Latest news with #GreenClaimsDirective
Euractiv
5 days ago
- Politics
- Euractiv
The trouble with trilogues – when things start falling apart
The palaver last weekend after the European Commission's press service revealed that it intended to withdraw at the last minute an anti-greenwashing bill has reignited a debate about the integrity of the EU legislative process. The problem is rooted in the fact that the European Commission – often referred to as the executive arm of the EU and tasked with ensuring implementation of, and compliance with, European law – also has sole prerogative for proposing new laws. The two bodies that complete the holy trinity of EU government – the directly elected European Parliament and the Council of Ministers – do not enjoy that right. They can (and in resolutions and summit conclusions, frequently do) 'call on' the Commission to propose a law. But the Berlaymont is not obliged to comply. So the main arena where the two legislative bodies get to put their stamp on EU law is in back-room negotiations between MEPs and diplomats, with the Commission acting as umpire or 'honest broker' – hence the Brussels neologism 'trilogue talks'. Playing the game As countries like Russia or, closer to home, Hungary have shown us, democracy is not merely a matter of having the right institutions in place, a written constitution (the EU has to make do with its treaties, after efforts to forge a European basic law collapsed in 2004) and an election win. Democracy also requires that politicians observe democratic customs and norms. Put simply, that they play the game. The trilogue process does not even have the benefit of being codified in law. It is a custom that has arisen because the alternative – endless readings and re-readings of bills conducted at least partly in public – would probably drag on for years before hitting a brick wall. Lately, several governments haven't quite been playing the game. Germany – egged on by the now moribund liberal FDP, a junior coalition party at the time – reneged in 2023 on a trilogue agreement to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars by 2035, until the Commission served up a plate of face-saving fudge. Viktor Orbán's Hungary pulled a similar stunt last year when, after realising it carried the casting vote, it flipped on an agreed Nature Restoration Law. A 'disgrace', cried Ireland's environment minister Eamon Ryan. It only made it into the Official Journal after Austria got off the fence. Now, with a deforestation regulation postponed before even taking effect, many fear the nature law is in the Commission's sights as it presses on with the 'simplification' Green Deal legislation. Ireland had warned that 'backtracking on agreed negotiations and compromises would jeopardise Europe's democratic institutions and call into question the entire EU policy-making and decision-making processes'. Now the denizens of the Berlaymont have been accused of not playing the game – by pre-empting the outcome of a final trilogue session and threatening to withdraw a Green Claims Directive that it feared was not shaping up as it wanted (that is, exempting the vast majority of EU firms). 'Abuse of power' 'This is a clear case of the Commission abusing its power in a partisan way against European citizens' best interests,' parliamentary rapporteur Tiemo Wölken said, pointing the finger at President von der Leyen, her Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, and their political family the European People's Party (EPP). After the Commission's unexpected intervention, Italy withdrew its support and the EU Council could no longer support the bill in its current form. With the EPP and right-wing allies having already threatened to reject any trilogue deal in parliament, it was effectively dead in the water anyway. A meeting of EU diplomats on Wednesday saw several countries raise doubts about trust and the credibility of the legislative process while some pointed to an increasing tendency of the EU executive to try and bury files, according a source close to the meeting. It remains to be seen whether the incoming Danish presidency of the Council of the EU can salvage something from this mess, but in some ways the damage is already done. For its part, the Commission has reiterated since Friday that it reserves the 'right of initiative' – to propose or withdraw legislation at will. Spokespeople have papered over the inconvenient fact that the EU Court of Justice ruled a decade ago that the right of initiative does not amount to a right of veto. Whether the European Commission's belated justification for its 'intention' to withdraw – that the legislation was incompatible with a deregulatory 'simplification' agenda that had not yet been dreamt up when the bill was tabled in 2023 – would have stood up in court, we will probably never know. But if the rules of the game have been changed, it's time somebody told us.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
EU green claims law shelved amid political backlash
The European Commission has announced its intention to withdraw the Green Claims Directive proposal, a key element of the EU's efforts to regulate greenwashing. The move follows pressure from the European People's Party (EPP), which deemed the draft law too complex and burdensome, especially for small companies. Negotiations have been paused and the final trilogue session cancelled ahead of the planned meeting on 23 June 2025. The EPP, the largest group in the European Parliament, raised concerns in a letter dated 18 June 2025. Shadow rapporteurs warned that mandatory third‑party verification for environmental claims—known as 'ex‑ante' checks—could hamper companies' competitiveness and add excessive administrative cost. The Commission echoed this reasoning, highlighting that extending the scope to around 30 million micro‑enterprises would undermine its simplification agenda. The trilogue scheduled for 23 June 2025 was called off by the Council in response to the Commission's announcement. Though the Commission has yet to provide a formal justification, EU law requires both Parliament and Council support before a fully adopted draft law can be withdrawn. Rapporteurs Sandro Gozi and Tiemo Wölken have said they remain ready to resume talks if the disputed amendment affecting micro‑businesses is dropped. Despite headlines suggesting the EU is scrapping its anti‑greenwashing efforts, existing rules remain in place. