Subscribe
The EU’s blocked directive on environmental claims reignites the debate over institutional balance: protecting small businesses and respecting legislative integrity over ideological zeal.
The chaos surrounding the European Union’s greenwashing directive has exposed a growing ideological rift within Europe. On one side, there are those pushing for an aggressive implementation of the Green Deal, often ignoring its economic and regulatory burdens. On the other, a more conservative, pragmatic vision is gaining ground—one that prioritizes proportionality, legal clarity, and protection of micro-enterprises, which form the backbone of Europe’s economy.
The surprise withdrawal of the directive by the European Commission has sparked outrage among progressive and liberal factions. But many observers see it instead as an overdue act of political responsibility. The Polish presidency of the EU Council canceled what was supposed to be the final trilogue meeting—where Parliament, Council, and Commission would have finalized the law—citing “too many doubts and confusion.” Warsaw reminded all parties that legislative quality must always prevail over speed. At the heart of the Commission’s concerns is an amendment inserted by Member States that could impose significant burdens on nearly 30 million micro-enterprises—around 96% of all businesses in the EU. These are companies that already struggle with bureaucracy and regulatory pressure, and for which further environmental compliance would be not just costly but unmanageable.
Protecting simplicity and proportionality in legislation is not sabotage—it is common sense. As Commission spokesperson Paula Pinho explained, this amendment “distorts the proposal” and undermines its core objective: to develop green markets without harming the smallest players. In this context, the Commission’s threat to withdraw the proposal is a legitimate use of its treaty-based authority Yet, within the European Parliament, socialist and liberal groups have responded with ideological indignation. They accuse the Commission—led by Ursula von der Leyen—of obeying the political line of the European People’s Party (EPP), the Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), and the Patriots for Europe (PfE), all of whom had recently called for the proposal to be withdrawn. But this very accusation reveals the nature of the conflict: not a disagreement over technical details, but a deeper resistance to the growing influence of a pragmatic, conservative Europe that prioritizes economic reality over green idealism.
Critics claim that the EPP has “aligned with the far right” in opposing the directive. In truth, what they fear is the erosion of their progressive dominance within EU institutions. The legislative process in the EU is based on balance between the Commission, the Council, and the Parliament. Forcing a directive through while ignoring serious concerns from Member States and the Commission itself risks undermining that balance—and with it, the legitimacy of EU lawmaking.
Italy has added to the shift by withdrawing its support for the Polish presidency’s negotiating mandate. While it initially endorsed the Council’s general approach in June 2024, Rome has since clarified that it never truly supported the proposal. This reversal may force a reopening of negotiations from scratch, signaling a broader rethinking of the directive’s feasibility. Additional doubts are being raised over the method the Commission chose to assess product sustainability—the Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR)—which has been criticized for its complexity and lack of transparency.
Far from representing a failure, the suspension of the directive could be an opportunity: a chance to reframe EU environmental policy within the bounds of economic pragmatism and institutional respect. Climate policy cannot be imposed from above—it must reflect the social and economic fabric of the continent. Europe needs to listen before acting, to protect its diversity of economies, and to step back from environmental radicalism when necessary. The conservative vision does not reject change—it insists on responsible, sustainable, and realistic change. The halt of the greenwashing directive sends a clear signal: Europe is thinking again.
Alessandro Fiorentino