Europe Gets Closer to Outlawing Malaise of Greenwashing

Michiel Scheffer, consultant in sustainable textiles at Polisema BV,  points out that it is a Directive and would hence need to be transposed into national legislation, unlike a regulation that is immediately binding for Member States and economic operators. But then, Member States have no right to deviate from the content of the Directive.

Says Scheffer: "The Directive is part of a comprehensive legislative package, so the buck does not stop here—there is more to come. The Directive is an example of the Brussels regulatory power, while it also has a global impact. It demonstrates that the industry, especially in the Global South, is not yet well represented to take an intelligent and informed position. That should be food for thought for the industry that still has a too-fragmented governance."

He feels that the Directive should be welcomed as it will clarify an offer to consumers. "I hope that it will strengthen certificates or claims supported by research and monitoring. Hence, it might contribute to fewer and more authoritative claims. It might thus also lead to a global monitoring of progress towards a more sustainable textile value chain. I would strongly advise the industry to set out a roadmap of tangible steps, rather than pay out fines (penny wise, pound foolish)."

Agreeing with Scheffer that the Directive is a step in the right direction, Tobias Herzog, Managing Director at Tailorlux GmbH that offers integrity solutions, feels it will be the end of green-labelling but believes that the “real impact needs to be created now by national law.”

A lot of claims can simply be debunked through traceability. Holly Berger, Marketing Director of Switzerland-based traceability platform Haelixa weighs in: "The Directive is progress in the right direction—companies need to be held accountable for the claims that they are making about their products. One year ago, the work began, and this is the next step to instigate change. It will support further transparency into what is in a garment and force manufacturers and brands to have physical proof of their claims."

Francisca Sassetti, sustainability expert and senior consultant at Sedex Consulting, feels the proposed EU Directive goes a step further than the UK Green Claims Code. "It not only aims to regulate how voluntary environmental claims or environmental certification schemes are communicated on products and labels but also how claims are substantiated, such as what evidence businesses are using to justify claims. This shows the EU is listening to key stakeholders and protecting consumers from greenwashing at a time where sustainability plays a key role in consumer choices. It comes with effective enforcement through the creation of a verification scheme, penalties for non-compliant businesses, and access to justice for affected parties," she says.

The Changing Markets Foundation, which has been stridently campaigning against as also exposing greenwashing claims, described the proposal as a "bonfire of shoddy certification schemes (of which there are many). It contended: "The proposal will result in a significant reduction of misleading green claims and inadequate certification schemes on the EU market. We can expect the proliferation of bogus labels and certification schemes to come to an end and even be reversed."

As the CMF also pointed out, as of now there is no ban on generic climate claims, like "carbon neutral" and "climate positive", but climate claims made by companies will now have to be transparent about emissions reductions and offsetting. Offsets would need to be presented with robust methodologies that ensure integrity and transparency.

Nusa Urbancic, Campaigns Director at Changing Markets Foundation, is not too happy that the Commission stopped short of banning generic climate claims — a prevalent greenwashing tactic. "Our research showed that over half of dodgy climate claims in food rely on offsets of dubious quality, misleading consumers into believing they’re buying products with reduced emissions. The latest IPCC report showed that we must rapidly reduce emissions from all sectors, so it is a shame that the Green Claims Directive is not turbocharging real climate solutions by banning these false claims."  

Scheffer too lists out his reservations. "The system is only as strong as the compliance and control (that) will occur. It should be promoted that citizens/consumers can track and signal claims that do not comply with the Directive. My other reservation is that a fully sustainable industry cannot attained in a few years. Consumers will contend about products that partly comply with certificates, but partly do not. The industry, brands and retailers will need to educate the consumers on this."

Sassetti is concerned "that social aspects of sustainability such as fairtrade, safe working conditions, positive local community impacts, won’t be covered by this law as companies cannot claim a product is responsibly or sustainably made only on environmental grounds."

One tool that has generated considerable dissent as well as divergent views is the Product Environment Footprint (PEF), the initiative of the European Commission aimed at a harmonised EU-wide methodology for the calculation of the environmental footprint of products. So far, there is no harmony in the way experts or activists feel about the PEF—it has been excluded from the proposed Directive as the single-approach and definitive way to measuring and communicating impact.

"While the proposal is clear that any green claims must be science-based, use company specific data, and not overlook any environmental impacts, there is a risk that we will end up with an array of methodologies that will lead to a confusion of different ways to communicate claims. For this reason, Changing Markets is calling for any methodology to be used at the EU market to be pre-approved by the European Commission," a CMF statement said.

Of all things, the Commission cited PET bottles for clothing as a specific example of a misleading environmental claim. The CMF said, “The Directive stops short of an outright ban on claims made by fashion companies around the use of plastic bottles for clothing, despite the fact that this was promised in last year’s EU Textile Strategy. In a recent open letter, Changing Markets, alongside a coalition of NGO partners and industry associations, recently called for MEPs not to water down measures to prevent downcycling plastic bottles into clothing.”

All said and done, the next few months are likely to see a flurry of activities, as brands get wary of lobbing green claims left, right and centre at customers, especially given the manner in which certain brands have been pulled up over bogus claims in the recent past.