Since the directive does not contain the transitional provisions typically used in European Union legislative amendments, does this mean that goods already on the market could become non-compliant solely because of claims printed on their packaging? What will happen in stores on September 27?

The European Union has adopted what is, in fact, a very welcome directive that bans or at least restricts the use of greenwashing on product packaging. When a person buys a product from a store whose packaging refers to sustainability, environmental friendliness or eco-consciousness, those claims can no longer simply be printed on the label. They must instead be verified by an independent third party.

The Estonian Traders Association has historically supported this directive as we recognize that even our own purchasing managers are not always able to navigate the confusion surrounding such claims.

So, the change itself is positive. The question, however, is what to do about packaging for products that have already been placed on the market but have not yet undergone third-party verification — in other words, products that are already in circulation, for example in wholesalers' warehouses.

Our proposal is that once the directive enters into force in the fall, these products should be allowed to be sold through under normal procedures, while the new requirements would apply only to products placed on the market thereafter.

How much could this increase product prices? Strengthening oversight mechanisms in the interest of consumers must have some impact, after all.

There will certainly be some price increases as a result. I cannot say how large they will be, since retailers generally do not manufacture the products themselves but purchase them from suppliers. At some point, manufacturers will likely issue price increase notices as their environmental claims will in the future have to be verified by independent third parties. Any additional transparency requirements or higher-than-usual standards tend to raise product prices.

On the other hand, assuming this provides consumers with relevant information that influences their purchasing decisions, it could create a price advantage for those producers who have genuinely made the necessary investments and whose products are honestly labeled.

At present, there are many products on the market that simply use green packaging or include vague environmental claims that may amount to greenwashing. Hopefully, such claims will disappear from those products, making it easier for consumers to make informed choices.

Is there a risk that even if an agreement is reached and a grace period is granted, some products will remain on the market unsold and end up being destroyed?

It is difficult to say. To assess that, we would need a clear understanding of which claims fall within the scope of the directive. At present, the description is very general — "environmental" or "green-related" claims. In earlier discussions, for example, there was debate over whether even the use of the color green or an image of a leaf on packaging could be considered a green claim. When I buy toilet paper at the store that features a picture of a squirrel in a forest, could that also be interpreted as an environmental claim?

It is possible that even agencies and ministries do not yet have a precise overview of everything that exists on the market. There needs to be a shared understanding and a common information space.

So six months before it takes effect, we still do not really know what this will look like starting in September? For example, we have a car dealer that uses only the color green and is even called "Rohe Auto." Do sellers still lack clarity?

No, not really. I would say that awareness of this directive among market participants is still fairly low. People have heard that something is coming, but since the details remain vague and because at the European level there have been numerous proposals to simplify requirements or even withdraw directives at the last minute, many companies are taking a wait-and-see approach. Smaller businesses have likely not even heard about this directive.

In this context, we need to work together with state authorities to raise awareness and ensure that retailers know to verify this information when ordering products from manufacturers. Any claims about a product's environmental qualities must be officially substantiated. Manufacturers need to understand that they may not add such claims to packaging unless they are capable of obtaining third-party verification.

In the past, there was discussion about whether exemptions should be made for small producers. We opposed that idea — being small does not mean you may mislead consumers. The requirements must apply equally to everyone. A comprehensive effort to raise market awareness must now begin and I believe that the Consumer Protection and Technical Regulatory Authority will actively address this over the next six months. Oversight activities will likely also reveal many companies that are hearing about the requirement for the first time.

The media often reports that there are always difficulties with transposing directives. This seems to be another example: there are six months left, but no one seems to know exactly what will happen.

That is true. I cannot argue with that assessment.

The simplest solution would seem to be that if proof cannot be obtained or packaging changed by September, a note is simply added stating that the product is not actually green. Would that be permitted?

That is currently under discussion, but I believe it would be an incredibly labor-intensive and illogical solution. I cannot imagine how a retailer could attach a label to tens of thousands of products stating that a claim is inaccurate. It could also lead to legal disputes with manufacturers who might argue that their rights are being violated or that their product is being discriminated against. A retailer cannot unilaterally place such a label on a manufacturer's product. The wording would have to be coordinated separately with each producer.

The workload involved and the inevitable price increases that would come with it simply would not be worth it. It would be far simpler to allow existing inventory already placed on the market to be sold through in the normal course of business, since delivery notes and arrival dates are verifiable information.

So it still cannot be completely ruled out that some products may have to be withdrawn from sale and ultimately destroyed?

It cannot be ruled out. But if it truly comes to that, then the state would have taken an unjustifiably rigid position. I cannot imagine whose interests would be served by discarding products simply because their design features an environmentally friendly image that has not been backed by third-party verification. That would seem like an absurd final outcome.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!