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive continues to support enforcement against misleading environmental claims. Furthermore, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, adopted in February 2024, is unaffected by the withdrawal. It will take effect on 27 September 2026 and explicitly prohibits vague or unsupported eco‑claims. Other related regulations such as the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the Right to Repair Directive also continue to operate. Environmental NGOs including ECOS, ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau have criticised the decision and urged policymakers to respect EU legislative procedures. They highlighted that up to 76 % of products in the EU carry explicit or implicit green claims, with over half being misleading. The Commission has left open the possibility of reconsidering the directive if the Council retracts the micro‑enterprises amendment. As the ESG policy landscape evolves, stakeholders will be watching whether the EU moves forward with a revised Green Claims Directive or strengthens its existing frameworks. "EU green claims law shelved amid political backlash" was originally created and published by Packaging Gateway, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site. Sign in to access your portfolio
Fashion United
24-06-2025
- Business
- Fashion United
Uncertainty over anti-greenwashing law: organisations respond
Uncertainty arose surrounding the proposed Green Claims Directive. In recent days, confusion emerged as to whether the European Commission's anti-greenwashing legislation would proceed. Several organisations responded, issuing calls for clarity and prompt action. European textile organisation, Euratex, responded: 'Euratex welcomed the Commission's commitment to reducing regulatory burdens, particularly for smaller businesses. At the same time, our companies need a stable and predictable framework at the EU level. Friday's announcement on the Green Claims Directive created uncertainty; we ask for a quick and clear indication of the next steps.' The organisation emphasised the need for a clear and stable path forward. 'There is no room for improvisation when it comes to regulation and compliance.' In a letter, the BEUC (European Consumer Organisation) urged the European Commission not to scrap the Green Claims Directive. The organisation stated that the law was necessary to promote trust and transparency in the European market. BEUC also pointed out that the implementation of the law had been years in the making. 'Withdrawing the law undermines years of progress which could damage consumer trust and harm Europe's leading position on sustainability.' Several NGOs responded in a joint statement: 'Do not scrap Green Claims Directive'. The NGOs in question were ECOS, ClientEarth, Carbon Market Watch and the European Environmental Bureau. 'Greenwashing will continue if there is no ambitious agreement.' The NGOs indicated that withdrawing the law was highly unusual and went against the regular legislative process. 'The Green Claims Directive should create clarity for consumers and businesses, but instead the European Commission and some Members of the European Parliament have sown confusion', said a spokesperson for the NGOs in the statement. 'Policymakers must respect the legislative process, work with negotiators towards a solution and unblock this crucial law. Every day without this directive brings more harm to EU citizens, the environment and the internal market – with consumers and businesses adrift in a sea of greenwashing while policymakers squabble over the life raft.' This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
Fashion United
24-06-2025
- Business
- Fashion United
Green Claims Directive: European Commission clarifies withdrawal of proposed law
The Green Claims Directive, also known as the anti-greenwashing law, may not be withdrawn after all. A commission spokesperson clarified that the withdrawal will only happen if a specific recent amendment is maintained. Spokesperson Paula Pinho noted that the amendment in question would bring small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) under the scope of the law. This amendment would subject 30 million additional businesses to the legislation, meaning that a total of 96 percent of businesses would have to comply. However, a key objective of the European Commission is to reduce the administrative burden on SMEs. Pinho emphasised that the proposed amendment to the law is not yet final. Should it be upheld, the commission will withdraw the Green Claims Directive. Negotiations regarding the proposed law are currently ongoing. The final round of negotiations was scheduled for Monday, June 23, but did not proceed. Last week, news broke that the European Commission had withdrawn its support for the law. However, little clarification was provided at the time. The commission has now clarified the news. The aim of the Green Claims Directive is to help consumers navigate the numerous sustainability claims. If a product is advertised as environmentally friendly, this must be demonstrably substantiated. This article was translated to English using an AI tool. FashionUnited uses AI language tools to speed up translating (news) articles and proofread the translations to improve the end result. This saves our human journalists time they can spend doing research and writing original articles. Articles translated with the help of AI are checked and edited by a human desk editor prior to going online. If you have questions or comments about this process email us at info@
Euronews
24-06-2025
- Business
- Euronews
Five political takeaways from the EU Green Claims directive saga
