Environmental Claims Under Review
In March 2023, the European Commission introduced the Green Claims Directive (GCD), a legislative proposal intended to prevent greenwashing in corporate advertising. Among other measures, the proposal prohibited the use of unofficial sustainability labels and banned the use of terms like “eco”, “green” and “carbon neutral” unless supported by verifiable evidence. The directive also strengthened consumers' right to transparent information regarding product durability and reparability: a new label was introduced for products with extended warranties, and clear disclosure of the legal minimum two-year warranty period became mandatory. To fight against planned obsolescence, encourage sustainable purchasing behaviors, and move towards a circular economy, advertising products that appeared to have a long service life (or to be repairable) were not penalized.
However, on June 20, 2025, following months of escalating political opposition and business concerns, the European Commission officially withdrew the GCD proposal. This decision marked a major step back from its environmental regulatory agenda, as the GCD was created in response to widespread greenwashing. According to EU research, over half of environmental claims in the market were unsubstantiated, with 40% lacking any evidence at all. Under the proposed directive, companies would have been required to back up environmental claims and would have also been subject to third-party verification before entering the market.
Although the European Parliament adopted a revised version of the directive in early 2024, political resistance intensified, particularly from the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group in Parliament. In a formal letter on June 19, 2025, leading EPP MEPs Arba Kokalari and Danuše Nerudová called on Environment Commissioner, Jessika Roswall, to withdraw the proposal entirely. The EPP argued that the proposed version was too complex, expensive, and lacked the impact evaluations needed to prove its effectiveness. The party also argued that the proposal lacked comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and failed to justify any potential impact on businesses. The requirement for pre-market approval of environmental claims was an unprecedented step in the internal market, especially for small and medium-sized businesses.
Political Consensus Collapses
Following the EPP’s letter, national governments began withdrawing their support. Poland, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council, canceled a scheduled trilogue negotiation session, stating that it awaited clarification on the Commission’s position. Days later, Italy formally backed away from the directive, effectively sealing its fate by blocking the possibility of reaching a qualified majority in the Council. With both the Parliament and the Council turning against the proposal, the Commission had no path forward. On June 20, a Commission spokesperson confirmed that the GCD would be withdrawn, framing the decision as part of the EU’s “simplicity agenda” aimed at reducing unnecessary regulation. The Commission explained that extending the directive to all 30 million microenterprises across the EU would conflict with its goals to ease the administrative burden on small businesses. It was one of the rare occasions the Commission publicly backed away from a core piece of environmental legislation.
The move triggered mixed reactions across the political spectrum. Supporters of the withdrawal, including the EPP and several industry associations, argued that the GCD had grown too complex and burdensome, threatening to stifle innovation and harm business competitiveness. They emphasized that existing consumer protection laws already prohibit misleading environmental claims and that adding new mandatory pre-verification layers would be redundant. Conversely environmental advocates and progressive policymakers strongly criticized the decision. Former EU Environment Commissioner and current MEP Virginijus Sinkevičius warned that the withdrawal undermines responsible companies that have already invested in verifying their sustainability practices. Others also cautioned that the EU’s credibility on climate leadership and consumer protection is now at stake, as the absence of binding verification rules leaves the door open for continued greenwashing.
Uncertain Future for Greenwashing Oversight
Although the GCD has been withdrawn, other laws remain in place to address some aspects of green marketing. The Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, adopted earlier, prohibits vague or offset-based claims like carbon neutral, unless clearly explained. However, this legislation does not include the kind of scientific verification requirements that the GCD proposed. The Directive would also have formally set in the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology into EU law, providing a standardized way to calculate and compare environmental impacts across products. While the PEF will continue to be used in frameworks like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), its exclusion from binding green marketing rules weakens its overall impact.
The Commission’s withdrawal of the GCD highlights a deeper challenge within the EU: how to balance ambitious climate and consumer policies with economic concerns and political fragmentation. As Europe prepares for a new parliamentary cycle, questions remain about whether similar legislation could return in a revised form, or whether market-based environmental claims will remain largely unregulated, risking further consumer mistrust and corporate greenwashing.