EU threatens enforcement amid widespread snub of greenwashing rules

EU lawmakers are taking action against 20 Member States for failing to adopt the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo) in time. 

France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Sweden were among those to receive letters from the European Commission last week, giving them two months to confirm they’ve transposed EmpCo ahead of its September implementation date. 

“In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to issue a reasoned opinion,” it said in a statement on Tuesday, referring to the final step before a case is brought before the European Court of Justice.   

EmpCo, which Member States were meant to have adopted by the end of March, will introduce bans on vague and unsubstantiated green marketing claims by companies, including some sustainability labels and images. 

The Commission is under pressure to cut back on its anti-greenwashing rules as part of a commitment to lighten the regulatory load for European businesses. 

Last week, Business Europe asked the EU to “withdraw pending burdensome proposals such as the Green Claims Directive” – a parallel law designed to stop greenwashing, which was quietly shelved last year. 

Its future currently remains unclear.

However, the Commission’s recent letters to Member States – along with the fact it published a Q&A on the rules last month – suggest it plans to push ahead with EmpCo.  

Speaking on a webinar on Wednesday, lawyer Helene Vey-Morit said companies should not see Member States’ missed deadlines as a reason to delay compliance. 

“Even if the national legislation has not already been enacted, the Directive can still have effect for companies before the national judge,” explained the partner at French law firm Delsol, during a session hosted by consultancy Seismic. 

This is because, even if a country hasn’t adopted the Directive, or has done so incorrectly, certain provisions may be invoked directly by individuals before the courts.  

The provisions would have to be “clear, unconditional and sufficiently specific”, Vey-Morit told Real Economy Progress, and judges would be involved in litigation, not regulatory enforcement.