An interim public-source review of self-declaration, assurance-data flows, OTA display, the Green Key transition, and whether credible certification differences remain visible to consumers

Japanese version → 日本語で読む

PUBLICATION-SAFE INTERIM VERSION | 25 September 2026 | Public-source base reflecting stakeholder attribution preferences

1. Purpose

On 27 September 2026, national measures implementing Directive (EU) 2024/825, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (ECGT / EmpCo), begin to apply. In tourism, sustainability certifications and labels used by accommodation providers are frequently displayed to EU consumers through online travel platforms.
JaSCA has been examining the legal requirements for certification schemes, assurance structures, certification-data flows and consumer-facing display. This note makes no blanket finding of illegality. It separates public facts from JaSCA’s own analysis and identifies the implementation questions that remain before 27 September.
At the same time, JaSCA is not only examining how unsupported or insufficiently substantiated sustainability displays can be prevented. An equally important objective is to ensure that certification schemes that substantively satisfy the EmpCo certification-scheme requirements — and properties certified under schemes with credible third-party assurance — can have those assurance differences preserved through data flows and communicated to consumers in a form that supports informed comparison and choice. If materially different assurance structures are flattened into the same generic certification status, consumers may be unable to distinguish them and properties investing in stronger certification may not receive appropriate market recognition.

2. What the ECGT requires from a “certification scheme”

Directive (EU) 2024/825 amends Directive 2005/29/EC so that a qualifying “certification scheme” must meet specified conditions. Article 2(1)(r)(iv) requires monitoring of a trader’s compliance to be carried out under an objective procedure by a third party whose competence and independence from both the scheme owner and the trader are based on international, Union or national standards and procedures.
Recital 7 indicates that, before displaying a sustainability label, the trader should ensure that minimum conditions of transparency and credibility are met. ISO/IEC 17065 and Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 mechanisms are examples, not the only stated route. The key issue is whether competence and independence can be substantiated by applicable standards and procedures.

3. Source and attribution policy for this version

To respect stakeholder preferences, this version relies on public webpages, published scheme documents and legislation. Non-public email responses are not used as attributed evidence unless permission to publish, quote or formally attribute them has been confirmed.
Travalyst has expressly permitted quotation of its responses, but for consistency this version still relies mainly on its public materials. Other publication-cleared responses can be added later as a separate stakeholder-response layer.

4. Travalyst: a public repository of scheme self-declarations

Travalyst’s Certifications Initiative is built around certification schemes self-assessing and declaring compliance with the ECGT requirements. Its public webpage states that Travalyst does not assess or review certification schemes; it provides the mechanism through which schemes declare compliance and makes that information transparent to the industry.
The public FAQ also states that inclusion on the list does not constitute approval, endorsement or verification by Travalyst. Participating schemes must re-declare annually, and a grievance procedure is available to raise substantiated concerns about schemes on the list.
Accordingly, inclusion on the Travalyst list and independent confirmation that a particular certification scheme satisfies all ECGT requirements are not the same thing.

5. Certification-data distribution: transmission and legal verification are different functions

Certification information can move from certification bodies and scheme owners through data platforms and travel-distribution systems before reaching OTAs. Public BeCause.eco material describes a model in which certification status from certification bodies is structured and distributed through API connections to numerous travel platforms, allowing changes in certification status to propagate to connected channels.
Timely data distribution is important, but transmitting certification status and independently determining ECGT conformity are different functions. The implementation question is where the latter assessment is performed. If assurance metadata is lost along the way, meaningful differences between stronger and weaker assurance may disappear before reaching consumers.

6. OTA display: the remaining pre-display due-diligence question

Booking.com publicly states that third-party sustainability certification information is displayed for more than 25,000 accommodations and that it works with organisations including Travalyst. This confirms the importance of the OTA layer as a consumer-facing display point for certification information.
The ECGT recital indicates that the trader displaying a sustainability label should ensure the relevant minimum conditions before display. If an OTA relies on self-declarations or data feeds, the key question is what evidence, standards and procedures it uses to establish the monitoring body’s competence and independence.
This has a positive-visibility dimension as well as a due-diligence dimension. If OTAs cannot preserve and, where appropriate, communicate differences in assurance level, a property certified under a robust independent scheme may appear no different to consumers from a property relying on a materially different assurance model. A market aligned with EmpCo should therefore not only reduce unsupported displays, but also enable credible certification to remain visible and useful in consumer choice.
This remains an Open Question; this version does not rely on non-public Booking.com correspondence.

