Considerations on COM(2023)166 - Substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)166 - Substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2023)166 |
| date | March 22, 2023 |
(2) If environmental claims are not reliable, comparable and verifiable, consumers and other market actors cannot fully leverage their purchasing decisions to reward better environmental performance. Similarly, the lack of reliable, comparable and verifiable information hinders incentives for optimising environmental performance, which would typically go hand in hand with efficiency gains and cost savings for companies along the supply chain as well. These consequences are exacerbated by the lack of a common reference across the internal market and the ensuing confusion.
(3) For users of environmental information (consumers, businesses, investors, public administrations, NGOs) included in environmental claims, the lack of reliability, comparability and verifiability leads to an issue of trust in environmental information and confusion in interpreting heterogeneous, contradictory messages. This is detrimental to consumers and other market actors, as they may choose a product or a business transaction over other alternatives based on misleading information.
(4) It is therefore necessary to harmonise further the regulation of environmental claims. Such harmonisation will strengthen the market for more sustainable products and traders by avoiding market fragmentation due to diverging national approaches. It will also set a benchmark that can drive the global transition to a just, climate-neutral, resource-efficient and circular economy9.
(5) Detailed Union rules on substantiation of explicit environmental claims, applicable to companies operating on the Union market in business to consumer communication, will contribute to the green transition towards a circular, climate-neutral and clean economy in the Union by enabling consumers to take informed purchasing decisions, and will help create a level-playing field for market operators making such claims.
(6) A regulatory framework for environmental claims is one of the actions proposed by the Commission to implement the European Green Deal10, which recognises that reliable, comparable and verifiable information plays an important part in enabling buyers to make more sustainable decisions and reduces the risk of ‘greenwashing’, and includes commitments to step up regulatory and non-regulatory efforts to tackle false environmental claims. Together with other applicable Union regulatory frameworks, including the proposal for a Directive on empowering consumers for the green transition11, amending Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council12 that this proposal aims at complementing, they establish a clear regime for environmental claims, including environmental labels.
(7) This Directive is part of a set of interrelated initiatives to establish a strong and coherent product policy framework that will make environmentally sustainable products and business models the norm, and not the exception, and to transform consumption patterns so that no waste is produced in the first place. The Directive is complemented, amongst others, by interventions on the circular design of products, on fostering new business models and setting minimum requirements to prevent that environmentally harmful products are placed on the EU market through the proposal for an Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation13.
(8) The specific needs of individual economic sectors should be recognised and this Directive should therefore apply to voluntary explicit environmental claims and environmental labelling schemes that are not regulated by any other Union act as regards their substantiation or communication, or verification. This Directive should therefore not apply to explicit environmental claims for which the Union legislation lays down specific rules, including on methodological frameworks, assessment or accounting rules related to measuring and calculating environmental impacts, environmental aspects or environmental performance of products or traders, or providing mandatory and non-mandatory information to consumers on the environmental performance of products and traders or sustainability information involving messages or representations that may be either mandatory or voluntary pursuant to the Union rules.
(9) Within the context of the European Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy and the Biodiversity Strategy, and in accordance with the target of achieving 25% of EU agricultural land under organic farming by 2030 and a significant increase in organic aquaculture and with the Action Plan on the Development of Organic Production (COM(2021) 141), organic farming and organic production need to be developed further. As regards Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council14, this Directive should not apply to environmental claims on organically certified products substantiated on the basis of that Regulation, related, for instance, to the use of pesticides, fertilisers and anti-microbials or, for instance, to positive impacts of organic farming on biodiversity, soil or water15. It also has a positive impact on biodiversity, it creates jobs and attracts young farmers. Consumers recognise its value. In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/848, the terms “bio” and “eco” and their derivatives, whether alone or in combination, are only to be used in the Union for products, their ingredients or feed materials that fall under the scope of that Regulation where they have been produced in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2018/848. For instance, in order to call the cotton “eco”, it has to be certified as organic, as it falls within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/848. On the contrary, if the dishwasher detergent is called “eco”, this does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, and is instead regulated by the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC.
(10) In addition, this Directive shall not apply to sustainability information involving messages or representations that may be either mandatory or voluntary pursuant to the Union or national rules for financial services, such as rules relating to banking, credit, insurance and re-insurance, occupational or personal pensions, securities, investment funds, investment firms, payment, portfolio management and investment advice, including the services listed in Annex I to Directive 2013/3616 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as settlement and clearing activities and advisory, intermediation and other auxiliary financial services, includnig standards or certification schemes relating to such financial services.
