The Green Claims Directive was meant to establish common requirements for companies making voluntary environmental claims regarding their products and services. The idea was to help consumers separate credible sustainability information from marketing that overstated or misrepresented environmental benefits. The proposed framework would have required companies to back up their environmental claims with scientific proof and get independent verification. The proposal also aimed at tackling the growing number of private environmental labels, with regulations designed to improve their reliability, transparency, and regular assessment. The new environmental labelling methods would have been constrained by additional requirements relating to EU-level development and a proven environmental ambition. The directive was part of a wider package of European initiatives on consumer protection, sustainable products and the circular economy. These included the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, which provides a framework to improve the environmental sustainability of products, and the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, which addresses deceptive marketing on sustainability. Altogether, these measures represented the broader goal of the EU to make sustainability information more trustworthy and enable consumers to make informed decisions.
Despite its intended objectives, the Green Claims Directive met increasing political resistance over its potential impact on businesses. In June 2025, negotiations had largely stalled after the main party grouping in the European parliament, the European People’s Party (EPP), called on the Commission to rethink and eventually withdraw the proposal. The group argued that the proposed requirements could lead to unnecessary complexity and administrative burdens for companies, especially smaller ones, at a time when the EU was trying to make regulatory compliance simpler. The issue of microenterprises was very much discussed. While the Commission had initially argued that withdrawal could be considered if these businesses were not exempted, this was challenged by commentators who pointed out that negotiators had already discussed excluding microenterprises from the scope of the regulation. The plan also had faced hurdles in moving through the EU parliamentary process. In June 2024, the Council failed to agree to a negotiating mandate, and in 2025, there were no efforts to move the talks further. In its 2027 work programme, the Commission announced the withdrawal, stating that the proposal has been stalled with the co-legislators for more than three years and is unlikely to get enough support in the Council within a reasonable timeframe. The decision thus indicates not only concerns about the burden of regulation, but also concerns about the difficulty in reaching a political consensus on how to regulate environmental claims.
No. The withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive does not eliminate existing consumer-protection requirements or allow businesses to make environmental claims without restrictions. A key difference is that the Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (Directive (EU) 2024/825), a separate piece of legislation addressing misleading commercial practices and sustainability-related marketing. The provisions will apply from 27 September 2026 and will enhance consumer protection against certain practices, including unsupported generic environmental claims and misleading sustainability labels. Other applicable EU consumer-protection rules also continue to apply. The two directives had different purposes. The proposed Green Claims Directive will lay down specific requirements for substantiating and verifying voluntary environmental claims, while the proposed Empowering Consumers Directive will strengthen existing consumer protection rules on misleading practices. For businesses, this is an important distinction. The proposed verification framework will not go ahead as originally envisaged, but environmental statements must still comply with applicable law.
The withdrawal changes the regulatory landscape, but it does not eliminate the commercial and reputational risks of greenwashing. Businesses must continue to consider how they measure, communicate, and support their environmental performance.
Broad claims like “eco-friendly”, “green” or “sustainable” can give a misleading impressions when what they mean is unclear or the evidence behind them is insufficient. Businesses should review the use of such terms on websites, product packaging, marketing materials, and sustainability reports.
Environmental communication is only as good as the information on which it is based. Documented methodologies, consistent emissions measurement, and clear performance indicators help companies understand their impacts and support defensible claims.
Companies that use third-party certifications or environmental labels should know what each label means, what it measures, and the evidence behind it. The proposed directive is not the only way to ensure credibility for all sustainability labels.
A company’s environmental footprint can go far beyond its own operations. Supplier emissions, sourcing practices, materials and production processes can all impact the accuracy of broader sustainability statements. More supply-chain visibility helps companies spot the gaps and avoid making claims that overstate their environmental performance.
With the evolution of sustainability policies, companies operating in European markets may encounter changing requirements. Instead of focusing on one proposed regulation, businesses can take advantage of strong internal processes that support accurate reporting, consistent evidence, and responsible communication.
This regulatory development should be seen by businesses as an opportunity to improve their sustainability practices, rather than just a change in compliance requirements.
𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬: Look for vague, overly broad, or insufficiently supported statements, and modify where necessary.
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Establish standard procedures for collecting environmental data and documenting the assumptions, methods, and evidence used to support reported results.
𝐈𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Ensure that claims on labels are correct in accordance with relevant certification criteria and scope.
𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Collect relevant information from the value chain to better understand environmental impacts.
𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞: Make sure public commitments and marketing statements are based on measurable progress and have clear explanations of their scope and limitations.
These measures can help companies reduce their vulnerability to greenwashing, improve the quality of sustainability information, and build greater trust with customers and other stakeholders.
The positive alliance of technological, economic, and social factors will be extremely expedient to speed up the evolution from the linear model to the circular model of consumption.
