Green Claims Directive Will Affect Only Those Making Claims Without Demonstrating Veracity

What steps is TIC Council taking to reduce this and across geographies? Can matters be synced? If not, then what are the stumbling blocks to this?
Hanane Taidi: As in every industry, our members observe obstacles when trying to offer their services worldwide. For example, there are situations in which they observe exporting companies having to comply with diverse compliance procedures or standards, often not even leading to different levels of safety or performance of products among the trading regions.

To address this, together with our members, we support the use of international voluntary standards to minimise the need for duplicate compliance processes. We also support global regulatory dialogue. Moreover, we are developing best practices, publishing white papers and holding awareness-raising activities, such as events, publications and webinars. We often do that together with the representatives of the other building blocks of the quality infrastructure ecosystem: standardisation, metrology, market surveillance and accreditation. All to ensure the quality infrastructure eco-system is understood and leveraged properly to avoid complexity and unnecessary red tape burden.

The Green Claims Directive promises to prevent misleading environmental claims and support consumers and sustainable businesses instead of companies that make false promises. What role is the TIC Council playing here?
Hanane Taidi: Greenwashing is real, and a problem that consumers face every day. The European Commission, in its impact assessment for the Green Claims Directive, explains that 53% of green claims in the European market give vague, misleading or unfounded information, 40% of claims have no supporting evidence and half of green labels offer weak or non-existent verification.

Greenwashing creates confusion in the marketplace, additional costs for consumers and negatively impacts the environment by assigning false claims to the recyclability or other criteria for choosing a product. Consumers are increasingly motivated by sustainability, and we risk alienating them.

TIC Council, as the representative of the TIC industry, firmly supports this Directive as a way to reduce greenwashing in the EU market and to increase consumers’ trust.

This Directive will not add any extra burden for those economic operators which already use a robust, science-backed approach to support the environmental claims they make since they are already working with third party conformity assessment organisations to have their claims validated or verified. The Directive will not have any impact on companies that choose not to make any environmental claims. They will simply follow their usual conformity assessment procedures for other product-related aspects, such as safety and energy consumption.

This Directive will only affect companies that were making green claims without demonstrating their veracity though independent certification as well as those companies that were placing misleading claims on their products.

Once this Directive is put in place, the TIC industry will be the best ally to consumers and companies implementing the Directive. Our industry has been verifying green claims already for decades, accredited under the most important international standards.

Then again, this Directive is for EU. How does this directly affect players in countries that export to the EU? Do you see EU laws being at loggerheads with some laws in some countries? In which areas do you see a potential conflict of interest?
Hanane Taidi: As is the case with the many Directives and Regulations with an impact on the EU single market, all countries seeking to place products on this market will have to comply with its rules. We expect the same with the Green Claims Directive. All traders, regardless of where they are located, who want to place a product with a claim on the EU market will have to follow the same procedure: third party verification of the claim.

This being said, the European Union is not alone in the fight against greenwashing. Many countries and regions are introducing their own pieces of legislation on green claims. There is rising global awareness that greenwashing is a burden for climate ambitions, and there is a global regulatory force to stop it. We are working closely with all regions to ensure the laws they introduce adhere to the best international standards, and that compulsory independent third-party verification is recognised as the only way for ensuring that the consumer is not misled.

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has expressed concern at the Green Claims Directive’s inclusion of a simplified verification procedure, introducing the possibility to grant a ‘presumption of conformity’ for certain claims in the future. What do you think should be done to make it fool proof?
Hanane Taidi: During the legislative procedure, market operators expressed concerns regarding the burdens which the verification of claims would impose on them. In response, the European Parliament introduced this simplified verification procedure that could lead to a presumption of conformity in some cases.

Presumption of conformity is exactly the thing that the European Commission wanted to avoid. It is already the current situation, in which companies can make a claim on the market without being properly checked.