(11) Furthermore, this Directive should not apply to environmental information reported by undertakings that apply European sustainability reporting standards on a mandatory or voluntary basis in accordance with Directive 2013/34/EU17 and sustainability information reported on a voluntary basis by undertakings defined in articles 3(1), 3(2) or 3(3) of this Directive where that information is reported in accordance with standards referred to in Articles 29b or 29c of Directive 2013/34/EU or in accordance with other international, European or national sustainability reporting standards or guidelines.
(12) Offers to purchase goods or receive services conditional on the fulfilment of environmental criteria defined by the seller or service provider or offers where consumers receive more favourable contractual terms or prices upon the fulfilment of such criteria, for example the so-called green loans, green home insurance or financial service products with similar rewards for environmental actions or behaviour should not be subject to the rules of this Directive.
(13) In case future Union legislation lays down rules on environmental claims, environmental labels, or on the assessment or communication of environmental impacts, environmental aspects or environmental performance of certain products or traders in specific sectors, for example the announced “Count Emissions EU”, the forthcoming Commission proposal on a legislative framework for a Union sustainable food system, the Eco-design for Sustainable Products Regulation18 or Regulation (EU) No 1007/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council19, those rules should be applied to the explicit environmental claims in question instead of the rules set out in this Directive.
(14) The proposal for a Directive on empowering consumers for the green transition which amends Directive 2005/29/EC, sets out a number of specific requirements on environmental claims and prohibits generic environmental claims which are not based on recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim. Examples of such generic environmental claims are ‘eco-friendly’, ‘eco’, ‘green’, ‘nature’s friend’, ‘ecological’ and ‘environmentally correct’. This Directive should complement the requirements set out in that proposal by addressing specific aspects and requirements for explicit environmental claims as regards their substantiation, communication and verification. The requirements set out in this Directive should apply to specific aspects of explicit environmental claims and will prevail over the requirements set out in Directive 2005/29/EC with regard to those aspects in case of conflict, pursuant to Article 3(4) of that Directive.
(15) In order to ensure that consumers are provided with reliable, comparable and verifiable information which enables them to make more environmentally sustainable decisions and to reduce the risk of ‘greenwashing, it is necessary to establish requirements for substantiation of explicit environmental claims. Such substantiation should take into account internationally recognised scientific approaches to identifying and measuring environmental impacts, environmental aspects and environmental performance of products or traders, and it should result in reliable, transparent, comparable and verifiable information to the consumer.
(16) The assessment made to substantiate explicit environmental claims needs to consider the life-cycle of the product or of the overall activities of the trader and should not omit any relevant environmental aspects or environmental impacts. The benefits claimed should not result in an unjustified transfer of negative impacts to other stages of the life cycle of a product or trader, or to the creation or increase of other negative environmental impacts.
(17) The assessment substantiating the explicit environmental claim should make it possible to identify the environmental impacts and environmental aspects for the product or trader that jointly contribute significantly to the overall environmental performance of the product or trader (‘relevant environmental impacts’ and ‘relevant environmental aspects’). Indications for the relevance of the environmental impacts and environmental aspects can stem from assessments taking into account the life-cycle, including from the studies based on Environmental Footprint (EF) methods, provided that these are complete on the impacts relevant to the product category and do not omit any important environmental impacts. For example, in the Commission Recommendation on the use of Environmental Footprint methods20 the most relevant impact categories identified should together contribute to at least 80% of the single overall score. These indications for the relevance of the environmental impacts or environmental aspects can also result from the criteria set in various ecolabels type I, as for instance the EU Ecolabel, or in Union criteria for green public procurement, from requirements set by the Taxonomy Regulation21, from product specific rules adopted under the Regulation …./…. of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for setting ecodesign requirements for sustainable products22 or from other relevant Union rules.
(18) In line with Directive 2005/29/EC as amended by the proposal for a Directive on empowering consumers for the green transition, the trader should not present requirements imposed by law on products within a given product category as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer or advertise benefits for consumers that are considered as common practice in the relevant market. The information used to substantiate explicit environmental claims should therefore make it possible to identify the product’s or trader’s environmental performance in comparison to the common practice for products in the respective product group, such as food, or in the respective sector. This is necessary to underpin the assessment whether the explicit environmental claims can be made with regard to a given product or trader in line with the function of an environmental claim, which is to demonstrate that a product or trader has a positive impact or no impact on the environment, or that a product or a trader is less damaging to the environment than other products or traders. The common practice could be equivalent to the minimum legal requirements that are applicable to the specific environmental aspect or environmental performance, for example as regards product composition, mandatory recycled content or end-of-life treatment. However, in case majority of products within the product group or majority of traders within the sector perform better than those legal requirements, the minimum legal requirements should not be considered as common practice.
