In a decision igniting widespread political turmoil, the European Commission under President Ursula von der Leyen has announced its intention to withdraw its much-anticipated legislation targeting corporate greenwashing. This unexpected move, widely seen as bowing to pressure from conservative interests and the far-right, has put the centrist coalition that had supported von der Leyen’s re-election to a second term into question.
The controversial Green Claims Directive aimed to curb misleading environmental claims by companies, protecting both consumers and responsible businesses. Its withdrawal follows months of contentious negotiations, marred by intense lobbying and political divisions within the EU institutions.
Central to the political storm is the alignment of von der Leyen and the European People’s Party (EPP) with far-right groups typically on the margins of European politics. Critics argue that this maneuver has undermined the centrist coalition of parties within the European Parliament, whose votes gave von der Leyen her second term last year, and shows that the EPP and VDL are now supporting far-right positions in the European legislative process.
Sandro Gozi, Secretary General of the European Democratic Party (EDP) and co-rapporteur for the European Parliament on the Green Claims file, strongly condemned the decision, stating, “By threatening to withdraw the Green Claims directive, the European Commission has overstepped its mandate and hampered the negotiations. The EPP is happy, the far right is happy, Meloni is happy with less protection for consumers and less competitiveness for EU firms.”
Gozi’s remarks underscore widespread frustration among centrist and progressive factions. “And the paradox is that they say they want to help microenterprises, which is exactly what we are doing. It’s not the EU: it is the theatre of absurd,” he added, highlighting the hypocrisy in the Commission’s justification.
In an unprecedented move, the leaders of the Renew Europe and Socialists & Democrats (S&D) groups in the European Parliament, Valérie Hayer and Iratxe García Pérez, respectively, expressed deep concern in a joint letter to Parliament President Roberta Metsola. They strongly criticized the Commission for withdrawing the directive without prior consultation, arguing it violates the principle of sincere cooperation and sets a dangerous precedent for institutional procedures. They urged Metsola to firmly oppose this withdrawal and to demand proper consultations, highlighting that the Commission’s actions undermine the role of the Parliament and Council as co-legislators.
Another reason the Commission gave for withdrawing the proposal was a shift in Italy’s position. Italy, under Prime Minister Meloni—whose party belongs to the far-right European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament—changed its stance on the legislation. As a result, the Council no longer had a clear majority in favor of the greenwashing bill.
Although Italian diplomats claimed they had never truly supported the bill, Italy’s official change of position happened shortly after Commission President von der Leyen visited Meloni in Rome. Multiple sources suggest that von der Leyen may have asked Meloni to reverse Italy’s stance. If true, this would add to concerns about possible collusion between the EPP and far-right fractions.
Regardless, the political implications of this withdrawal are profound. Von der Leyen, whose initial presidency was bolstered by a delicate balance of support across the political spectrum, faces growing accusations of capitulation to far-right pressures at the expense of European environmental and economic standards. This shift not only weakens her standing among traditionally supportive centrist and liberal groups but also raises significant questions about the Commission’s future policy direction.
As Brussels grapples with the immediate fallout, the broader implications for European democracy, consumer protection, and environmental standards remain deeply uncertain, reflecting a dangerous shift towards political expediency over principled policymaking.
