EU Plans to Curb Greenwashing Too Good to Be True

The European Commission has just presented its proposal for the long-awaited Substantiating Green Claims Directive [1]. Environmental market leaders, and consumers wanting to buy sustainable products, are being actively undermined by the Commission's proposal.

After months of intense lobbying, what could have been legislation contributing to providing reliable environmental information to consumers was substantially watered down.

The new Directive fails to impose an EU-wide method to calculate the environmental impacts behind the omnipresent green claims on products. Instead, the proposed legislation opens the way for companies to cherry pick methodologies that show the most ‘promising’ marketing results. This means that environmental claims will simply not be comparable.

The proposal puts forward certain improvements to the status quo, but remains vague on how they will be implemented. For example, claims will need to be third-party verified prior to publication, while those relying on carbon offsets will need to report information on offsetting and actual greenhouse gas emissions separately. However, climate neutrality claims as such are not banned, even though they are a form of greenwashing, as revealed by a recent report from ECOS [2].

It is now up to the European Parliament and the Council to improve the proposal so that it is of value to consumers, companies producing sustainable products, and the environment. In order for claims to be robust and comparable, harmonised methodologies at the EU level will be crucial [3].

ECOS sees particular potential in the further development of the existing EU Product Environmental Footprint method [4], which could help ensure a common methodology for substantiating life cycle impacts. This should be done by a truly inclusive and transparent Consultation Forum on Green Claims, with active participation from civil society and member states.

Margaux Le Gallou, Programme Manager for Environmental Information and Assessment at ECOS – Environmental Coalition on Standards said: Tackling misleading green claims is crucial to ensure consumers get reliable information and are empowered to make sustainable choices. Sadly, without harmonised methodologies at the EU level, the new Directive will provide little clarity to consumers and business, and will only complicate the job of market surveillance authorities. Today, most green claims are too good to be true and the proposal is… far from the real (green) deal.

Note: Press releases are not edited / editorialised by the texfash.com desk. The only changes, if made, are the headlines and some cosmetic modifications in the body text to ensure consistency in the House Style.

References:
    1. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_1692
    2. More on carbon neutral claims and how to ensure new laws and standards do not rubberstamp greenwashing: https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ECOS-Report-Carbon-n…
    3. In its 2021 report ‘Too good to be true? A study of green claims on plastic products’, ECOS provides recommendations on how to best communicate on a number of environmental aspects, including recyclability, reusability or recycled content. Building on the UNEP Fundamental Principles for providing product sustainability information, ECOS wants to see policymakers and standardisers eliminate loose definitions, ensure that the circular hierarchy is respected, assess characteristics based on real-life conditions using robust accounting and verification methods, and ensure evaluation and transparency of claims.
    4. PEF is the European method to measure the environmental impacts of products throughout their whole lifetime. It covers 16 categories of impacts: climate change, ozone depletion, human toxicity (cancer and noncancer), particulate matter, ionising radiation (human health), photochemical ozone formation (human health), acidification, eutrophication (terrestrial, freshwater and marine), ecotoxicity (fresh water), land use, water use, resource use (minerals and metals) and resource use (fossils).
 
 
  • Dated posted: 24 March 2023
  • Last modified: 24 March 2023