(19) It would be misleading to consumers if an explicit environmental claim pointed to the benefits in terms of environmental impacts or environmental aspects while omitting that the achievement of those benefits leads to negative trade-offs on other environmental impacts or environmental aspects. To this end the information used to substantiate explicit environmental claims should ensure that the interlinkages between the relevant environmental impacts and between environmental aspects and environmental impacts can be identified along with potential trade-offs. The assessment used to substantiate explicit environmental claims should identify if improvements on environmental impacts or environmental aspects lead to the kind of trade-offs that significantly worsen the performance as regards other environmental impacts or environmental aspects, for example if savings in water consumption lead to a notable increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or in the same environmental impact in another life-cycle stage of the product, for example CO2 savings in the stage of manufacturing leading to a notable increase of CO2 emissions in the use phase. For example, a claim on positive impacts from efficient use of resources in intensive agricultural practices may mislead consumers due to trade-offs linked to impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems or animal welfare. An environmental claim on textiles containing plastic polymer from recycled PET bottles may also mislead consumers as to the environmental benefit of that aspect if the use of this recycled polymer competes with the closed-loop recycling system for food contact materials which is considered more beneficial from the perspective of circularity.
(20) In order for the environmental claim to be considered robust, it should reflect as accurately as possible the environmental performance of the specific product or trader. The information used to substantiate explicit environmental claims therefore needs to include primary, company-specific data for relevant aspects contributing significantly to the environmental performance of the product or trader referred to in the claim. It is necessary to strike the right balance between ensuring relevant and robust information for substantiating environmental claims and the efforts needed to gather primary information. The requirement to use primary information should be considered in the light of the influence the trader making the claim has over the respective process and of the availability of primary information. If the process is not run by the trader making the claim and primary information is not available, accurate secondary information should be able to be used even for processes that contribute significantly to the environmental performance of the product or trader. This is especially relevant to not disadvantage SMEs and to keep the efforts needed to acquire primary data at a proportionate level. Moreover, the relevant environmental aspects are different for each type of environmental claim. For instance, for claims on recycled or bio-based content, the composition of the product should be covered by primary data. For claims on being environmentally less polluting in a certain life cycle stage, information on emissions and environmental impacts related to that life cycle stage should include primary data as well. Both primary data and secondary data, i.e. average data, should show a high level of quality and accuracy.
(21) Climate-related claims have been shown to be particularly prone to being unclear and ambiguous and to mislead consumers. This relates notably to environmental claims that products or entities are “climate neutral”, “carbon neutral”, “100% CO2 compensated”, or will be “net-zero” by a given year, or similar. Such statements are often based on “offsetting” of greenhouse gas emissions through “carbon credits” generated outside the company’s value chain, for example from forestry or renewable energy projects. The methodologies underpinning offsets vary widely and are not always transparent, accurate, or consistent. This leads to significant risks of overestimations and double counting of avoided or reduced emissions, due to a lack of additionality, permanence, ambitious and dynamic crediting baselines that depart from business as usual, and accurate accounting. These factors result in offset credits of low environmental integrity and credibility that mislead consumers when they are relied upon in explicit environmental claims. Offsetting can also deter traders from emissions reductions in their own operations and value chains. In order to adequately contribute to global climate change mitigation targets, traders should prioritise effective reductions of emissions across their own operations and value chains instead of relying on offsets. Any resulting residual emissions will vary by sector-specific pathway in line with the global climate targets and will have to be addressed through removals enhancements. When offsets are used nonetheless, it is deemed appropriate to address climate-related claims, including claims on future environmental performance, based on offsets in a transparent manner. Therefore, the substantiation of climate-related claims should consider any greenhouse gas emissions offsets used by the traders separately from the trader’s or the product’s greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, this information should also specify the share of total emissions that are addressed through offsetting, whether these offsets relate to emission reductions or removals enhancement, and the methodology applied. The climate-related claims that include the use of offsets have to be substantiated by methodologies that ensure the integrity and correct accounting of these offsets and thus reflect coherently and transparently the resulting impact on the climate.
(22) Traders are more and more interested in making environmental claims related to future environmental performance of a product or trader, including by joining initiatives that are promoting practices which could be conducive to a reduced environmental impact or to more circularity. These claims should be substantiated in line with the rules applicable to all explicit environmental claims.
(23) The information used to substantiate explicit environmental claims should be science based, and any lack of consideration of certain environmental impacts or environmental aspects should be carefully considered.
