The New EU Law That’s Looking to Stamp out Greenwashing

April 11, 2023

April 11, 2023


Today's guest blog is authored by Tom Howarth of GreenBiz Group. The original post can be read here.


Consumers today face a barrage of eco-friendly messaging from the corporate world as it hopes to cash in on increasing concern for the environment. At the same time, an absence of common rules for companies making voluntary green claims has left the door open to greenwashing, making it increasingly difficult to gauge the fact from fiction when it comes to sustainable business practice. This is not just a problem for the eco-conscious shopper, who must now sift through reams of "sustainable" products to find one with bona fide green credentials — it is a problem for businesses, too. 


Companies making a genuine effort to reduce their environmental impacts, often at significant cost, are having to compete against others making the same claims but without putting in the work. This effectively negates the economic rewards for caring about the planet, particularly in industries with complex supply chains, where clearly communicating environmental impacts can be tricky. 

Conversely, businesses caught practicing greenwashing, or even those who are perceived to be, can expect drops in customer satisfaction and serious financial repercussions.


At the extreme end, the case of German car manufacturer Volkswagen springs to mind, after it saw profits tumble 20 percent following revelations in 2015 that the company had installed software to cheat U.S. emissions tests. Whilst sympathy for a company purposefully trying to dupe regulators should be limited, the case highlights the toxicity of greenwashing for all parties involved; businesses, consumers and, of course, the planet. 


The Green Claims Directive, proposed by the European Commission in late March, seeks to address this issue by establishing "common criteria against greenwashing and misleading environmental claims." The hope is that by homogenizing the standards for claims made by businesses across the trading bloc, consumers will have "more clarity, stronger reassurance that when something is sold as green, it actually is green, and better quality information to choose environment-friendly products and services." Businesses will also benefit, "as those that make a genuine effort to improve the environmental sustainability of their products will be more easily recognized and rewarded by consumers … rather than face unfair competition."


The need for the legislation is clear. An assessment of environmental claims carried out by the Commission in 2020 across a broad range of industries found that 53.3 percent "provided vague, misleading or unfounded information" about products’ environmental characteristics, while 40 percent had no supporting evidence at all.


What’s more, there are currently 230 sustainability labels and 100 green energy labels in use in EU markets, each with different criteria and levels of transparency. Even if some labeling schemes provide genuine sustainability credentials, it's unlikely the average person on the street would have any idea which ones they are.


Virginijus Sinkevičius, European commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries, put it well: "We want to help consumers become more confident about their choices and ensure that those companies that make genuine efforts to reduce their impacts on nature, resource use, climate emissions or pollution are rewarded."


How will the new rules work?


The objective of the new proposal is simple — prevent greenwashing by enforcing clear and harmonized rules and labels. Specifically, the measures will target explicit claims, examples of which might include: "T-shirt made of recycled plastic bottles," "CO2 compensated delivery," "packaging made of 30 percent recycled plastic" or "ocean friendly sunscreen."


Under the new rules, companies will need to have any such claims independently verified and proven with scientific evidence. Possible trade-offs will also need to be highlighted, to give a full and accurate picture of a product’s impacts.


Environmental labeling schemes, in the form of trust and quality marks that certify that a product or business meets the requirements set up by the scheme, are another target of the legislation. Such schemes can lack transparency and are not always credible; in response, the new proposal suggests banning the proliferation of new public labeling schemes unless they are developed at EU level, preventing individual Member States from developing their own. Private labeling schemes, on the other hand, can be approved at Member State level, but will need to demonstrate that they provide "added value" in terms of environmental ambition before going through the approval process. Labeling schemes from third countries (those that are not members of the EU, including the U.S.) will also need to be submitted for approval before products brandishing them are admitted into the EU market.


An assessment of environmental claims carried out by the European Commission in 2020 across a broad range of industries found that 53.3% 'provided vague, misleading or unfounded information' about products’ environmental characteristics ...


The penalties for non-compliance will not be cheap, either. Rogue traders caught making unfounded claims can expect fines of at least 4 percent of total annual revenue within any region in which they have been in breach of the rules — the same level as the penalties to be doled out under the EU’s recent law on deforestation-free products, set to be implemented next year.


Does the proposal go far enough?


Despite a warm reception from businesses and trade organizations, including the International Chamber of Commerce, the new proposal has drawn some criticism from environmental groups that claim months of lobbying by companies have left the rules "substantially watered down."


In particular, the new laws will not cover phrases such as "carbon neutrality," a favorite term used by companies looking to give their image a green makeover, according to the watchdog and think tank Carbon Market Watch. Others have argued that because the bill does not outline a single methodology to substantiate green claims, businesses will simply "cherry-pick" the ones that suit them best.


"Sadly, without harmonized methodologies at the EU level, the new Directive will provide little clarity to consumers and business, and will only complicate the job of market surveillance authorities," said Margaux Le Gallou, program manager for environmental information and assessment at the Environmental Coalition on Standards.


How successful the Green Claims Directive will be at stamping out greenwashing in the European Union market remains to be seen. Indeed, the bill is still subject to the approval of the European Parliament and Council before it becomes law, which will take at least a few months. However, if you consider this proposal in its broader context — as part of a package of recent legislation being pushed by the EU — then it’s clear that the world’s third largest economy is becoming an increasingly hostile environment for unsustainable businesses. Where the EU is succeeding is in making rules that must be followed by any company, operating anywhere in the world that wishes to sell to the half a billion or so customers who reside within its borders.


Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.