicable) | Per Rulebook §11 |
| 6 | Final closure notification | 10 business days |
Note: Individual complaint records are confidential. Anonymised complaint statistics will be published in the annual stakeholder report.
Major scheme changes require Working Group consultation before adoption. The ESFC EmpCo Working Group reviews proposed changes and provides feedback within defined comment windows.
| Version | Date | Type | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| v0.5 | 14 Aug 2026 | Major | AR6 GWP characterisation factor requirements (§5.5), Layer 2 Q9 (biogenic carbon) and Q10 (LCA aggregation), Q11 (data quality assessment), updated benchmark representativeness requirements (§6), two applicant pathway registrations |
| v0.4 | 29 Jul 2026 | Major | Consolidated scheme structure, trader binding clauses (Annex B), CAB framework, claim wording rules |
| v0.3 | Jun 2026 | Major | Two-layer scientific review process, provider pathway template (Annex A) |
| v0.2 | Apr 2026 | Major | Scheme structure, fee schedule |
| v0.1 | Feb 2026 | Initial | Initial draft for Working Group review |