(24) The EF methods can support the substantiation of explicit environmental claims on specific life-cycle environmental impacts that the methods cover, provided that these are complete on the impacts relevant to the product category and do not omit any important environmental impacts. The methods cover 16 environmental impacts, including climate change, and impacts related to water, air, soil, resources, land use and toxicity.
(25) The fact that a significant environmental impact of a product is not covered by any of the 16 impact categories of the EF methods should not justify the lack of consideration of such impacts. An economic actor making an explicit environmental claim on such product group should have an obligation of diligence to find evidence substantiating such claim. For instance, an economic actor making an explicit environmental claim about a fishery product as defined in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council23 should have an obligation of diligence to find evidence substantiating the sustainability of the targeted fish stock. Stock assessments by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and similar stock assessment bodies can be used for that purpose.
(26) Furthermore, there is not yet a reliable methodology for the assessment of life-cycle environmental impacts related to the release of microplastics. However, in case such release contributes to significant environmental impacts that are not subject to a claim, the trader making the claim on another aspect should not be allowed to ignore it, but should take into account available information and update the assessment once widely recognised scientific evidence becomes available.
(27) Consumers can also be misled by explicit environmental claims that state or imply that a product or trader has less or more environmental impacts or a better or worse environmental performance than other products or traders (‘comparative environmental claims’). Without prejudice to the application, where appropriate, of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council24, in order to allow the consumers access to reliable information, it is necessary to ensure that comparative environmental claims can be compared in an adequate manner. For instance, choosing indicators on the same environmental aspects but using a different formula for quantification of such indicators makes comparisons impossible, and therefore there is a risk of misleading consumers. In case two traders make an environmental claim on climate change, where one considered only direct environmental impacts, whilst the other considered both direct and indirect environmental impacts, these results are not comparable. Also, a decision to make the comparison only at certain stages of a products life cycle can lead to misleading claims, if not made transparent. A comparative environmental claim needs to ensure that also for products with very different raw materials, uses and process chains, like bio-based plastics and fossil-based plastics, the most relevant stages of the life-cycle are taken into account for all products. For example, agriculture or forestry is relevant for bio-based plastics while raw oil extraction is relevant for fossil-based plastics and the question whether a relevant share of the product ends up in landfill is highly relevant to plastics that biodegrade well under landfill conditions but maybe less relevant for plastics that do not biodegrade under such conditions.
(28) When setting up the requirements for substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims, including by delegated acts adopted by the Commission, the difficulties that traders may encounter in gathering information from actors throughout their value chain or on the product’s overall life-cycle, especially for services or where there is insufficient scientific evidence, should be taken into account. This is important for example for services such as electronic communications services, for which it can be difficult to define the scope and system boundaries, e.g. where the life-cycle starts and where it finishes and even more where supply chains are complex and not stable, e.g. in cases where many equipment or components are manufactured by a multitude of enterprises outside the EU, and thus sustainability related information might not be easily accessible to EU traders concerned.
(29) For some sectors or for certain products or traders, significant environmental impacts or environmental aspects could be suspected but there might not yet be a recognised scientific method to fully assess those environmental impacts and environmental aspects. For such cases and while efforts are made to develop methods and gather evidence to enable the assessment of the respective environmental impact or environmental aspect for those sectors, traders or products, traders should be able to promote their sustainability efforts through publication of company sustainability reporting, factual reporting on the company’s performance metrics and work to reduce energy consumption, including on their websites. This flexibility would maintain and promote the incentives of those sectors or traders to continue their efforts to develop common environmental assessments pursuant to this Directive while providing for the necessary time to complete such work.
(30) While unfair commercial practices, including misleading environmental claims, are prohibited for all traders pursuant to Directive 2005/29/EC25, an administrative burden linked to substantiation and verification of environmental claims on the smallest companies could be disproportionate and should be avoided. To this end, microenterprises should be exempted from the requirements on substantiation of Article 3 and 4 unless these enterprises wish to obtain a certificate of conformity of explicit environmental claims that will be recognised by the competent authorities across the Union.
