Backtracking on green claims? the EU’s fight against greenwashing at a crossroads
Ana Carcau (master’s student in European Union Law at the School of Law of University of Minho)
In March 2023, the European Commission presented the long-awaited proposal for a Green Claims Directive,[1] a legislative initiative designed to bring transparency and credibility to environmental claims made by companies across the European Union (EU). By targeting misleading environmental claims and demanding clear, science-based substantiation, the proposal aimed to restore consumer trust and ensure that the growing market for sustainable products was based on truth rather than illusion.[2] In short, it was widely seen as a cornerstone of the European Green Deal,[3] designed not only to inform but to empower consumers, protect genuinely sustainable companies and create a level playing field across the Single Market.[4]
However, recent reports suggest that the proposal now faces political and institutional limbo. On the 20th of June, reports emerged that the Commission was considering formally withdrawing the proposal, citing concerns over the potential regulatory burden on microenterprises, which number around 30 million across the EU. Although no formal withdrawal has occurred, the Commission confirmed that such a step remains on the table if Member States and the Parliament cannot agree on a carve-out for these businesses. Negotiations between co-legislators were suspended just before a crucial trilogue meeting scheduled for the 23rd of June, following growing resistance from several national governments and the center-right European People’s Party. With Italy retracting its support and no compromise in sight, the Polish Presidency of the Council has now effectively paused the legislative process indefinitely.[5]
Amid legislative gridlock and concerns about administrative burden, this retreat, or threat thereof, raises serious concerns about the EU’s regulatory resolve in the face of industry lobbying, political fatigue and an evolving institutional landscape. If the proposed Green Claims Directive is ultimately withdrawn, it will mark a significant step backwards in the EU’s fight against deceptive green marketing and could send a troubling signal about the fragility of the EU’s green legislative momentum at a time when it should be accelerating.[6]
The implications of such a withdrawal are far from trivial. Without binding EU-wide rules on the substantiation of green claims, consumers remain exposed to vague and unverifiable environmental messages, with little ability to assess whether a product is truly sustainable. Sustainable businesses, often bearing higher compliance and production costs, could continue to lose competitive ground to less responsible players who simply advertise better. The credibility of the Green Deal itself could erode, especially if citizens feel deceived or disillusioned by repeated corporate greenwashing scandals. In short, backtracking on this proposal risks undermining the very foundations of ecological transition: transparency, fairness and credibility.
It is worth recalling that greenwashing is not merely a reputational issue, it is a systemic obstacle to sustainable transformation that distorts competition and obscures accountability. When companies present themselves as environmentally friendly without real action to support those claims, they mislead consumers and undermine the credibility of climate policy.[7] The proposed Green Claims Directive sought to address these problems by introducing strict requirements for any explicit environmental claim. Under the draft rules, companies would be required to provide scientific evidence, clarify the scope of their claims and regularly update the information provided.[8] Comparative claims, such as “more sustainable than X”, would face additional scrutiny to prevent misleading framing,[9] and national authorities would be empowered to monitor and sanction misleading practices.[10]
While the proposed Green Claims Directive would introduce specific and enforceable requirements to control misleading environmental messaging, it must be understood in the context of a broader regulatory architecture aimed at promoting corporate accountability and consumer protection. Some have argued that recent developments, particularly Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition,[11] already address greenwashing by amending the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to include vague or unsubstantiated environmental claims as potentially deceptive.[12] However, while these general rules mark a welcome shift, they remain too abstract and limited to fully address the complexity and systematic impact of greenwashing and modern green marketing.
The broader concern is not simply about false claims, but about safeguarding the principles that ensure accountability, equity and effectiveness in EU climate governance. Among these principles is the polluter pays principle, represented in article 191(2) of the TFEU, which requires that those responsible for pollution bear the full cost of preventing and remedying environmental harm. This principle is designed to internalise environmental externalities and avoid the socialisation of ecological costs, a logic that is both preventive and redistributive. Greenwashing disrupts this logic by enabling companies to profit from a sustainable image without making substantive changes to their practices. As a result, responsibility for environmental degradation is often displaced onto consumers, more responsible competitors or the public sector, undermining both environmental effectiveness and economic fairness.[13]
In this context, the 2024 Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/1760)[14] represents a key complementary instrument. It obliges large companies to identify, prevent, mitigate and remedy adverse environmental and human rights impacts not only within their operations, but across their entire value chains.[15] It also requires them to adopt credible transition plans towards climate neutrality by 2050.[16] Although it is not explicitly aimed at greenwashing, this directive operationalises the polluter pays principle by increasing transparency, accountability and traceability in corporate conduct. It reduces the space for misleading claims by demanding that companies act on, rather than merely advertise, their sustainability goals.[17]
Together, these measures (the consumer-facing rules of the 2024/825 Directive, the corporate obligations under the 2024/1760 Directive and the targeted substantiation regime of the proposed Green Claims Directive) reflect a layered regulatory approach. Yet even when combined, they are not redundant, on the contrary, they are mutually reinforcing. The absence of the Green Claims instrument would leave a critical gap: the lack of precise rules specifically focused on the substantiation and communication of environmental claims applicable across sectors and Member States. In an environment where climate credibility is increasingly tied to institutional trust, a coherent and comprehensive legal framework is not just desirable, it is essential.
