The states of the European Union agree on a text aimed at combating “greenwashing”

False assertions, fanciful labels, dubious climate assessments… The legislative project on which the Twenty-Seven voted aims to eliminate all environmental assertions which are not based on factual bases.

The Twenty-Seven attack “greenwashing” brands. After having adopted at the end of February a text prohibiting so-called environmental claims “generics” and deemed misleading (“green product”, “100% natural”…), EU states agreed on Monday June 17 on a text banning the greenwashing of labels and other advertising with tones “green”. Led by Hungary, which is due to take over the rotating presidency of the EU Council in July, the countries will begin talks with the European Parliament to finalize the legislation.

This legislative project, on which European environment ministers met in Luxembourg voted on Monday, is intended to be more ambitious than the position adopted in mid-March by MEPs. It aims to eliminate all environmental claims that are not based on factual bases. “Recycled”, “CO2 neutral”, “biodegradable” : these formulas must be checked beforehand with “clear criteria” supervised in terms of recyclability, sustainability, etc.

The text provides that ecological claims must be justified by recent and scientifically recognized data, identifying all impacts. Environmental certification systems, subject to the same criteria, should be transparent and regularly reviewed. As for the official Ecolabel designed by the EU, it would be exempt.

Finally, companies should have the validity of the statements verified by “independent auditors” accredited, under penalty of sanctions. To do this, the States support the introduction of a “simplified procedure” for certain types of claims and requests that microenterprises be given an additional 8 months to comply with the new rules, according to a statement from the Council of the EU. “Several support measures have been added to help SMEs throughout the procedure”, with guidelines, training, and even financial support, particularly with a view to “reduce the administrative burden for farmers”he continues.

The text also attacks the offsetting of carbon emissions, which often amounts to planting trees or buying back CO2 credits, practices considered ineffective compared to the direct reduction of emissions. States plan to require companies that use them to detail these carbon credits and the total emissions thus offset.