The Green Claims Directive(GCD) was intended to establish uniform rules within the European Union for substantiating, communicating, and verifying voluntary environmental claims made by companies to consumers. Its objectives are to increase the credibility of environmental claims, protect consumers from “greenwashing, ” and establish a level playing field within the single market. Among other things, the directive provided for the obligation to conduct a life cycle assessment (LCA), the obligation to disclose sources and data (including, for example, the share of offsets in climate claims), as well as the verification of claims by accredited bodies (certificate of compliance). Furthermore, it would introduce minimum requirements for public and private environmental labeling schemes.
Krzysztof MIELICKI — a landscape architect with many years of experience in the green sector. In his work, he emphasizes finding a balance between human interests and the well-being of nature. As a journalist, he covers topics related to environmental protection, urban planning, and trends in landscape architecture.
The GCD legislative process was well underway: the Commission’s proposal (COM[2023]166) was released in March 2023. Parliament adopted its first-reading position, and multilateral negotiations began, but in June 2025, the Commission signaled its intention to withdraw the proposal. This was prompted by political groups criticizing the complexity of the regulations. Currently, the process is on hold, but informal negotiations under the auspices of successive presidencies may still continue. It is worth noting that during this time, the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (2024/825) entered into force, imposing, among other things, bans on vague claims and information about offsets (to be implemented by September 2026). Thus, a legal framework already exists (the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive [UCPD], new consumer regulations) to combat certain forms of greenwashing; however, a coherent EU standard dedicated to this issue is still lacking.
Legal Background and Main Provisions of the Directive
The Directive (draft COM[2023]166, Directive on Substantiation and Communication of Explicit Environmental Claims) was intended to cover voluntary environmental claims (so-called “green claims”) made by businesses in B2C contexts regarding a product, service, or the business itself. These include any statement—whether verbal, visual, symbolic, or numerical—suggesting a positive environmental impact, reduced harm, or an improvement over a previous state. The scope excluded claims already regulated by other EU legislation (e.g., obligations arising from the Ecolabel, EMAS, or climate taxonomy requirements). These were defined as “explicit” (overt/clear), as opposed to unconscious or contextual messages. The directive would apply only after a certificate of compliance had been obtained. Without such a document, a business would not be permitted to use a green label publicly.
Legal Basis
The legal basis for adoption is Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (protection of the internal market). In its explanatory memorandum, the draft acknowledges that the EU market is plagued by certification chaos: approximately 230 different environmental labels and 100 green energy labels exist with little consistency. The Commission points out that the lack of harmonization leads to a “Wild West” of green claims, undermines the trust of consumers and competent authorities, and gives an advantage to companies that use catchy “eco” slogans without substance. The objectives of the directive are therefore: to enhance environmental protection, accelerate the green transition, protect consumers, facilitate informed choices, and build a single market for eco-friendly products.
Implementation Schedule (Proposed)
The draft provided for member states to adopt implementing legislation within approximately eighteen months of the act’s publication (with entry into force twenty-four months later). Thus, the actual implementation and enforcement of the GCD could take place several years after the date of publication—that is, no earlier than the second half of 2026 or in 2027—assuming the legislative process is completed by the end of 2025. The current status can be summarized as follows: according to the Commission’s communications, the legislation has been “suspended,” and its future is uncertain.
Photo: Krzysztof Mielicki
Positive Aspects of the Directive
1. Harmonization of the EU market and consumer confidence. The main advantage of the GCD is the creation of common, high standards for all companies operating in the EU. Currently, consumers are faced with numerous eco-labels and slogans with varying scopes and assessment methods (e.g., those used by industry organizations or national governments). Standardization partially eliminates this information chaos. Thanks to uniform criteria (e.g., the requirement for an LCA and the obligation to identify emission sources), it will be easier for consumers to compare products from different EU countries and trust the labels. Greater transparency and consistency in environmental labels (such as the EU Ecolabel) reduce the risk of “confusion” between labels. This is a positive development for EU markets. Indirectly, it promotes data harmonization: manufacturers will be required to conduct detailed environmental analyses (LCA/PEF) in a standardized format, which may contribute to the development of industry-specific databases and facilitate cross-border verification.
