Here's the regulatory reference:
EU - OPS 1.510 - Landing — Destination and alternate aerodromes
(a) An operator shall ensure that the landing mass of the aeroplane determined in accordance with EU - OPS 1.475
(a) does not exceed the maximum landing mass specified for the altitude and the ambient temperature expected for the estimated time of landing at the destination and alternate aerodrome.
(b) For instrument approaches with a missed approach gradient greater than 2,5 % an operator shall verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach with a climb gradient equal to or greater than the applicable missed approach gradient in the one-engine inoperative missed approach configuration and speed (see applicable requirements on certification of large aeroplanes).
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. IOW fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
(c) For instrument approaches with decision heights below 200 ft, an operator must verify that the expected landing mass of the aeroplane allows a missed approach gradient of climb, with the critical engine failed and with the speed and configuration used for go-around of at least 2,5 %, or the published gradient, whichever is the greater (see CS AWO 243).
The use of an alternative method must be approved by the Authority. Once again fly ESCAPE ROUTE.
It's complete bollocks to maintain a diversion or burning fuel is required for compliance with regs. Whether the operator choses to entertain commercially sane and perfectly legal solution or bluntly to burn the fuel till it can comply with the published GA climb gradient, well, I guess it depends on how deep the pocket is.