(31) In order to meet both the needs of traders regarding dynamic marketing strategies and the needs of consumers regarding more detailed, and more accurate, environmental information, the Commission may adopt delegated acts to supplement the provisions on substantiation of explicit environmental claims by further specifying the criteria for such substantiation with regard to certain claims (e.g. climate-related claims, including claims about offsets, “climate neutrality” or similar, recyclability and recycled content). The Commission should be empowered to further establish rules for measuring and calculating the environmental impacts, environmental aspects and environmental performance, by determining which activities, processes, materials, emissions or use of a product or trader contribute significantly or cannot contribute to the relevant environmental impacts and environmental aspects; by determining for which environmental aspects and environmental impacts primary information should be used; and by determining the criteria to assess the accuracy of primary and secondary information. While in most cases the Commission would consider the need for adopting these rules only after having the results of the monitoring of the evolution of environmental claims on the Union market, for some types of claims it may be necessary for the Commission to adopt supplementary rules before the results of this monitoring are available. For example, in case of climate-related claims it may be necessary to adopt such supplementary acts in order to operationalise the provisions on substantiation of claims based on offsets.
(32) The Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 contains guidance on how to measure the life cycle environmental performance of specific products or organisations and how to develop Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs) and Organisation Environmental Footprint Sectorial Rules (OEFSRs) that allow comparison of products to a benchmark. Such category rules for specific products or traders can be used to support the substantiation of claims in line with the requirements of this Directive. Therefore, the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts to establish product group or sector specific rules where this may have added value. However, in case the Product Environmental Footprint method does not yet cover an impact category, which is relevant for a product group, the adoption of PEFCR may take place only once these new relevant environmental impact categories have been added. For example, as regards marine fisheries, the PEFCR should for example reflect the fisheries-specific environmental impact categories, in particular the sustainability of the targeted stock. Concerning space, the PEFCR should reflect defence and space-specific environmental impact categories, including the orbital space use. As regards food and agricultural products, biodiversity and nature protection, as well as farming practices, including positive externalities of extensive farming and animal welfare, should, for example, also be integrated before the adoption of PEFCR could be considered. As regards textiles, the PEFCR should for example reflect the microplastics release, before the adoption of PEFCR could be considered.
(33) Since Directive 2005/29/EC already applies to misleading environmental claims, it enables the national courts and administrative authorities to stop and prohibit such claims. For example, in order to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC, environmental claims should relate only to aspects that are significant in terms of the product’s or trader’s environmental impact. Environmental claims should also be clear and unambiguous regarding which aspects of the product or trader they refer to and should not omit or hide important information about the environmental performance of the product or trader that consumers need in order to make informed choices. The wording, imagery and overall product presentation, including the layout, choice of colours, images, pictures, sounds, symbols or labels, included in the environmental claim should provide a truthful and accurate representation of the scale of the environmental benefit achieved, and should not overstate the environmental benefit achieved.
(34) Where the explicit environmental claim concerns a final product and relevant environmental impacts or environmental aspects of such product occur at the use phase and consumers can influence such environmental impacts or environmental aspects via appropriate behaviour, such as, for example, correct waste sorting or impacts of use patterns on product’s longevity, the claim should also include information explaining to consumers how their behaviour can positively contribute to the protection of the environment.
(35) In order to facilitate consumers’ choices of more sustainable products and to incentivise efforts of traders to lower their environmental impacts, when the claim communicated relates to future environmental performance, it should as a priority be based on improvements inside trader’s own operations and value chains rather than relying on offsetting of greenhouse has emissions or other environmental impacts.
(36) Consumers should have easy access to the information on the product or the trader that is the subject of the explicit environmental claim and regarding information substantiating that claim. This information should also consider needs of older consumers. For that purpose, traders should either provide this information in a physical form or provide a weblink, QR code or equivalent leading to a website where more detailed information on the substantiation of the explicit environmental claim is made available in at least one of the official languages of the Member State where the claim is made. In order to facilitate the enforcement of this Directive, the weblink, QR code or equivalent should also ensure easy access to the certificate of conformity regarding the substantiation of the explicit environmental claim and the contact information of the verifier who drew up that certificate.
(37) In order to avoid potential disproportionate impacts on the microenterprises, the smallest companies should be exempted from the requirements of Article 5 linked to information on the substantiation of explicit environmental claims unless these enterprises wish to obtain a certificate of conformity of explicit environmental claim that will be recognised by the competent authorities across the Union.
(38) When the Commission adopts delegated acts to supplement the provisions on substantiation of explicit environmental claims it may be necessary to also supplement the provisions on communication of such claims. For example, in case specific life-cycle-based rules on substantiation of explicit environmental claims for certain products group or sector are established, it may be necessary to add supplementary rules on presentation of environmental impacts assessed based on these rules by requiring that three main environmental impacts are presented next to the aggregated indicator of overall environmental performance. To this end the Commission should be empowered to adopt delegated acts to supplement the provisions on communication of explicit environmental claims.