2. Strengthening competition based on environmental integrity. The GCD’s horizontal regulation creates a “level playing field” for businesses. Companies that genuinely invest in improving the environmental quality of their products gain a competitive advantage over those that rely solely on marketing slogans. Consumers’ confidence that “green” signifies something scientifically proven increases the market value of truly green products. Furthermore, the directive promotes innovative, environmentally friendly companies. To obtain a certificate of compliance, these companies will have to implement new technologies and processes (e.g., improve efficiency, use more environmentally friendly materials) and demonstrate this in their LCA documentation. It is expected that the increased credibility of the green market will contribute to a rise in demand for environmentally friendly products (reducing consumer concerns about marketing gimmicks).
3. Enforcement mechanisms and oversight. The GCD introduces comprehensive oversight tools. First, ex ante verification of claims by a certification body means that potentially erroneous or false statements will be caught before they appear in advertising or on product labeling. This gives supervisory authorities the assurance that any entity making such claims “has already been verified.” Second, the establishment of national authorities for environmental claims (with the power to inspect documents, file complaints, and conduct investigations) strengthens the enforcement against greenwashing at the operational level. Countries could assign specialized teams of officials, for example at the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) or equivalent agencies (as is already the case in Poland: the companies Bolt, Zara, Tchibo have recently faced greenwashing allegations and face fines of up to 10 percent of their turnover for each contested practice). The directive also mandates effective financial sanctions. The possibility of confiscating revenue from a given product line and temporary exclusion from participating in public procurement further strengthen the deterrent effect. It is worth noting that the certification system would operate across the entire EU under similar rules, which would enable rapid intervention throughout the Union in the event that abuses by a single entity are detected. Article 15 also imposes an obligation on public authorities to regularly monitor the market and publish reports, which increases the transparency of supervisory activities.
4. Benefits for innovation and environmental protection. Thanks to uniform regulations, the directive can accelerate the implementation of environmental methodologies (PEF/OEF) and other tools (ISO 140xx) in business practice. The requirement to update data annually or review methodologies every five years creates an incentive for continuous improvement of products and processes. Companies gain a framework for independently reporting environmental impacts, which they can also use in their CSR strategies. Indirectly, the GCD has a positive impact on the EU’s climate goals: explicit prohibitions against inaccurate claims (particularly regarding climate) may encourage actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions rather than reliance on offsets. Additionally, the introduction of standards for environmental labels fosters the creation of new, ambitious certification programs compliant with the EU Eco-Protocol.
Photo: Krzysztof Mielicki
Negative aspects and limitations of the directive
1. Complexity and implementation costs. Critics have noted that the GCD imposes high procedural requirements on businesses. For example, the need to conduct a full life cycle assessment (LCA) and prepare extensive documentation can be complicated, especially for smaller companies that do not have research teams or environmental specialists. The call for simplified procedures has raised concerns, but this aspect was not sufficiently developed in the draft. Law firms and the industry have warned against “greenwashing”: when a company must submit a declaration to a verification body prior to implementation, marketing efforts are slowed down; the average verification time was estimated at thirty to ninety days. If the process is costly or time-consuming, a company may decide not to promote certain green initiatives. Industry organizations point out that full certification can impose a financial burden on businesses amounting to tens of thousands of euros (audit costs, hiring experts, accreditation fees). In the context of a difficult economic climate and administrative burdens, such a requirement raises concerns about stifling innovation and marketing flexibility (the EPP, the European People’s Party, has called this excessive bureaucracy).
2. Gaps and contradictions with existing regulations. Although the GCD complements the UCPD (Unfair Commercial Practices Directive) and EmpCo (Empowering Consumers), ambiguities arise. The UCPD (Directive 2005/29/EC) already prohibits misleading advertising practices; in practice, this applies to any false claim (including “green” claims). It has been argued that there is no gap that the GCD would need to fill, since authorities can already impose penalties for greenwashing under current consumer law. Furthermore, the EmpCo already prohibits unsubstantiated claims (it is prohibited to use general environmental slogans without substantiation by reliable environmental research results). The GCD would function as a lex specialis, but there would be a risk of overlap with the ECP or confusion regarding procedures (e.g., two independent sanction systems). Critics also point out that the directive excludes B2B claims from its provisions, whereas a significant portion of green marketing takes place “between businesses” (B2B), for example in supply chains.
