How to be green – What is a valid scientific proof for environmental claims?

The proposal of the Green Claims Directive requires that voluntarily taken green claims rely on “widely recognised scientific evidence, use accurate information and take into account relevant international standards”¹. In addition, the proposed draft requires showing that the aspect under consideration is a significant environmental aspect for the respective product. The life cycle perspective is also explicitly mentioned. But setting some kind of relevance threshold or any absolute judgement on whether an aspect is significant or not is not trivial. Nor is the question of what scientific evidence can look like.

The ambition is clear, but many questions remain

While the requirements are fairly clear, the practical implementations still need to be defined. This is already stated in the proposal of the directive. In the event “[…] where the Commission identifies that the absence of requirements for specific claims leads to widespread misleading of consumers, the Commission may adopt delegated acts […]”² . This will almost certainly be the case, as recent decades have shown that comparable outcomes require much more specific provisions. However, a look at other legal texts may give a cautious outlook on what may come.

The CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), for instance, requires a double materiality analysis in order to identify important aspects and prioritise reporting accordingly. In this analysis, the risks and the impacts of the undertaking each represent a materiality perspective. Perhaps this principle can be transferred to the product level of the GCD proposal.

Many ways how to get scientific evidence?

Another way of prioritising environmental impacts is described in the Product Environmental Footprint. Here, individual results can be normalised and weighted according to a common standard. This provides a possible starting point for categorising individual aspects as significant or insignificant.

In the assessment of individual products, e.g., the impact on climate change, there are still huge differences in the assessments, which will also affect the Green Claims Directive. The internationally recognised standard here would be ISO 14067, but this standard offers so much flexibility to deal with the individual characteristics of the object of investigation that the results of such studies are rarely comparable.

The European Commission’s instrument for standardised life cycle assessment is the Product Environmental Footprint (PEF). The PEF has an underlying methodology that is quite similar to that of the ISO 14040 standard. However, it also offers product-specific category rules to make products more comparable. The development of the product category rules is currently underway, but is obviously proving to be more difficult than expected. Nevertheless, the Green Claims Directive, if it is implemented, and the PEF evaluation system should be synchronised soon.

Labels like “Carbon-neutral” will be more difficult to obtain

Even if many aspects of the Green Claims proposal are still not defined in detail, it is already very clear that any type of offsetting must be specified as additional information and may no longer be deducted directly. This primarily addresses the increasing number of climate and carbon neutrality claims, which are largely the result of such offsetting mechanisms. We see this as the right step, because the inflationary use of such labels means that others, even significant claims about greenhouse gas reductions, are losing their value.

An example: Company A invests in new facilities, buys renewable energy, reorganises its supply chains and thus achieves an 80% reduction in its carbon footprint. A great achievement. In comparison company B invests much less, prefers to buy certificates for its emissions and labels its products as “carbon neutral”. For company A, this means that it can hardly communicate its success, as competitor of company B gives the impression that it has already achieved complete avoidance of GHG emissions.

How to prepare?

To sum up: many things on the GCD proposal are not yet specified, but companies can prepare. Even today, environmental statements can be scientifically verified. “Relevant international standards” are, for example, ISO 14040 and 14044 for LCAs, or ISO 14067 for carbon footprints. They are already being carried out today, can be validated or certified via a review, and can thus quantify and substantiate statements on environmental impacts. Assessment standards differ in detail, but also show big overlaps. If companies invest in good internal data quality and digitalization, engage with suppliers and start a company-wide internal learning process on new sustainability topics, they will be well-prepared for the potentially upcoming green claims requirements.

¹ European Commission (2023): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). 2023/0085 (COD) Official Journal of the European Union (Ed.), 2023-03-22.  Download at: www.//eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0166

² European Commission (2023): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive). 2023/0085 (COD) Official Journal of the European Union (Ed.), 2023-03-22.  Download at: www.//eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023PC0166

Source

nova-Institute, press release, 2023-12-12

Supplier

European Commission
European Parliament
nova-Institut GmbH

Share