The European Commission has reportedly announced its intention to withdraw the proposal for a Green Claims Directive, citing the administrative burden its most recent draft would place upon ‘30 million’ micro-enterprises.
First proposed in March 2023, the Green Claims Directive sought to mandate ex-ante verification for voluntary environmental claims made by businesses to market their products.
The European Parliament adopted its first reading position on 12th March 2024, with the Council agreeing to its position on 17th June. Negotiations on the draft law’s final text commenced in the first trialogue on 28th January 2025 – but while the third trialogue was scheduled for 23rd June, the meeting was cancelled at the last minute.
Commission spokesperson Maciej Berestecki stated that the Directive in its amended form “goes against the simplification agenda”, since negotiations indicated that the micro-enterprises originally exempted from the Directive’s measures may be expected to comply in practice.
“We [the Commission] are not setting the next steps in the procedure of the co-decision,” she continued, “it is not up to us.
“We’ve made our position clear, and we will see what the position [is] of the Member States of the European Parliament in this regard.”
The development comes after the shadow rapporteurs of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) wrote to environment commissioner Jessika Roswall, stating that the EPP Group would not support any trialogue outcome.
“The EPP is supportive of rules on the internal market that address greenwashing and strengthen consumer confidence in environmental claims,” the letter reads. “We are convinced that the upcoming implementation of this Directive, and in particular its effective enforcement by member states, will play a crucial role in addressing greenwashing and empowering consumers to make informed, sustainable choices.
“Nevertheless, we hold the considered view that the GCD risks unduly hindering sustainability communication through procedures that are overly complex, administratively burdensome, and costly.”
It goes on to suggest that the Directive undermines the efforts of the Better Regulation Agenda, the Draghi Report, and the Competitiveness Compass to minimize administrative burden while driving evidence-based policymaking.
Following this, Poland backed out of a trialogue negotiation session; a spokesperson told Reuters that “we are hitting the pause button. There are too many doubts and we need clarity from the European Commission on its intentions – based on that we can decide on the next steps.”
Italy soon followed suit, with Politico citing a letter sent to the Polish Presidency of the Council of the EU that “Italy does not support the adoption of the proposal and supports a withdrawal of it by the Commission.”
Whether or not negotiations will continue remains unclear, Reuters reports. Yet Latham & Watkins explains that, according to case law of the European Court of Justice, “the Commission cannot just withdraw a legislative procedure without justification, if the Council and/or the Parliament have adopted a first-reading position, unless both institutions support the withdrawal.”
Politico adds that the “very unusual” event of the Commission withdrawing a legislative proposal “only happens if the co-legislators are not able to find a consensus, or if the Commission believes that compromise doesn’t respect the original idea of the law.” It adds that the withdrawal must still be approved by the College of Commissioners.
Reactions have been mixed. ClientEarth argues that the law’s withdrawal would be “highly unorthodox” and “go against the proper legislative process”.
“Only greenwashers would benefit from the removal of this legislation,” it argues. “Negotiators should be allowed an opportunity to reach an agreement […] and policymakers should not waste any more time or money by delaying further.”
Margaux Le Gallou, senior programme manager at ECOS, said on behalf of ECOS, Client Earth, Carbon Market Watch, and the EEB: “The Green Claims Directive should provide clarity for consumers and companies, but confusion is what the European Commission and some MEPs have served up instead.
“Policymakers must respect the legislative process, work with negotiators to find a solution, and unblock this crucial law. Every day without this directive inflicts more harm on EU citizens, the environment and the single market — with consumers and businesses adrift in a sea of greenwashing as policymakers argue about the lifeboat.”
Nevertheless, Latham & Watkins cautions against viewing the halted Directive as the end of anti-greenwashing policy at the EU level.
“With the Green Claims Directive Proposal still being subject to adoption, greenwashing investigations and litigation against companies have been brought based on the general consumer protection framework under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), as implemented in the Member States,” it explains.
“Moreover, the Green Transition Directive was adopted by the EU in February 2024 and will begin to apply from 27 September 2026. The Green Transition Directive further reinforces the anti-greenwashing consumer protection framework under the UCPD, and will introduce specific prohibitions regarding environmental claims, including regarding climate neutrality and net zero, or “eco-friendly” statements, unless substantiated with evidence.
“It further contains specific rules in relation to sustainability labels, their recognition by certification schemes, and third-party monitoring of future environmental performance claims.”
This development comes after ongoing criticism of the Directive throughout the negotiation process. An industry statement published in 2024 asserted that the draft text mandated pre-verification for too many claims and labels, resulting in a slow process that would prevent consumers from receiving important environmental guidance.
An additional statement cautioned that ‘one-size-fits-all’ rules could drive up costs and cause confusion, especially in a short adjustment period. Accusations began to emerge that the Directive went against the EU’s Competitive Compass, Political Guidelines, and regulatory frameworks related to hazardous substances.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2025
How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation in 2025
The key to increasing the use of reusable packaging in supermarkets
No comments yet