3. Incomplete coverage of offsets and climate claims. The draft GCD permits the use of offsets: while a company must report which portion of the reduction stems from offsets and which from its own actions, a climate claim based on offsetting is still considered permissible. This has drawn criticism from experts and scientists; according to IPCC guidelines, only the physical removal of CO₂ should be counted toward net-zero, not derived reductions or reforestation certificates. The GCD did not prohibit offsetting achieved through reductions at another company; by implication, it allowed the entire carbon footprint (excluding emissions from the company’s own operations) to be treated as “reduced.” This could be seen as a legal loophole: companies can continue to boast of being “climate neutral” while expanding their operations using purchased offsets without any restrictions on the quality of those offsets. Industry and NGO analyses (e.g., Carbon Gap) emphasize that the draft does not require companies to specify the type of offsets used (whether they involve carbon sequestration or removal), which, in their view, limits the effectiveness of the fight against climate greenwashing.
4. Risk of greenwashing and paralysis. The complexity of the procedures may lead companies to avoid communicating their pro-environmental actions—even if they are effective and honest. During Parliament’s negotiations, concerns were raised: why should businesses disclose any of their environmental data if it involves a bureaucratic, tedious process? Expert analyses warn that excessive restrictions could stifle CSR initiatives: companies would rather say nothing than risk months-long procedures for a one-time advertising slogan. As early as 2025, politicians (primarily from the EPP) argued that the directive threatened competitiveness through an “excessive verification procedure.”
5. Costs and open questions of interpretation. Implementing the GCD would entail significant expenses for businesses: creating environmental documentation, hiring experts, and paying for audits. The costs of formal reports and certifications could be particularly burdensome. The legislative process provided for certain simplifications for micro-enterprises (no verification requirement unless they seek certification), but small businesses would still be subject to numerous obligations (reporting, analysis). Questions also arise regarding the scope of “information disclosure”: Article 5(6) allows for the confidentiality of certain data (trade secrets), which may limit the transparency of environmental data.
6. Legal and implementation risks. The practical enforcement of the directive poses a challenge: it would be necessary to establish and train authorities, as well as to define verification procedures and procedures for cross-border certification checks. In the event of a conflict between national law and the directive, there may be a risk of legal disputes (e.g., from companies refusing certification). To date, there is no case law regarding the GCD, so its provisions could be subject to interpretation (e.g., what constitutes “scientific confidence” as used in the directive). Ultimately, the potential “shortcomings” of the directive regarding greenwashing boil down mainly to procedural and oversight issues; critical opinions have pointed out that even without the GCD, an effective legal framework already exists (UCPD, UOKiK, the new EmpCo Directive) to combat greenwashing. The main criticism, however, is the excessive complexity of the procedures and the additional, questionable costs.
Photo: Krzysztof Mielicki
Risk Assessment and Scenarios
Optimistic scenario
(adoption of the directive in its amended form)
Following negotiations, a compromise is reached: streamlined procedures (e.g., simplified certification) and additional safeguards for consumers (a ban on offsets for climate-related claims). The directive enters into force by the end of 2026. Within a few years, the common verification system is operating effectively. Consumers gain confidence that they see only verified claims in the media and on product packaging. The actual percentage of unverified environmental claims drops significantly. Companies also benefit from clear rules, which attract green investments (e.g., more funding for research and development, as the market rewards eco-friendly innovations). Green products become the norm, and greenwashing is reduced to isolated and swiftly penalized cases.
Pessimistic scenario
(no directive/market liberalization)
The proposal is definitively rejected or shelved for years. Politicians have other priorities and will not revisit the GCD anytime soon. In that case, only the general provisions of the UCPD and EmpCo remain. The result is greater opacity: companies continue to use vague labels (“eco,” “zero-emission”) without fear of certification, as the requirements are loosely defined. Greenwashing may intensify, as there is no strong legislative check. At the same time, actions at the national level may be inconsistent. Countries will introduce their own standards, which will deepen market fragmentation. It will be harder for consumers to compare products from other countries. In the worst-case scenario, skepticism will rise. Sociological studies indicate that a high percentage of unverified claims (76 percent of products with “green” claims, 50 percent of which are misleading in the EU) leads to a decline in trust. Without real changes, a trend of “reading labels in the hope of finding the truth” is expected to emerge, and this will only weaken the market for “eco” products.
