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.
