French eco-score: best practices and pitfalls to avoid

Introduction

You now know the essentials: the regulatory framework governing environmental labeling, the Ecobalyse methodology that defines its rules, and the direct impact this has on how you structure your data and communicate with your consumers. Once these foundations are clear, one question always comes up: how can you publish an environmental cost that is reliable, compliant, and easy to understand, without making mistakes?

To help you structure your approach and avoid the most common pitfalls, we have compiled a list of essential Do’s & Don’ts.

It brings together the best practices you should implement today, as well as the key errors to avoid, so you can secure the publication of your products’ environmental costs and deploy environmental labeling that is consistent, credible, and compliant.

10 best practices to secure your compliance with the French eco-score methodology

1. Centralize and structure your data

Reliable labeling starts with clean, consolidated and aligned data across product, sourcing, and supplier information. A single source of truth minimizes errors, duplicates and inconsistencies between teams.

2. Standardize your data formats

To avoid inconsistencies, adopt uniform formats: compositions, process types, locations, logistics flows. This will streamline imports and make it easier to update your products’ environmental costs.

3. Verify the quality and accuracy of every piece of information

The environmental cost must always reflect the actual product. Ensure that supplier data is complete, up to date and validated: materials, weights, processes, production sites, transport information…

4. Document your sources and evidence

Keep a record of where each data point comes from (supplier information, default values, internal measurements), along with exchanges, validations and assumptions. This will be essential during audits or when updating the score.

5. Use only the official Ecobalyse methodology

The rules, modules and impact factors defined by ADEME form the only authorized framework. Adhering to it ensures comparability and compliance for your products’ environmental costs.

6. Strictly follow the ADEME display template

Colors, units, typography, mandatory mentions: the graphic framework is not optional. It ensures score readability and strengthens your credibility.

7. Train your teams and your suppliers

Environmental labeling involves all stakeholders: buying, product, quality, sustainability, legal, communication, digital. Suppliers also need to understand what they must provide, and why.

8. Establish an internal validation workflow

Define who validates the data, who checks the evidence, and who publishes the score. A clear governance structure prevents last-minute mistakes.

9. Run a pilot before scaling

Testing a small group of products (a few dozen) will help you identify friction points, missing data or inconsistencies before rolling out at full scale.

10. Anticipate the link with the future Digital Product Passport

The data needed for environmental labeling will also be required for the future Digital Product Passport. Structuring your data now will prevent duplicated effort later.

10 critical mistakes you must avoid

1. Do not calculate your scores manually

Excel formulas, copy-paste, scattered files: it’s slow, fragile, and prone to errors. At collection scale, it becomes unmanageable and incompatible with regular updates.

2. Do not publish an environmental cost that is unjustified, incomplete or outdated

Any information that is undocumented or poorly updated can be considered misleading under the UCPD.

3. Do not confuse real data with default values

Ecobalyse default values are useful, but only when specific data is not available. Mixing them indiscriminately (or using them for convenience) artificially inflates your environmental cost and undermines your credibility.

4. Do not forget to recalculate the environmental cost after a production change

New supplier, updated composition, revised transport route… the slightest change may affect the score. Regular updates are essential.

5. Do not adjust the ADEME template

Changing colors, adding icons, “refreshing” the visual, even slightly, risks harming score readability and compromising compliance under France’s Climate and Resilience Law.

6. Do not reduce environmental labeling to a single number

Your environmental cost requires explanation: how it was calculated, what it represents, and why two similar products may show different results.

7. Do not compare your products with other brands outside the official framework

Comparisons are strictly regulated. Outside this framework, your environmental claims may be deemed misleading.

8. Do not assign responsibility to a single team

Environmental labeling is not a stand-alone sustainability project. It requires collaboration across product, quality, sourcing, legal, communication and digital teams. Working in silos leads to errors and possibly non-compliance.

9. Do not underestimate the complexity of calculating the environmental cost

Unlike simpler obligations (such as those related to the AGEC law), calculating your products’ environmental cost is a technical and time-consuming exercise. It requires numerous data points, multiple teams, and active supplier participation.

10. Do not forget to plan for ongoing updates

Your products’ environmental costs evolve over time. Without regular maintenance and periodic checks, the scores you calculate will quickly become outdated.

Conclusion

The French eco-score relies on reliable data, strong internal processes and clear communication. By applying these best practices and avoiding common pitfalls, you improve both the quality and the credibility of the environmental costs you disclose.

But one key question remains: how can you calculate these costs at scale, across your entire product range, without spending weeks on it or increasing the risk of errors?

In the next article, we break down the three possible approaches to industrializing environmental cost calculation: what they offer, where they fall short, and when each one makes sense.