We believe that the only way to make the Directive robust is to keep the compulsory role of third-party independent verification for all claims, regardless of the size of the company or the nature of the claim. This is the only way to significantly reduce the number of misleading claims on the market.

Third-party verification is not a big burden on companies. Conformity assessment, including the verification of green claims, is a process that requires expertise, time and financial resources, regardless if it is done in-house or by a third-party. In reality, many market operators use third-party verification services without being legally mandated. As mentioned earlier, this Directive will mostly affect the “business model” of market operators, who were placing products on the market with un-verified or false claims.

In fact the TIC Council has said that the EU Parliament has introduced some requirements that potentially will have negative effects on the Directive efficiency in fighting greenwashing. Could you elaborate on this?
Hanane Taidi: As mentioned already, this concerns the possibility of presumption of conformity, and other issues of concern from the European Parliament’s position – like the time limit for the verifier to perform their task, or another provision on a potential price limit for companies depending on their size.

Our sector performs testing, inspection, certification, verification and audit services that touch upon a large part of legislation in Europe and around the world. TIC companies have always demonstrated that they adapt their verification to the magnitude of the scope with a risk-based approach. The simpler the claim, the simpler the verification. This approach benefits both market operators and consumers.

Presumption of conformity, as explained before, goes against the whole spirit of the Directive.

A time limit for the verifier is a complex requirement to enforce. When does the clock start ticking? It is not unusual for the verifier to come back to the trader several times because documentation is missing, or a new in-site audit is required. It is not always the case that a verification is done under the time frame established by the Parliament, and they do not explain what would happen with the claim or the verifier if this time limit were not respected. The verifier’s priority is to perform a thorough verification so as not to compromise the expected outcome or the reputation of their organisation. While we understand the time pressure to enter a market with a new product, for the companies wishing to make any environmental claim to differentiate their product, they will surely value the robustness of the verification process that will earn them consumer trust.

When it comes to cost, we do not believe it is fair that our companies should charge different prices for the same services to SMEs as compared to big companies. The certification cost depends on the certification duration and on the claim complexity and not on the size of the company making the claim. Our sector is always adjusting its services to the size of the company and the complexity of the verification process.

Legislations are critical to protect the health and safety of consumers by curbing the proliferation of counterfeit goods. What role is the TIC Council playing here? Is there a need for it to go all the more aggressive considering that the menace of counterfeits is only going up?
Hanane Taidi: Counterfeit goods are a global problem. Consumers often imagine counterfeit luxury goods, but all sorts of goods, including baby products, contact lenses and even detergents, are counterfeited. Leaving aside the intellectual property damage, these goods are potentially dangerous because they are not subject to any conformity assessment, let alone third-party certification. Besides the brand logo, counterfeit products often bear fake certification marks, misleading consumers that their products have been independently tested.

In the case of clothes, this can have an effect on the product’s quality, but also its chemical safety, flammability and skin irritation.

TIC Council has been very active against counterfeit products. We have produced recommendations on how to outwit counterfeit, we have developed consumer awareness campaigns and we have joined relevant coalitions, such as the Shop Safe coalition in the US. We also joined last year the 16th International Law Enforcement Intellectual Property Crime Conference in Oslo, and we published an interesting discussion with Kirstine Pedersen, the Head of International IP Crime Investigators College at Interpol.

What do you think are the grey areas or vulnerable points when it comes to the aspect of Inspection in Tier-III factories and facilities?
Hanane Taidi: Intentionally breaching the contract requirements of a supplier is often an important problem that does not allow for proper supply chain due diligence.

To address this, we urge for the implementation of measures to deter fraudulent behaviour and unethical business practices. Purchasers should introduce into their orders conditions prescribing that tier-III suppliers accept unannounced audits from certification bodies. With this, the TIC industry will be able to better perform verification work in real manufacturing conditions.

Finally, brand owners have a key role to play by carefully selecting their value chain partners and providing the relevant support so that the small actors in the value chain can also adhere to international sustainability standards, without losing their shirt (no pun intended) in the process!