Likely scenario
(partial amendments and moderate implementation)
Some provisions of the directive may be adopted in a scaled-back form or in a more flexible manner (e.g., moving offsets to a new annex, a more lenient certification process). EmpCo combined with enforcement of the UCPD will most likely curb the most egregious abuses. As a result , the percentage of “eco-scams” may decline, but it will still be possible to creatively bend the truth in marketing. The lack of a global standard, however, means that regional differences will persist. It is possible that the Commission will formally withdraw the GCD, but at the same time will gradually expand its actions through antitrust authorities (e.g., by specifying requirements in the new Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council [EU] 2026/470, known as Omnibus I, was published on February 26, 2026).
The suspension of work on the Green Claims Directive marks a significant turning point in the systemic fight against greenwashing, particularly from the perspective of design and engineering communities, which operate at the intersection of environmental declarations and the physical implementation of projects. For architects, urban planners, civil engineers, landscape architects, and spatial planners, this means not only a delay in the standardization of environmental communication but also the perpetuation of regulatory ambiguity, the maintenance of information asymmetry, and the blurring of responsibility for the quality of environmental data.
The proposed Green Claims Directive was intended to introduce uniform rules for formulating and verifying environmental claims, including the requirement for scientific justification, methodological transparency, and independent certification. Its suspension means that the market continues to rely on fragmented and often inconsistent assessment systems: from voluntary building certifications (such as BREEAM or LEED), through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), to internal corporate standards. In practice, this leads to a situation where designers and engineers must independently assess the reliability of the data provided, which increases the risk of both unintentional greenwashing and flawed design decisions.
Photo: Krzysztof Mielicki
From the perspective of the investment process, the lack of uniform criteria for “green” materials and technologies is particularly problematic. Contemporary design increasingly relies on life cycle assessments (LCA), carbon footprints, or resource consumption indicators; however, without a consistent legal framework for their interpretation and verification, this data may be presented selectively or based on incomparable methodologies. As a result , developers and designers rely on information that ostensibly indicates high environmental performance but, in reality, does not reflect the full impact of the project. For urbanists and land-use planners, the consequences are equally significant. Contemporary urban development strategies are based on ambitious climate goals, such as carbon neutrality and increased resilience to climate change. The lack of reliable tools for assessing the “greenness” of projects can lead to situations where planning decisions are made based on marketing claims rather than reliable data. In the long term, this risks entrenching solutions with low environmental effectiveness, despite their “green” image. Landscape architects also face the challenge of ensuring the quality of nature-based solutions (NbS). In the absence of verification standards, there is a risk that green infrastructure projects will be reduced to superficial interventions—visually appealing but ineffective in terms of water retention, improving the microclimate, or supporting biodiversity. Greenwashing in this area is particularly difficult to detect because it relies on the aesthetics of “greenness” rather than on measurable parameters.
The suspension of the directive does not mean a complete lack of regulation. Other legal instruments remain in place, such as regulations on unfair commercial practices and the developing taxonomy of sustainable investments. However, their scope is limited and does not directly address the issue of the quality and verifiability of environmental claims. This creates a regulatory gap that is particularly acute for the construction sector, which accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption in Europe. In this situation, the importance of expert competence on the part of designers and engineers is growing. The ability to critically analyze environmental data, knowledge of LCA methodology, the capacity to interpret EPD declarations, and the ability to assess the reliability of certifications are becoming crucial in everyday professional practice. At the same time, we can expect an increased role for industry initiatives and bottom-up standards, which will seek to fill the regulatory gap through self-regulation and the promotion of best practices. Paradoxically, the suspension of work on the directive may also strengthen ethical reflection within the design community. In the absence of clear regulations, responsibility for the reliability of environmental declarations shifts from the institutional level to the individual and industry levels. For some practitioners, this may serve as an impetus to adopt a more rigorous approach to sustainable design—one based not on marketing but on measurable environmental outcomes.
In summary, the suspension of the Green Claims Directive slows down the process of systematically curbing greenwashing in the European Union and perpetuates a state of regulatory ambiguity. For architects, urban planners, engineers, and planners, this means having to operate under conditions of increased uncertainty, but at the same time, it creates an opportunity to strengthen professional standards, assessment methodologies, and professional ethics. In the long term, it is precisely the quality of these practices that may prove crucial for a genuine transformation of the construction sector toward sustainable development.
Krzysztof MIELICKI
more: A&B 6/2026 – Small and Medium-Sized Cities / Architects’ Fees,
download free digital issues of A&B
