Earlier this week, the European Commission delivered a surprising announcement: it intends to withdraw its proposal for a Green Claims Directive.
The move effectively pauses the EU’s most ambitious attempt so far to regulate “eco-friendly” marketing claims — at least formally. That decision has already triggered heated debate among consumer groups, industry stakeholders and environmental advocates about whether the shift represents retreat, recalibration or exhaustion of the political will.
The original directive — tabled in March 2023 — sought to impose stricter rules on how companies substantiate environmental claims about their products and services. Under that framework, firms making complex or voluntary “green” marketing statements would have been required to submit detailed evidence and undergo independent verification before using such claims.
The idea was to confront misleading marketing — the practice known as “greenwashing” — by subjecting claims to rigorous review. According to EU data, many existing green labels and environmental pledges are either vague or unsupported by firm data.
By 2024, both the European Parliament and the Council had adopted first-reading positions on this draft law. Negotiations had already commenced, and trilogue talks were expected to conclude in June 2025. But with the Commission now signalling its withdrawal, the trilogue initially scheduled for 23 June has been cancelled.
What Went Wrong — and Why?
At the heart of the shift is mounting political resistance and practical pushback. Some lawmakers, especially in the European People’s Party (EPP), argued that the proposal’s requirements — notably the “ex-ante verification” of claims — threatened to burden businesses with excessive red tape. In a letter to the Commissioner responsible for Environment and Circular Economy, they warned that the verification regime would become overly complex, costly, and ultimately counterproductive.
For companies, requiring third-party validation before making any green claim would introduce delays, uncertainty, and increased compliance costs. For smaller firms, especially in sectors like textiles, cosmetics or consumer goods, that burden could be crippling. The opposition was not to environmental integrity per se, but to the mechanism of legal enforcement as proposed.
Complicating matters is the broader EU agenda of deregulation and administrative simplification. The “Omnibus” proposals currently floating through Brussels aim to cut red tape and streamline sustainability obligations. In that climate, the Green Claims Directive may have looked like a counterweight — ambitious on paper, but politically awkward in implementation.
At the same time, supporters of the law warn that its withdrawal could undermine consumer trust in sustainability efforts. Without robust safeguards, greenwashing may flourish with less oversight. The EU already relies on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the newer Green Transition Directive (effective from 2026) to police claims. But critics argue those frameworks lack the teeth and clarity that the Green Claims Directive would have offered.
What Remains and What Loses
It is important to stress that the withdrawal is procedural rather than literal. The Commission has not yet formally abandoned its goals of ensuring truthful environmental marketing. The Green Transition Directive — adopted in February 2024 — will remain in force and continues to set rules about disclosure and substantiation of sustainability claims.
Moreover, EU legislation on circular economy, ecodesign, and product durability are still moving ahead. Policies aimed at improving recyclability, repairability, and life-cycle transparency are unaffected by this withdrawal.
Still, the optics are damaging. Environmental NGOs see this as a retreat at a time when urgency is mounting over climate change and biodiversity loss. If the EU is seen to be softening its stance on corporate environmental accountability, that may embolden brands to push the envelope further. Consumer groups warn that citizens will lose clarity: without predictable criteria, “green” labels risk becoming indistinguishable from marketing fluff.
A Need for Rebalancing — Not Abandonment
One interpretation is that the Commission is stepping back to recalibrate. The initial drafting may have underestimated the legal, administrative, and political complexity that binding, preemptive verification implies. In practice, harmonising dozens of national schemes, scientific methodologies, and consumer markets is a monumental task.
If Brussels now chooses to circle back with a lighter, more flexible approach — one that complements rather than replaces existing rules — that might preserve momentum while reducing legal risk. But the balance is delicate: stripped of enough rigor, the directive could be toothless; too ambitious, and it courts the same backlash anew.
Implications and Next Steps
The coming weeks will matter. Will the Commission formally abandon the proposal, or reintroduce a revised version? How will the European Parliament and national governments react? Already rapporteurs in the Parliament have affirmed their willingness to resume negotiations if the Commission is ready.
For industry, the announcement offers breathing space. Companies now face uncertainty, not obligations. But that window may be brief: consumers, civil society and markets are increasingly intolerant of greenwashing. Transparent, credible sustainability claims remain a competitive necessity, not just compliance.
For citizens, the question is trust. If “eco-labels” continue proliferating without clarity, public confidence in sustainable consumption will erode. EU institutions must act — not by retreating from ambition, but by recalibrating strategy to combine rigor with realism.
In sum, the withdrawal signals a reset, not a reversal. But if the Commission fails to reassert clear, enforceable standards in the near term, the green rhetoric risks becoming another casualty of political caution.
