The EU is preparing to withdraw its Green Claims Directive, leaving brands without a shared standard for proving environmental claims as other rules take effect.
The EU’s planned Green Claims Directive is heading toward withdrawal, leaving companies without the common evidentiary standard its supporters said was needed to substantiate environmental marketing. The change puts more weight on existing rules and on brands’ own decisions about how to support claims.
A proposal stalled by political resistance
The European Commission’s 2027 work program, published Wednesday, places the directive on a list of pending proposals set for withdrawal within six months. The Commission said the Council of the EU presidency did not advance discussions in 2025 and that the measure was unlikely to win Council support within a “reasonable timeframe.”
The proposal had already been paused since June, when the Commission pulled it from consideration shortly before a vote, citing concerns about its impact on microenterprises. The European People’s Party, the largest group in the European Parliament, had also said it would not support the text in trilogue negotiations, describing it as too complex and burdensome, with unclear benefits.
The directive would have required companies to substantiate environmental claims with life-cycle assessments and clear data. Before using those claims on products or in advertising, businesses would have needed approval and certification from independent, accredited verifiers. Proposed penalties included fines of at least 4 percent of annual turnover, confiscation of revenue and exclusion from public procurement.
Evidence gaps remain
The Commission’s research had pointed to a widespread verification problem: more than 230 sustainability labels were in use, and half had weak or no verification. A market study it commissioned found that 53 percent of green claims on products sold in Europe were vague, misleading or unfounded; 40 percent lacked supporting evidence altogether.
Nusa Urbancic, CEO of the Changing Markets Foundation, called the withdrawal “yet another EU retreat from the Green Deal.” She said the directive would have helped consumers assess product sustainability, while its removal shifts the task of checking claims onto shoppers.
The decision does not undo the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, or EmpCo, which entered into law in September. The two measures were designed to work together: EmpCo restricts claims such as “green” and “eco-friendly,” as well as carbon-neutral claims based solely on offsets. The Green Claims Directive would have set out how specific environmental assertions should be evidenced.
That missing shared standard is the practical concern for brands. Marwa Zamaray, executive director at sustainability consultancy Eco-Age, said EmpCo bans vague claims, and enforcement actions from the U.K. to Italy show that regulators are acting against overstatement. But, she said, there is no common test for proof; brands may face different judgments after claims reach the market.
Brands still face pressure to substantiate claims
Zamaray agreed that the draft had become too complicated, but argued that complexity called for a better-designed law. She linked its withdrawal to the EU’s wider sustainability rollback, including the omnibus simplification package, which critics said weakened corporate supply-chain due diligence requirements.
“That uncertainty has a cost,” Zamaray said. “Honest brands risk going quiet, vague ones take their chances, and investment in traceability gets harder to justify in the boardroom.”
Urbancic countered that the directive would have applied only to companies choosing to make environmental claims. “If a company is genuinely green, backing that up should be no obstacle,” she said, asking how consumers could otherwise distinguish greenwashing from genuine environmental action.
Zamaray urged companies not to treat the proposal’s collapse as permission to ease their standards. “Don’t mistake a missing law for a green light,” she said. “Shoppers didn’t stop caring about greenwashing because Brussels did.” For brands, the immediate task is to keep evidence behind environmental claims: EmpCo limits what they can say, while the shared proof standard the withdrawn directive promised remains unresolved.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.