Oh Green Claims, where did you go?

The EU has long been a trendsetter in regulation, but when it comes to environmental claims, the situation is surprisingly reminiscent of the viral mannequin challenge of 2016: decision-makers seem to have frozen in the middle of their actions. Just a year ago, ambitious regulation of environmental claims was progressing rapidly. What on earth happened?

The regulation of environmental claims got off to a flying start in 2020 as part of the EU's overall green transition. The framework is largely based on two complementary directives, of which the Green Transition Consumer Protection Directive (2024) imposes bans on certain claims, while the Green Claims Directive (2023) allows claims to be made provided that minimum requirements are met.

Green Claims on hold

Amid the EU’s broader Omnibus shenanigans, Green Claims, for many the more ambitious and eagerly anticipated initiative, ran into a surprising dead end. This was due to political backlash at the very final stage of trilogue negotiations in June 2025.

The European People’s Party (EPP) called for the withdrawal of the directive proposal, citing excessive bureaucracy and costs for businesses, particularly because the directive would also have applied to micro-enterprises. The EPP threatened not to support any outcome of the negotiations. A few days later, the Commission stated that it intends to withdraw the legislative proposal. This was justified by reference to the Omnibus packages and the need to support economic growth. As a result of political back-and-forth, the final trilogue was cancelled and support among member states collapsed.

In November Denmark made a final attempt to advance a compromise but failed to secure sufficient support. Responsibility for the directive’s future then passed to Cyprus, the current presidency, though interest in the issue is unlikely to be very high.

However, no official decision to withdraw Green Claims has yet been made. It is therefore unclear whether the directive will proceed in its original form, in a watered-down form, or whether it will not be implemented at all. This uncertainty is directly reflected in companies' operations and makes it difficult to establish predictable rules to support the green transition. Efforts have already been made to apply the directives, and claims have been removed from materials. At the same time, Green Claims' "sister" directive, the Green Transition Consumer Protection Directive, is moving towards entry into force in September 2026.

Companies thus find themselves in a difficult position. During this regulatory circus, two scenarios are currently emerging. Both have significant implications for businesses and consumers alike.

Scenario one: Green Claims becomes a footnote of history books

Regulation of environmental claims would largely rest on the Empowering Consumers in the Green Transition Directive, the so-called “blacklist” of prohibited practices. In the short term, this would mean lower administrative burdens and costs for companies. However, the regulatory environment would remain fragmented and open to interpretation. Companies would be forced to operate within unclear boundaries, increasing legal risk and exposure to ex post enforcement and reputational harm.

Without harmonised EU-level rules, the market would be left with environmental claims of varying quality and limited comparability, undermining consumer trust and fueling problematic market practices. At the same time, communicating sustainability-materialsrelated ambitions would become increasingly difficult: companies would be left with a list of prohibitions, but no guidebook on how claims may be “safely” presented.

Scenario two: Green Claims proceeds in a simplified form but at what risk?

Without the heaviest requirements of the original proposal, a simplified model would provide companies with clearer and more predictable conditions for making environmental claims. In this case, regulation could steer companies toward adopting more genuine sustainability practices, increase transparency and strengthen consumer trust. Genuine sustainability efforts by companies would also receive the visibility they deserve.

On the other hand, overly detailed regulation would narrow the playing field for voluntary responsibility, as responsibility communication and green marketing would be viewed with caution and avoided or abandoned due to high costs and administrative burdens. This risk of so-called "greenwashing" could have been partially avoided with the Danish compromise. Greenwashing could also shift the focus of responsibility away from ambitious development to merely achieving minimum targets. Furthermore, overly detailed regulation would act as a barrier to global trade, reduce European competitiveness, and distort the market. In the worst case, only resource-rich companies (and possibly micro-enterprises exempt from the scope) would continue to make environmental claims. This, in turn, would further distort the market, undermine comparability, and limit consumers' opportunities to make genuinely sustainable and comparable choices.

Ultimately, the question is not just which regulatory model will prevail, but whether we dare to talk about responsibility anymore, and whether we can. Will “green” become the privilege of only a few companies? Will companies, like EU decision-makers, join the mannequin challenge in the midst of the regulatory process, frozen in place as they wait for answers?

Emma Ward

The author is an analyst at Blic.