EUROPEN, FoodDrinkEurope, Cepi, and Cosmetics Europe are among the signatories of a joint statement encouraging EU policymakers to clarify the Green Claims Directive’s substantiation and verification requirements, loosen its transition period, and reconsider its rules on hazardous substances.
The Green Claims Directive aims to standardize criteria related to environmental claims, ensuring that businesses avoid greenwashing by making reliable statements about their products; in turn, this is set to empower consumers to make informed purchasing decisions and drive competitiveness.
In their joint statement, the signatories – which also include Brewers of Europe, spiritsEUROPE, the European Branded Clothing Association (EBCA), EDANA, Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (FESI), European Brands Association (AIM), the International Natural and Organic Cosmetic Association (NATRUE), the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products (A.I.S.E.), BusinessEurope, and Toy Industries of Europe (TIE) – support the Directive’s intention to level the playing field for businesses while providing consumers with accurate information.
“However,” the statement continues, “we need a proportionate and clear framework from its outset, levelling the playing field for all economic operators and safeguarding businesses’ competitiveness and incentive to invest, empowering both businesses and consumers in the green transition. This will also avoid short-term revisions to address inconsistencies, ambiguities or other unintended negative impacts of the Directive on businesses.”
The signatories assert that proportionality and legal predictability must be a ‘key priority’ in the substantiation and ex-ante verification requirements. In their view, providing ‘clear and relevant’ sustainability information will incentivize both innovation and investments.
Conversely, ‘unclear, impractical and costly’ rules could lead to ‘green hushing’, in which companies do not publicize their sustainability goals or ESG information, and mislead consumers.
In its current form, the Directive’s proposal is thought to contradict the European Commission’s Political Guidelines, as well as its recent Competitiveness Compass; the Draghi Report’s findings on the future of European Competitiveness; and ongoing discussions between the European Parliament and Council to simplify legislative framework application, relieve businesses of administrative burdens, and improve the EU economy’s competitiveness.
At the same time, the signatories believe that tackling the Directive’s ‘current imbalances and uncertainties’ will not impact the trust of markets or consumers, as existing EU rules are designed to prevent and penalize misleading environmental claims.
Taking a ‘one-size-fits-all’ stance on substantiation requirements is feared to result in disproportionate rules around environmental claims, including recyclability, recycled content percentage, and claiming to use renewable electricity during production.
The Commission apparently describes such claims as ‘straightforward’, but the joint statement argues that they require just as much time-consuming (but sometimes less expensive) substantiation as more complex claims like calculating a product’s carbon footprint.
Concerns are raised that the proposal lacks ‘predictability, harmonization and practicality’. It could give rise to inconsistent systems between each Member State and, due to the costs and delays associated with the verification process, prevent businesses form making any environmental claims – and, ultimately, restrict the amount of information consumers are given.
Furthermore, the signatories implore co-legislators to give businesses a ‘sufficient transition period’ to adjust to the new requirements, and to provide ‘full legal clarity and all relevant information’.
Products already on the market before the application date should receive special consideration, they suggest; any packaging that fails to live up to on-label claims may need to be destroyed to prevent market players from being fined, damaging their reputation, or generating waste.
On the other hand, the Directive’s rules around hazardous substances are described as ‘misplaced’, as they risk overlapping with or even compromising other EU legislation. For instance, automatically banning environmental claims on products containing hazardous substances is feared to overlap with REACH, RoHS, and other pre-existing regulatory frameworks.
These overlaps could lead products that comply with other laws to be excluded from Green Claims eligibility, with the signatories asserting that there is ‘no established correlation’ between products containing hazardous substances and misleading environmental claims.
As such, they argue that information already regulated in other EU measures should be clearly excluded. They assert that B2B communication should not be included in the Directive, nor should its measures overlap with the Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), or other EU measures that cover on-label claims and the documentation of packaging.
Additionally, the Directive’s proposed list of categories is thought to be ‘too broad to be effectively measured and controlled’ and ‘impossible to implement in practice’. The signatories call for full clarity on the Directive’s scope and legal hierarchy.
“As the EU Institutions start the interinstitutional negotiations, we urge policymakers to carefully assess and consider the amendments under discussion to introduce proportionality and streamline the proposal, aligning it with the objectives of administrative burden reduction, avoiding duplication of requirements and simplifying rules application,” the statement says.
“We stand ready to support EU policymakers in this phase of the legislative negotiations by sharing our expertise and exploring solutions to ensure a clear, predictable and practical framework for green claims, empowering both businesses and consumers in the green transition.”
Last summer, EUROPEN and Cepi were among the industry players calling for the Green Claims Directive to feature a “simplified procedure” for the verification of environmental claims that align with recognized methodologies or do not require a full life cycle assessment.
Since then, the European Commission has revealed its Competitive Compass, which seeks to strengthen the EU Single Market by bolstering innovation, manufacture, and the sale of technologies, services, and clean products – all in the joint pursuit of competitiveness and climate neutrality.
Similarly, its Clean Industrial Deal sets its sights on lower energy prices, lucrative decarbonization, and an increase in jobs. Some members of the packaging industry have commended its potential outcomes for European preference criteria, harmonized regulations, and recycling infrastructure; others have identified legal loopholes, fear that certain sectors could be prioritized when it comes to funding, and urge policymakers to remember the value of reuse in optimizing raw materials.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
Reuse vs. single use – which is better for the environment?
Sustainable Innovation Report 2025: Current trends and future priorities
What can the world learn from South Korea’s world-leading performance in plastics circularity?
No comments yet