Is it back to Wild West for sustainability communications? Jedrzej Nadolny from Ohana Public Affairs unpacks what the EU’s withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive means for your company.

By announcing to withdraw the Green Claims Directive (GCD), the European Commission sent a troubling message: when industry pressure clashes with environmental policy, it’s the green rules that get cut. The last-minute withdrawal announcement – just before final talks – marks a real setback for the EU’s Green Deal and raises legal uncertainty for brands who invest in sustainability.

The GCD was designed to bring rules on the substantiation and pre-approval verification of green claims made on the EU market. It is true that the directive was not free from challenging requirements and some weaker points. But the big advantage was that it proposed a consistent system for claims across the EU. Instead, now, we risk fragmentation of rules.

Industry pressure derails harmonized claim standards

What exactly happened to the GCD? Some industry groups pushed back, worried the rules would be too hard and expensive to follow. Their concerns were picked up by the European People’s Party (EPP) who impacted the Commission to stop the directive from moving forward. Other groups in Parliament – the Renew, the Greens, and the Socialists & Democrats – were clearly frustrated by the surprise move.

Even the Commission didn’t seem fully on board with its own decision. After the withdrawal was announced, it changed its tone and said it still supported the GCD. But the damage was done. Italy dropped its support, weakening the Council’s position, and with the EPP and far-right parties opposing it in the Parliament, the future of the GCD is very uncertain.

Without the GCD, green marketing in the EU would fall under the broader and more generic Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) which is getting some significant updates starting to apply in September 2026. These updates include a ban on vague terms like “eco-friendly” unless backed by very strong evidence, as well as new rules to make sure certification schemes are credible.

Uncertain future puts pressure on national regulators

That’s a step forward, but not enough. The big issue is that the key rules in UCPD are not very specific, opening possibility of different interpretations. The UCPD transposition and enforcement will now be up to each Member State. That means brands could face different rules depending on where they sell, leading to confusion, uneven enforcement, and higher costs. Some countries might go further than others, creating new labelling obligations.

Ironically, while some industry voices would welcome the end of the GCD, many businesses actually want clear rules. Without a unified EU standard system, it becomes harder to know what’s allowed, and harder to plan long-term sustainability strategies.

Even more worrying is what this says about the EU’s larger green agenda. If the Commission can put a stop to a major part of the Green Deal, what does that mean for other laws still in the pipeline, like the revision of the EU chemical law (e.g. REACH Regulation)? This situation sets a bad precedent.

In the meantime, while there is still no definite decision as to the GCD, companies should focus on UCPD implementation. This involves turning to their national consumer protection authorities for guidance on what the updated UCPD requires. With no central EU framework in place, national regulators will be the main point of reference – and brands should seek clarity early to avoid legal risks and reputational damage down the line.

Lead graphic: Unsplash