(39) Currently, more than 200 environmental labels are used on the Union market. They present important differences in how they operate as regards for example the transparency and comprehensiveness of the standards or methods used, the frequency of revisions, or the level of auditing or verification. These differences have an impact on how reliable the information communicated on the environmental labels is. While claims based on the EU Ecolabel or its national equivalents follow a solid scientific basis, have a transparent development of criteria, require testing and third-party verification and foresee regular monitoring, evidence suggests that many environmental labels currently on the EU market are misleading. In particular, many environmental labels lack sufficient verification procedures. Therefore, explicit environmental claims made on environmental labels should be based on a certification scheme.
(40) In cases where an environmental label involves a commercial communication to consumers that suggests or creates the impression that a product has a positive or no impact on the environment, or is less damaging to the environment than competing products without the label, that environmental label also constitutes an explicit environmental claim. The content of such environmental label is therefore subject to the requirements on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims.
(41) The environmental labels often aim at providing consumers with an aggregated scoring presenting a cumulative environmental impact of products or traders to allow for direct comparisons between products or traders. Such aggregated scoring however presents risks of misleading consumers as the aggregated indicator may dilute negative environmental impacts of certain aspects of the product with more positive environmental impacts of other aspects of the product. In addition, when developed by different operators, such labels usually differ in terms of specific methodology underlying the aggregated score such as the environmental impacts considered or the weighting attributed to these environmental impacts. This may result in the same product receiving different score or rating depending on the scheme. This concern arises in relation to schemes established in the Union and in third countries. This is contributing to the fragmentation of the internal market, risks putting smaller companies at a disadvantage, and is likely to further mislead consumers and undermine their trust in environmental labels. In order to avoid this risk and ensure better harmonisation within the single market, the explicit environmental claims, including environmental labels, based on an aggregated score representing a cumulative environmental impact of products or traders should not be deemed to be sufficiently substantiated, unless those aggregated scores stem from Union rules, including the delegated acts that the Commission is empowered to adopt under this Directive, resulting in Union-wide harmonised schemes for all products or per specific product group based on a single methodology to ensure coherence and comparability.
(42) In accordance with the proposal for a Directive on empowering consumers for the green transition, which amends Directive 2005/29/EC, displaying a sustainability label which is not based on a certification scheme or not established by public authorities constitutes an unfair commercial practice in all circumstances. This means that the ‘self-certified’ sustainability labels, where no third-party verification and regular monitoring takes place as regards compliance with the underlying requirements of the sustainability label are prohibited.
(43) In order to combat misleading explicit environmental claims communicated in the form of environmental labels and increase consumer trust in environmental labels, this Directive should establish governance criteria that all environmental labelling schemes are to comply with, complementing thus the requirements set in the said proposal amending Directive 2005/29/EC.
(44) In order to avoid further proliferation of national or regional officially recognised EN ISO 14024 type I environmental labelling (‘ecolabelling’) schemes, and other environmental labelling schemes, and to ensure more harmonisation in the internal market, new national or regional environmental labelling schemes should be developed only under the Union law. Nevertheless, Member States can request the Commission to consider developing public labelling schemes at the Union level for product groups or sectors where such labels do not yet exist in Union law and where harmonisation would bring added value to achieve the sustainability and internal market objectives in an efficient manner.
(45) In order not to create unnecessary barriers to international trade and to ensure equal treatment with the public schemes established in the Union, the public authorities outside of the Union setting up new labelling schemes should be allowed to request approval from the Commission for use of the label on the Union market. This approval should be conditional on the scheme’s contribution to reaching the objectives of this Directive and provided that the schemes demonstrate added value in terms of environmental ambition, coverage of environmental impacts, product group or sector and meet all the requirements of this Directive.
(46) Environmental labelling schemes established by private operators, if too many and overlapping in terms of scope, may create confusion in consumers or undermine their trust in environmental labels. Therefore, Member States should only allow that new environmental labelling schemes are established by private operators provided that they offer significant added value as compared to the existing national or regional schemes in terms of environmental ambition of the criteria to award the label, coverage of relevant environmental impacts, and completeness of the underlying assessment. Member States should set up a procedure for the approval of new environmental labelling schemes based on a certificate of conformity drawn up by the independent verifier. This should apply to schemes established in the Union and outside of the Union.
(47) In order to provide legal certainty and facilitate enforcement of the provisions on new national and regional officially recognised environmental labelling schemes and new private labelling schemes, the Commission should publish a list of such schemes that may either continue to apply on the Union market or enter the Union market.
