At a meeting of European environment ministers this week, the Council of the European Union (EU) has set out its position on the Green Claim directive, the EU directive designed to provide a legislative framework for assessing the environmental claims made by businesses, notably through the product environmental footprint (PEF) method.

Earlier this year, MEPs agreed to ban generic claims describing products as environmentally friendly, such as ‘green product’, ‘biodegradable’, ‘climate neutral’ or ‘100% natural’. In March, the EU parliament went further, demanding a ban on designations judged by experts to be groundless. This week, it was the Council of the EU’s turn to consider the Green Claim directive, before sending it back to the EU Parliament for final approval.

The Council has endorsed the principle that environmental claims must be verified in advance, introducing however a streamlined procedure to do so. Certain claims are exempted from third-party audits, and can simply be based on declarative statements. Furthermore, micro-companies will be allowed an extra 14 months to comply with the new rules compared to other businesses, and support will be available to SMEs and micro-companies, in the form of financial aid, training, and measurement tools.

“Acknowledging the importance of existing national or regional public labelling schemes, ministers agreed on the possibility of establishing new schemes and exempting from third-party verification those regulated by EU or national law, provided the latter meets EU standards as regards both procedures and standards,” the Council stated in a press release.

The Council’s position also introduced new requirements to prove climate-related claims, including those involving carbon credits. The Council distinguished between “contribution claims” (carbon credits to contribute to climate action), and “offset claims” (carbon credits to balance out an emissions share), specifying that, in offset claims, companies must prove a net-zero target, and show progress towards decarbonisation, as well as indicating the percentage of total greenhouse gas emissions that have been offset.

Products’ carbon footprint

With regard to the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs), which measure the carbon impact of products and which were previously deemed insufficient to substantiate the environmental claims made by businesses, the Council confirmed that new, sector-specific parameters need to be introduced.

“For textiles, PEFCRs should, for example, reflect data on microplastics release, before they can be considered for adoption,” stated the Council’s report, published this week. “Before the Commission adopted delegated laws, businesses were already able to use Environmental Footprint methods. Especially for products or sectors for which PEFCRs or Organisation Environmental Footprint Sector Rules (OEFSRs) are in place, businesses are encouraged to use  Environmental Footprint methods to substantiate their environmental claims or environmental labels,” stated the report.

The Council’s position on carbon impact, as defined for the time being by PEFCRs (and the PEF method), was released a few days after the publication of a statement signed by 600 agricultural industry representatives from Europe, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Mongolia. They lamented the fact that fibres sourced from these countries’ fields and farms are treated unfavourably by the PEF method compared to synthetic materials.

A few weeks before this statement was released, a French study conducted by public body DEFI with the French Institute for textiles and apparel (IFTH) outlined the pitfalls of the PEF method, whose complexity means that a t-shirt made with organic cotton can be rated unfavourably compared to a conventional cotton t-shirt.

Meanwhile, the French Eco-score system for fashion is reportedly still undergoing a consultation phase, while other industry projects have been put on hold ahead of the forthcoming French parliamentary elections.