The EU's Green Claims Directive, a proposal to combat so-called "greenwashing" by requiring companies to have environmental claims such as "eco-friendly" independently verified, has become one of the most politically charged files in Brussels. Don't be misled by the technical sound of the rule: this is a front-row view of how EU politics is currently unfolding, with implications for the remainder of this legislative term. The directive, like the Nature restoration law in the previous term, has assumed a symbolic role, laying bare the growing rifts within the right-wing parties over the previous term's flagship policy, the European Green Deal. It's also exposed the rise of an alternative majority that goes beyond traditional pro-European forces binding the centre right with the socialists and liberals. Like a political thriller, the Green Claims file is full of twists, each revealing deeper trends in EU politics. 'In this case, we are observing a lot of coincidences. And at some point, you have to stop thinking this isn't happening on purpose,' said Parliament's co-rapporteur, German socialist Tiemo Wölken. Negotiations on the directive have been ongoing since January, with a final meeting between MEPs and the Polish presidency of the EU Council originally scheduled for last Monday. That meeting was abruptly cancelled after the Commission unexpectedly announced plans to withdraw the proposal – a power it holds under the EU treaties, though with some limitations. Initially, few details were provided. In yet another reversal, the Commission later clarified that it would only proceed with the withdrawal if the Council's amendment to include 30 million micro-enterprises under the directive's scope was not removed, leaving the door open to a deal. 1. The Commission may slow down on its Green Deal rollbacks The turmoil around the Green Claims Directive is the latest indication of a wider pivot away from the Green Deal, which has come under fire from von der Leyen's European People's Party (EPP), as well as right-wing and far-right forces. Several Green Deal initiatives have already been watered down via "omnibus" bills aimed at simplifying EU legislation, narrowing the scope of laws such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The initial decision to withdraw the directive appeared to be another blow to green policies, but the Commission's subsequent hesitation suggests concern that the rollbacks may be moving too fast. Asked if its desire to simplify rules now outweighs green priorities, a Commission spokesperson said both are equally important under von der Leyen's political guidelines. 2. Even Ursula von der Leyen is not immune to her own party It looked like President von der Leyen's hand was forced this time by her own party, which urged the Commission to reconsider the directive in a letter sent last week. 'It's clear that [the withdrawal] came after the letter,' a Commission official told Euronews. The letter, seen by Euronews, argued that greenwashing claims are already adequately protected under the recently adopted Directive on Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition, slamming the additional burdens that the Green Claims Directive would place on businesses. "The effective implementation of this other directive will make a real impact without completely overburdening our companies," said Sweden's EPP lawmaker Arba Kokalari. But according to one of the MEPs steering the directive through the Parliament, Italian liberal Sandro Gozi, simplification, or at least lack of it, are just excuses used by the Commission to fulfil the EPP's objective to take down the greenwashing rules. 3. The EPP is caught between the centre and the right The EPP could have voted the proposal down in a Parliamentary plenary, but avoiding the confrontation that would have entailed may be strategic. Had it come to a vote, the EPP would likely have had to align with political groups further to the right, through what's been dubbed the "Venezuela majority", an alternative alliance from the centrist majority that paved the way to von der Leyen's ratification as Commission president last July. Although the EPP signed the letter, the group avoided co-signing a similar request from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the far-right Patriots group, signalling discomfort with being seen as part of a hard-right alliance. 'If the goal was to hide their alignment with the far right on this file, it failed blatantly,' said Gozi. Rapporteurs from the liberals and socialists claim the EPP has employed obstructionist tactics alongside ECR and the Patriots on other files as well. 'It's not for me to call this out, but it's the EPP who has to declare whether or not they want to be seen as democratic or not,' said the other co-rapporteur, Wölken. 4. The Directive isn't dead, but it's not alive either After a weekend of behind-the-scenes talks, EU member states opted to pause the legislative process. 'There are too many doubts; we need clarity from the Commission before deciding next steps,' one Polish diplomat said. Italy withdrew its support for the Polish Council presidency's negotiating mandate, although Rome had been opposed to the directive from the outset, so the impact is minimal. The Commission now appears unlikely to withdraw the proposal if the Council drops its amendment covering micro-enterprises, while Parliament's rapporteurs have stated multiple times they're open to removing that provision. 'Still, I'm not confident the directive will survive,' said another Parliament shadow rapporteur. 5. The limits of the Commission's withdrawal powers are being tested The Commission's threat to withdraw the file, and apply pressure, has raised eyebrows, and legal questions. Withdrawing a proposal is the prerogative of the Commission, in the same way that the Commission has the right of initiative," chief spokesperson Paula Pinho, adding that the EU Executive can do so if it considers that it denatures the very purpose of the initial proposal. While the EU treaties theoretically give the Commission the right to withdraw proposals, a 2015 Court of Justice ruling limits that power by imposing procedural and substantive constraints. Once the final talks between MEPs and EU ministers begin, the Commission is expected to act as an honest broker, not steer lawmakers' negotiations by threatening to withdraw its own proposal. 'This is wrong from all the perspectives. The Commission has no veto power during the legislative procedure,' said Sandro Gozi. Wölken agreed, stressing that the Commission should play the role of neutral facilitator between Parliament and the Council. Both MEPs said they're not yet considering legal action but warned that the Commission's behaviour is setting a troubling precedent. 'We hope they will come back to the table because this is the main goal of legislation: Not to end up in court, but to end with concrete solutions for our citizens and firms,' said Gozi.