(48) In order to ensure a harmonised approach by the Member States to the assessment and approval of environmental labelling schemes developed by private operators, and to establish an approval procedure by the Commission for proposed schemes established by public authorities outside of the Union, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt common rules specifying detailed requirements for approval of such environmental labelling schemes, the format and content of supporting documents and rules of procedure to approve such schemes. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council26.
(49) It is essential that explicit environmental claims reflect correctly the environmental performance and environmental impacts covered by the claim, and consider the latest scientific evidence. Member States should therefore ensure that the trader making the claim reviews and updates the substantiation and communication of the claims at least every 5 years to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Directive
(50) To ensure that explicit environmental claims are reliable, it is necessary that Member States set up procedure for verifying that the substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims, including environmental labels, or the environmental labelling schemes, comply with the requirements set out in this Directive.
(51) In order to allow the competent authorities to control more efficiently the implementation of the provisions of this Directive and to prevent as much as possible unsubstantiated explicit environmental claims, including environmental labels, from appearing on the market, verifiers complying with the harmonised requirements set up by the Directive should check that both the information used for the substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims meet the requirements of this Directive. In order to avoid misleading consumers, the verification should in any case take place before the environmental claims are made public or environmental labels are displayed. The verifier can, if appropriate, indicate several ways of communicating the explicit environmental claim that comply with the requirements of this Directive to avoid the need for continuous re-certification in case the way of communication is slightly modified without affecting the compliance with the requirements of this Directive. To facilitate the traders compliance with the rules on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims, including the environmental labels, the verification should take into account the nature and content of the claim or the environmental label, including whether they appear to be unfair in the light of Directive 2005/29/EC.
(52) In order to provide traders with legal certainty across the internal market as regards compliance of the explicit environmental claims with the requirements of this Directive, the certificate of conformity should be recognised by the competent authorities across the Union. Microenterprises should be allowed to request such certificate if they wish to certify their claims in line with the requirements of this Directive and benefit from the certificate’s recognition across the Union. The certificate of conformity should however not prejudge the assessment of the environmental claim by the public authorities or courts which enforce Directive 2005/29/EC.
(53) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the provisions on verification of explicit environmental claims and environmental labelling schemes and to facilitate the enforcement of the provisions on verification of this Directive, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission to adopt a common form for certificates of conformity and the technical means for issuing such certificates. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council27.
(54) Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) should be able to benefit from the opportunities provided by the market for more sustainable products but they could face proportionately higher costs and difficulties with some of the requirements on substantiation and verification of explicit environmental claims. The Member States should provide adequate information and raise awareness of the ways to comply with the requirements of this Directive, ensure targeted and specialised training, and provide specific assistance and support, including financial, to SMEs wishing to make explicit environmental claims on their products or as regards their activities. Member States actions should be taken in respect of applicable State aid rules.
(55) In order to ensure a level-playing field on the Union market, where claims about the environmental performance of a product or a trader are based on reliable, comparable and verifiable information, it is necessary to establish common rules on enforcement and compliance.
(56) In order to ensure that the objectives of this Directive are achieved and the requirements are enforced effectively, Member States should designate their own competent authorities responsible for the application and enforcement of this Directive. However, in view of the close complementarity of Articles 5 and 6 of this Directive with the provisions of Directive 2005/29/EC, Member States should also be allowed to designate for their enforcement the same competent authorities as those responsible for the enforcement of Directive 2005/29/EC. For the sake of consistency, when Member States make that choice, they should be able to rely on the means and powers of enforcement that they have established in accordance with Article 11 of Directive 2005/29/EC, in derogation from the rules on enforcement laid down in this Directive. In cases where there is more than one designated competent authority in their territory and to ensure effective exercise of the duties of the competent authorities, Member State should ensure a close cooperation between all designated competent authorities.
(57) Without prejudice to the powers already conferred by Regulation (EU) 2017/239428 to consumer protection authorities, competent authorities should have a minimum set of investigation and enforcement powers in order to ensure compliance with this Directive, to cooperate with each other more quickly and more efficiently, and to deter market actors from infringing this Directive. Those powers should be sufficient to tackle the enforcement challenges of e-commerce and the digital environment effectively and to prevent non-compliant market actors from exploiting gaps in the enforcement system by relocating to Member States whose competent authorities may be less equipped to tackle unlawful practices.
(58) Competent authorities should be able to use all facts and circumstances of the case as evidence for the purpose of their investigation.
(59) In order to prevent the occurrence of misleading and unsubstantiated explicit environmental claims on the Union market, competent authorities should carry out regular checks of explicit environmental claims made, and the environmental labelling schemes applied, to verify that the requirements laid down in this Directive are fulfilled.
