Green Claims Directive: Stop the chainsaw

Status quo

We’re all consumers. We all go shopping — online or in-store. Many of us are trying to make more conscious choices. But we can only do so if we have access to reliable, honest information.

Imagine you’re standing in a store, looking for a new shirt. You browse through dozens of options with different colors, materials and brands. So far so good. To stand out some brands make big promises and market their products as eco-friendly, climate-neutral*,* or biodegradable. You may also care about labor conditions in Bangladeshi factories or pesticide use in cotton farming.

So, you try to choose more responsibly. But there’s a problem: every shirt has some kind of green or ethical label. Which one can you actually trust? Which claim is legitimate? Which a marketing bluff? You can do you own research for on more responsibly produced shirts — but also for fish, furniture, and printing paper? Unlikely.

Greenwashing using labels is common — in textiles and beyond. Court cases in the textile sector, cosmetics, and aviation cross Europe show how widespread greenwashing is. The court cases are somewhat encouraging, because companies feel enough pressure to at least pretend to be sustainable. But we do not need more smoke and mirrors. Glancing through SHEIN’s “sustainability” report leaves you a bit puzzled wondering what in the world their business model has to do with sustainability. Biodiversity is not even considered material (keeping in mind pesticide use in the supply chain).

Another prominent example is from DWS. The largest German asset manager was fined by German prosecutors a record 25 Mio. EUR for misleading claims on the sustainability of its investment products.

In Germany, Dieselgate heavily damaged the reputation of Volkswagen and lead to record fines. The company marketed its cars as cleaner than they are, rigging emissions tests in the process. Nitrogen oxide emissions were found to be up to 40 times higher than the legal limit. The consequences? More than 124.000 premature deaths.

Greenwashing can cause real harm. Some companies face some consequences sometimes, others continue to get away with it.

Purpose of the Green Claims Directive

The European Commission’s own data shows that nearly half of all green claims across the EU have been vague, misleading, or unsupported. 40 % carry no evidence, and 53 % are deliberately obscure. Preventing such greenwashing is important for companies with credible climate action and for the EU’s own climate targets.

This scope is not a detail — that’s a broken market. And one that punishes companies trying to do the right thing.

In response the Green Claims Directive was introduced by the European Commission in 2023 to make environmental claims more reliable by:

• Defining clear, science-based criteria for green claims;
• Requiring independent, accredited verification;
• Harmonizing labelling rules across the EU.

Von der Leyen’s rollback

The third trilogue about the Green Claims Directive was scheduled for June 23rd to finalize the Directive after two years of work across EU-institutions. However, the European Council cancelled the session last minute, referring to the Commission’s plans to withdraw the Directive. The Commission had accommodated a request by the European People’s Party (EPP) announcing a general dissent. Mounting public pressure and anger in the European Parliament led to a dementi of the rollback. Perhaps the European Commission only wanted to draw public attention to an uncertain majority in the European Council. Both Poland and Italy pulling their support of the Directive. The Directive’s future is uncertain.

But pressure from the EPP is also high in Poland and Italy. What are the arguments in favor of dropping the Green Claims directive? A letter from the EPP to Commissioner Roswall focused on the usual suspects: bureaucracy and red tape. The EPP calls the impacts of the directive on companies as resulting in “procedures that are overly complex, administratively burdensome, and costly.” It also vaguely alludes to an alegedly insufficiently justified basis for the Directive by criticising its impact assessment. Notably, impact assessments were previously not an issue (and have been ignored) when they pointed toward the need for a law, as we have seen with the CSRD.

A wave or deregulation rolls over the Green Claims Directive

The Green Claims Directive might be the latest casualty in a broader rollback of any legislation that tries to encourage the transition to a more responsibly operating economy. To date the focus was primarily on reducing the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the EU Taxonomy to ashes.

The broader push for deregulation is said to be in favor of a more competitive economy, but this claim has been debunked. A study commissioned by the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs concluded that it is regulatory uncertainty and not regulation itself that is most burdensome to business. Als a survey of more than 1.000 firms by the #WeAreEurope collective signaled strong support for the CSRD.

Stay on course, don’t cave in

Our message to the European Commission is simple: grow a backbone and stay on course.

Withdrawing the Green Claims Directive would reward deception. It would punish companies that try to act responsibly. It would leave consumers — including EPP voters — misinformed and misled.

Nobody wants to be lied to. So let’s make truth in sustainability the law, not the exception.