But legal frameworks alone are not enough. They must be matched by a social and market reality in which consumers can trust what they read and act accordingly. This is especially important given the central role of green consumerism in driving demand for sustainable products. In an era where environmental information influences purchasing behaviour, the integrity of environmental information becomes not just a technical issue, but a matter of democratic legitimacy.[18] Green consumerism is one of the key drivers of ecological transition and without clear, enforceable standards, greenwashing will continue to flourish. This creates not only economic, but also democratic harm: if citizens repeatedly discover that green promises are hollow, public support for climate action may falter. The success of the European Green Deal depends not just on ambitious targets, but on belief in institutions, in regulation and in the possibility of meaningful change.
Rather than abandoning the proposal, the EU should refine and defend it. Concerns over excessive burden on SMEs are legitimate, but they are not insuperable, since the proposal already provided exemptions and support mechanisms.[19] What is needed now is not retreat, but political courage and legislative clarity. A diluted or abandoned response will not only fail to protect consumers and address the structural risks of greenwashing but also weaken the EU’s position as a global leader in climate governance. Trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild, and the EU’s ambition to shape global standards depends on strength and the integrity of its own regulatory framework.
At a time when climate misinformation is on the rise and greenwashing is becoming increasingly sophisticated, clear rules and enforcement are not bureaucratic luxuries, they are prerequisites for effective climate action. Withdrawing the Green Claims proposal may be politically expedient, but it would be legally short-sighted and environmentally costly. Let us hope this is not a quiet surrender to pressure, but a pause for recalibration, one that leads to a stronger, more balanced directive. If not, the withdrawal will mark not just a missed opportunity to turn green ambition into enforceable change, but a deeper erosion of credibility, at a time when the ecological transition depends more than ever on institutional trust.
Unfortunately, this episode is not isolated. Just days after the cancellation of the Green Claims proposal trilogue, the Commission unveiled legislation setting a target to reduce the EU’s carbon footprint by up to 90% by 2040, a softer goal than initially planned. This recalibration has been widely seen as a shift aimed at responding to growing political pressure.[20] Whether taken individually or together, these shifts illustrate a broader pattern of hesitation that risks compromising the EU’s leadership on climate policy. That being said, delivering the green transition will require more than ambition: it will require consistency, regulation and political will.
[1] Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive), COM/2023/166 final.
[2] Recital (1) to (4) of Proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
[3] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – The European Green Deal, COM/2019/640 final.
[4] Recital (6) of Proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
[5] European Newsroom, “New greenwashing rules hit wall in Brussels power struggle”, available at: https://europeannewsroom.com/new-greenwashing-rules-hit-wall-in-brussels-power-struggle/, accessed 2 July 2025.
[6] The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, “Withdrawal would show Commission pandering to industry lobbying & EPP posturing”, available at: https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/withdrawal-would-show-commission-pandering-to-industry-lobbying-epp-posturing, accessed 3 July of 2025.
[7] Capgemini, “Social Intelligence for Climate Action – Uncovering the key challenges and lever to drive change”, Report, June 2023, 15-16, available at: https://prod.ucwe.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Bloom-sustainability-report.pdf.
[8] Article 3, 5 and 9 of Proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
[9] Article 4 and 6 of Proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
[10] Article 13 to 15 and 17 of Proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
[11] Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information.
[12] Article 1, (2), (a) and (b) of Directive 2024/825.
[13] For more information, see European Court of Auditors, “Special Report – The Polluter Pays Principle: Inconsistent application across EU Environmental policies and actions”, available at: https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR21_12/SR_polluter_pays_principle_EN.pdf
[14] Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859.
[15] Article 1, (1), (a) of Directive 2024/1760.
[16] Article 22, (1) of Directive 2024/1760.
[17] Recital (73) of Directive 2024/1760.
[18] Inês Pena Barros, «Um novo conceito de “Empresa Sustentável”: uma análise à problemática do Greenwashing no contexto europeu», Debater a Europa no. 23 (2020): 71-72, https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-6336_23_4.
[19] Article 12 of Proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
[20] Zia Weise and Louise Guillot, “Brussels proposes softened 90 percent 2040 climate target”, Politico, 2 July 2025, available at: https://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-proposes-softened-90-percent-2040-climate-target/, accessed 8 July 2025.
Picture credit: by Pixabay on pexels.com.
Author: UNIO-EU Law Journal (Source: https://officialblogofunio.com/2025/07/22/editorial-of-july-2025/)