(60) When competent authorities detect an infringement of requirements of this Directive they should carry out an evaluation and based on its results notify the trader about the infringement detected and require that corrective actions are taken by the trader. To minimise the misleading effect on consumers of the non-compliant explicit environmental claim or non-compliant environmental labelling scheme, the trader should be required by the competent authorities to take an effective and rapid action to remediate that infringement. The corrective action required should be proportionate to the infringement detected and its expected harmful effects on the consumers.
(61) Where an infringement is not restricted to their national territory, and the explicit environmental claim has been advanced between traders, competent authorities should inform the other Member States of the results of evaluation they have carried out and of any action that they have required the trader responsible to take.
(62) Competent authorities should also carry out checks of explicit environmental claims on the Union market when in possession of and based on relevant information, including substantiated concerns submitted by third parties. Third parties submitting a concern should be able to demonstrate a sufficient interest or maintain the impairment of a right.
(63) In order to ensure that traders are effectively dissuaded from non-compliance with the requirements of this Directive, Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of this Directive and ensure that those rules are implemented. The penalties provided for should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. To facilitate a more consistent application of penalties, it is necessary to establish common non-exhaustive criteria for determining the types and levels of penalties to be imposed in case of infringements. That criteria should include, inter alia, the nature and gravity of the infringement as well as the economic benefits derived from the infringement in order to ensure that those responsible are deprived of those benefits.
(64) When setting penalties and measures for infringements, the Member States should foresee that, based on the gravity of the infringement, the level of fines should effectively deprive the non-compliant trader from the economic benefit derived from using the misleading or unsubstantiated explicit environmental claim or non-compliant environmental labelling scheme, including in cases of repeated infringements. The measures for infringements foreseen by the Member States should therefore also include confiscation of the relevant product from the trader or revenues gained from the transactions affected by this infringement or a temporary exclusions or prohibitions from placing products or making available services on the Union market. The gravity of the infringement should be the leading criterion for the measures taken by the enforcement authorities. The maximum amount of fines should be dissuasive and set at least at the level of 4% of the trader’s total annual turnover in the Member State or Member States concerned in case of widespread infringements with a Union dimension that are subject to coordinated investigation and enforcement measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/239429.
(65) When adopting delegated acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU, it is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making30. In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts.
(66) In order to assess the performance of the legislation against the objectives that it pursues, the Commission should carry out an evaluation of this Directive and present a report on the main findings to the European Parliament and the Council. In order to inform an evaluation of this Directive, Member States should regularly collect information on the application of this Directive and provide it to the Commission on an annual basis.
(67) Where based on the results of the monitoring and evaluation of this Directive the Commission finds it appropriate to propose a review of this Directive, the feasibility and appropriateness of further provisions on mandating the use of common method for substantiation of explicit environmental claims, the extension of prohibition of environmental claims for products containing hazardous substances except where their use is considered essential for the society, or further harmonisation as regards requirements on the substantiation of specific environmental claims on environmental aspects or environmental impacts should also be considered.
(68) The use of the most harmful substances should ultimately be phased-out in the Union to avoid and prevent significant harm to human health and the environment, in particular their use in consumer products. Regulation (EC) 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council31 prohibits the labelling of mixtures and substances that contain hazardous chemicals as ‘non-toxic’, ‘non-harmful’, ‘non-polluting’, ‘ecological’ or any other statements indicating that the substance or mixture is not hazardous or statements that are inconsistent with the classification of that substance or mixture. Member States are required to ensure that such obligation is fulfilled. As committed in the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability the Commission will define criteria for essential uses to guide its application across relevant Union legislation. .
(69) Since the objectives of this Directive, namely to improve the functioning of the internal market for economic actors operating in the internal market and consumers relying on environmental claims, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
(70) In accordance with the Joint Political Declaration of 28 September 2011 of Member States and the Commission on explanatory documents32, Member States have undertaken to accompany, in justified cases, the notification of their transposition measures with one or more documents explaining the relationship between the components of a directive and the corresponding parts of national transposition instruments. With regard to this Directive, the legislator considers the transmission of such documents to be justified.
(71) The Annex to Regulation (EU) 1024/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council33 should be amended to include a reference to this Directive so as to facilitate the administrative cooperation between the competent authorities through the Internal Market Information System.
(72) The Annex to Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 should be amended to include a reference to this Directive so as to facilitate cross-border cooperation on enforcement of this Directive.
(73) Annex I of Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council35 should be amended to include a reference to this Directive so as to ensure that the collective interests of consumers laid down in this Directive are protected.