Members of the European Parliament’s Environment Committee (ENVI) and Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) have agreed on a proposed EU directive that will establish a framework for the substantiation and communication of environmental claims by companies, in order to stop the proliferation of misleading or unsubstantiated claims (‘greenwashing’) (see EUROPE 13147/6).
By jointly adopting, on Wednesday 14 February, by a very large majority (85 votes in favour, 2 against and 14 abstentions), the amended draft report by Andrus Ansip (Renew Europe, Estonian) for the IMCO committee and Cyrus Engerer (S&D, Maltese) for the ENVI Committee, they confirmed their support for future rules to combat greenwashing while clarifying the implementation of the verification procedure in particular, with a view to greater predictability for businesses and consumers (see EUROPE 13286/9). All compromise amendments were approved.
Mandatory check. MEPs are in favour of requiring companies to submit environmental marketing claims for prior approval before using them, as proposed by the European Commission. According to the compromise, all these allegations will be assessed within 30 days by accredited auditors.
MEPs agreed that the Commission should draw up a list of claims and products of low complexity that could benefit from faster or simpler verification.
They also want the Commission to decide whether ecological claims for products containing dangerous substances can be used.
The compromise also provides for micro-enterprises to be excluded from the new obligations, and for SMEs to be given an extra year before applying the rules.
Sanctions. MEPs agreed that companies that break the rules could face confiscation of revenue from their products, temporary exclusion from participation in public procurement or fines of up to 4% of their annual turnover.
Carbon offsetting. MEPs confirmed the ban on generic, vague or misleading environmental claims, including those based on carbon offsetting – a ban already provided for in the proposal for a directive ‘Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition’, which was the subject of a provisional European Parliament/EU Council agreement already validated by the European Parliament in January (see EUROPE 13330/14).
However, the compromise specifies that companies will still be able to mention offset systems if they have already reduced their emissions as much as possible and are only using these systems for residual emissions. The systems’ carbon credits will have to be certified.
As for comparative claims – advertisements comparing two different products, even if the two products are made by the same manufacturer – companies will have to demonstrate that they have used the same methods to compare the relevant aspects of the products.
Claims that products have been improved cannot be based on data that is more than five years old.
The compromise voted on Wednesday by the two parliamentary committees will be submitted to the European Parliament for a vote under the ordinary procedure, probably in March. Parliament’s vote will mark the end of the first reading. Once the Council has decided on its negotiating position, it will be up to the new Parliament, following the European elections on 6-9 June, to begin inter-institutional negotiations (trilogues).
Copa Cogeca concerned. In a press release, Europe’s largest farmers’ union, expressed concern about the risk of double verification, amounting to a “double penalty” for farmers who already comply with the additional voluntary environmental practices of the Common Agricultural Policy, for which a verification process already exists. Hence the call to the European Parliament to follow the opinion of the European Parliament Agriculture Committee, which advocates an exception for farmers wishing to communicate these practices.
Copa-Cogeca points out that “the Commission has announced urgent simplification measures for agriculture”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)