7. Green Key: connecting 27 September application with the 1 October transition

Green Key’s current public materials state that the 2022–2026 criteria apply through 30 September 2026, and its existing certification process is described as applying “until October 2026”. That process states that the audit report is reviewed by an independent third-party entity — either an external auditor or a National Jury — which makes the final certification decision. It also describes ongoing conformity, complaints handling and possible suspension during the certification period.
The new Green Key Certification Process 2026–2031 starts on 1 October 2026. It provides for third-party auditors, an independent Certification Body making the certification decision, surveillance activities and two-year certificates. Green Key’s public History page states that it is applying for scheme approval by DANAK for the new criteria and certification processes.
In a public notice dated 23 September, Green Key also states that EmpCo is applicable from 27 September and that Green Key offices worldwide will be closed from 27 September to 1 October while transitioning to the new criteria and certification process. The notice asks certified establishments to review Green Key-related environmental claims.
The previous system is not automatically non-compliant: public materials describe third-party elements. The question for 27–30 September is which standards and procedures substantiate the required competence and independence, and what transition rules support existing certificates and labels.

8. JaSCA’s current legal and technical analysis

The following is JaSCA’s analysis, not a position attributed to the organisations above.


First, the Travalyst list is useful for transparency but is not equivalent to an independent legal conformity determination for each scheme.
Second, data distribution and assurance verification are separate functions; accurate transmission alone does not demonstrate monitoring-body competence and independence.
Third, consumer-facing platforms must decide how to establish, before display, that a scheme meets the minimum certification-scheme conditions.
Fourth, where the legal application date and a new certification-system start date differ, the intervening monitoring, certification and label-use arrangements should be identifiable. Green Key is a concrete case study.
Fifth, this issue concerns both consumer protection and market incentives. If differences in assurance are lost at the data-distribution or OTA-display stage, consumers cannot judge meaningful differences in credibility, while properties investing in stronger third-party certification may be unable to demonstrate that value in the market. EmpCo implementation should therefore not only reduce unsupported displays, but also preserve the visibility of credible assurance.

9. Open Questions as of 25 September 2026

  1. After referring to self-declared ECGT information, what evidence, criteria and procedures do OTAs use to assess the underlying certification-scheme requirements before display?
  2. As certification data move through intermediaries and APIs, how much assurance metadata — certification body, accreditation, applicable standard and monitoring structure — is retained and transmitted?
  3. How are differences between self-declared ECGT status and assurance supported by accreditation or other external assessment treated in OTA due diligence and consumer-facing presentation? What information enables consumers to identify, compare and choose properties whose certifications are backed by stronger third-party assurance?
  4. For Green Key, what specific monitoring and certification arrangements support continued use of existing certificates and labels during 27–30 September?
  5. How will Green Key’s DANAK scheme-approval process connect in time and scope with the new Certification Body arrangements and the transition of existing certificates?
  6. What specific guidance applies to Japanese Green Key-certified establishments concerning label use, renewal and transition from 27 September onward?

10. Next steps

JaSCA will add stakeholder responses only where the organisation has cleared quotation, paraphrase or formal attribution. Other non-public correspondence will remain outside the public evidence base.
From 27 September, JaSCA will examine actual OTA displays, Travalyst list changes and public developments concerning Green Key and DANAK, and may seek technical views from relevant European experts.
The purpose is not to target a scheme, but to clarify who verifies what, on what basis, across scheme design, certification decisions, data distribution and consumer display. It is also to help create a market in which unsupported sustainability displays are reduced while credible third-party certification — and the properties investing in it — remains visible to consumers and can meaningfully inform their choices.

11. Principal public sources