EU Green Claims Proposal and Green Transition Rules What evidence should support environmental claims before communication?

Before a voluntary explicit environmental claim is communicated to consumers, the evidence file should substantiate the exact claim being made. That means the record should identify the product, service, or trader; the claimed environmental impact, aspect, or performance; the scientific method or study relied on; the data sources; and the verifier or review status where verification is required.

The evidence should support the public wording, not a broader or different sustainability story. If the claim says a product has lower water impact in the use phase, the record should not only contain a corporate ESG report or supplier certificate unrelated to that impact.

A claim file should identify the environmental aspects and impacts relevant to the product or trader and should not omit significant impacts. Considering the life cycle does not always require a full life-cycle assessment: a narrower method may fit a single-attribute claim, but the file should explain the boundary and show that omitted stages or impacts do not make the claim misleading.

PEF and OEF can be useful where they fit the product category or organisation context because Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/2279 recommends them as life-cycle assessment methods for measuring environmental performance. The Recommendation is not a universal legal mandate. The record should show the functional unit or organisational boundary, life-cycle stages, impact categories, datasets, assumptions, and data quality.

A comparative claim needs evidence for both sides of the comparison. The record should show that products or traders are comparable, the same or equivalent methods and assumptions were used, and the comparison is based on equivalent information and data.

If the comparison is against an earlier version of the same product, a competitor product no longer on the market, or a trader that no longer sells to consumers, the substantiation should explain the improvement, the baseline year, and whether the improvement changes other relevant environmental impacts.

Keep a publication record that connects each live claim to its substantiation package. The record should allow a reviewer to see what was communicated, which evidence supported it at the time of communication, what information was made available to consumers, and whether the evidence has been reviewed after product, supplier, method, market, or legal changes.

The 2016 compliance criteria state that substantiation should be available when claims are published and retained for a reasonable period after use in commercial communication. The Green Claims proposal also expects supporting information to accompany the claim or be available through a web link, QR code, or equivalent channel. The exact disclosure content differs between the Commission, Parliament, and Council positions and cannot be treated as final.

The Council draft would require review when circumstances may affect accuracy and no later than five years after certificate issuance or, where applicable, the date Specific Technical Documentation is made available to authorities. Updated substantiation would require verification; for an Article 3a claim, the trader would update the Specific Technical Documentation. This proposal-stage backstop would not permit waiting when a supplier, formulation, method, comparator, claim, or other material fact changes sooner.