The EU Commission has defended its strategy for implementing the Substantiating Green Claims proposal in response to claims that it did not value the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) methodology.
As a result of conversations with a representative of the EU Commission, it has been learned that although the PEF tool is useful for pertinent policies and programmes relating to the measurement and/or communication of the life cycle environmental performance of goods and organisations, the Commission felt it was not the ‘appropriate approach’ for the Substantiating Green Claims Proposal.
As a ‘lost chance for the European Commission to be a worldwide frontrunner on sustainability and fulfilling aspirations set out in its Green Deal,’ the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC) criticised the plan last month.
The SAC criticised the EU Commission’s draught proposals, saying they fell short of the organization’s declared goal to combat greenwashing “at a moment when only rapid and drastic action may avert irrevocable damage to the world.”
“The Directive does not mandate a standardised and clearly defined framework based on scientific foundations and fails to provide the legal certainty for companies and clarity to consumers,” says Andrew Martin, executive vice president of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.
Any green claims made under the proposal, which targets greenwashing enterprises, must be independently evaluated and supported by scientific data. Also, any new public environmental labelling schemes will be prohibited unless they are created at the EU level.
According to the European Commission, customers will have higher quality information to choose environmentally friendly goods and services as well as greater clarity and confidence that anything marketed as green is genuinely green.
Businesses will also profit, according to the report, because those who genuinely try to make their products more environmentally friendly will be more readily recognised and rewarded by consumers and able to increase sales – rather than face unfair competition. By doing so, the idea will contribute to levelling the playing field for data on a product’s environmental performance.
The PEF tool, which the SAC referred to as the “most holistic, scientifically-grounded method to date for analysing the environmental impact of a product,” was deliberately left out.
The EU Commission stated that although the environmental footprint methods can help businesses identify the areas where they should improve their environmental performance and impact, they do not yet cover all relevant impact categories for all product types. As a result, the methods may provide an incomplete picture of a product’s environmental credentials in the context of green claims.
The EU Commission also thinks that many environmental claims—such as those regarding toughness, adaptability, reparability, recycleability, and use of natural materials—are made and that the PEF tool is not the best way to substantiate them.
So, based on the preferred policy option from the impact assessment created for the initiative on empowering consumers for the green transition, the Commission has chosen what it considers to be a more ‘flexible approach.’
Bharat Tex Special Report 2026 
