Textile environmental claims under the ECGT: burden of proof, evidence and sanction

From the voluntary Ecolabel 2010/66 to the binding ECGT 2024/825

The European regulatory framework on sustainability has transitioned from strictly voluntary mechanisms towards an imperative and binding sanctioning regime. Regulation (EC) 66/2010 established a voluntary eco-label system conceived to promote products with reduced environmental impact. Decision 2014/350/EU materialised this approach by establishing the specific ecological criteria for textiles.

However, the voluntary nature of these schemes generated negative externalities. The uncontrolled proliferation of labels and claims without independent verification caused severe information asymmetry. The coexistence of the EU Ecolabel with more than two hundred private labels, many operating as mere marketing tools without third-party auditing, eroded consumer trust.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 (ECGT) emerges as a corrective response, transforming the recommendation into an express prohibition. The fundamental dogmatic innovation lies in the reversal of the burden of proof. The European legislator determines that any environmental claim constitutes, ex lege, an unfair and misleading commercial practice if the operator does not have the scientific and documentary evidence to support it at the exact moment it is made. It is no longer the consumer authority that must prove the falsity of the claim, but the textile operator who assumes the imperative obligation to provide the prior, clear, objective and verifiable evidentiary substrate.

Binding framework today: ECGT in transposition, Ecolabel in force and the proposed Green Claims

The legal ecosystem is articulated around three axes at different stages of maturity. Directive (EU) 2024/825 (ECGT) constitutes the main binding framework, structurally amending Directive 2005/29/EC. Published in the OJEU on 6 March 2024, it is immersed in its transposition period. The ECGT taxatively prohibits the inclusion of non-verifiable claims, altering Article 6 to censure «making an environmental claim relating to future environmental performance without clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments and targets, set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that includes measurable and time-bound targets».

Secondly, Decision 2014/350/EU maintains its full material validity as a technical reference standard. Its technical parameters (restrictions on the use of hazardous substances in dyeing and finishing, biodegradability thresholds) provide the empirical substrate that the ECGT requires to substantiate "recognised excellent environmental performance".

Thirdly, the proposed Green Claims Directive (52023PC0166) progresses through the legislative procedure. Conceived as lex specialis, it will complement the ECGT by requiring ex ante certification by an accredited independent verifier before any claim can be communicated to the market.

Environmental claims prohibited under the ECGT

Directive (EU) 2024/825 introduces a reform of Annex I of Directive 2005/29/EC, expanding the blacklist of unfair commercial practices. This modification defines a closed catalogue of de facto prohibited claims.

The first block of prohibitions falls on generic environmental claims for which the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance. The wording explicitly prohibits terms such as "environmentally friendly", "eco", "green", "nature's friend", "ecological" or "conscious", unless the product complies with the criteria of Regulation (EC) 66/2010 (Ecolabel) or equivalent frameworks of maximum stringency.

The second block proscribes claims based on emissions offsetting that suggest a neutral or positive impact. Claims such as "climate neutral", "carbon neutral" or "offset CO2 footprint" are strictly prohibited. The legislator determines that offsetting outside the value chain is not equivalent to the effective reduction of impact.

The third block sanctions the display of sustainability labels that are not based on an independent certification system or have not been established by public authorities. Self-certified labels without audits under standards such as ISO 17065 are prohibited. Likewise, making a claim about the product as a whole when the benefit concerns only a minority component is prohibited.

Operational timeline: ECGT transposition 27-mar-2026, Green Claims and transitional regime

Legal effectiveness imposes a calendar of strict compliance. Following its publication in the OJEU on 6 March 2024, the Directive entered into force twenty days later. Article 4 imperatively establishes that Member States must adopt the national provisions no later than 27 March 2026. The measures will be fully applicable and enforceable from 27 September 2026.

This thirty-month timeframe constitutes the de facto transitional regime for the European textile industry. During this period, brands must carry out a process of auditing and cleaning up all their communication assets, advertising campaigns, physical labelling and e-commerce descriptions. The arrival of 27 September 2026 does not allow extensions; any product with generic environmental claims, carbon offsets or self-certified labels will incur a direct infringement.

In parallel, the proposed Green Claims Directive is in the trilogue phase between Parliament, Council and Commission. Its formal adoption is projected towards the end of 2024 or the beginning of 2025, placing its own transposition deadline on the 2027-2028 horizon. This temporal asymmetry is critical: the ECGT will act first by eliminating flagrantly misleading claims; when Green Claims enters into force two years later, it will raise the standard by requiring ex ante certification by accredited verifiers.

How the ECGT intersects with DPP ESPR, EPR eco-modulation, CSDDD and CSRD

The ECGT does not operate in an evidentiary vacuum. The ECGT requires that every claim be clear, objective, verifiable and supported by scientific evidence, but it does not prescribe the technical infrastructure to store that evidence. The Digital Product Passport resolves this requirement: it not only stores the evidence, it links each environmental claim to its traceable technical data (composition, recycled content, substances), so that the reversed burden of proof is covered by construction. The granularity of the mandatory information of the ESPR for textiles (fibre traceability, recycled content percentages, presence of chemical substances) provides the factual substrate that the operator needs to justify a claim.

Analogously, the sanctioning framework intersects with the financial architecture of Extended Producer Responsibility. SCRAPs apply modulated fees based on actual environmental performance, requiring strict audits of composition, durability and recyclability. The eco-modulated fee paid and the technical documentation provided constitute undisputed documentary proof. Discrepancies between marketing claims and technical data reported to the SCRAP would constitute conclusive proof of infringement.

In the dimension of value chain impacts, the ECGT intertwines with the CSDDD. The amendment of Article 6 includes the social and environmental characteristics of the supply chain as elements about which the consumer cannot be misled. Claims about "ethical production", "fair wages" or "respect for human rights" are subject to the same scrutiny.

Finally, the CSRD disciplines claims about the trader's general activity. The ECGT prohibits claims about the environmental performance of the entire company when they only concern a specific non-representative activity.

Operational implications by size: large brand with campaigns, mid-sized with specific claims, small with factual statement

The sanctioning architecture enshrines a principle of universal application: every entity that makes and disseminates an environmental claim is subject to the same material rigour. The rules deliberately omit economic exemption thresholds. However, the operational materialisation induces asymmetric requirements depending on the volume of operations.

For large textile corporations that articulate global seasonal campaigns, the impact acquires a systemic dimension. They face massive exposure risk arising from the multiplicity of channels and the aggressiveness of aspirational positioning. Their adaptation requires establishing legal review committees prior to dissemination, integrating automated validation flows between sustainability and marketing, and ensuring direct traceability to the reports audited under the CSRD.

In the segment of mid-sized operators, whose deployment incorporates specific claims associated with particular lines, the operational burden is concentrated on documentary custody. These firms must structure internal systems to ensure that claims are anchored to recognised certifications and to the data required by the DPP.

For smaller players, adaptation demands communicative austerity. Legal viability passes through restricting communication to strictly factual, aseptic and demonstrable claims: precise percentage composition, GOTS certification documented at origin, without generic absolute claims.

8 edge cases: border scenarios in textile environmental claims

1. Carbon offsetting without primary reduction: an operator finances reforestation projects and markets garments as "climate neutral". This practice incurs an absolute prohibition under the amended Annex I. The Directive establishes that claiming a neutral impact based on offsetting outside the value chain is misleading.

2. Future claim without a verifiable commitment plan: a brand claims "By 2030 our garments will leave no carbon footprint" without a detailed plan with budget allocation. Article 6.2 prohibits claims about future performance that lack clear commitments and periodic verification by an independent third party.

3. Self-created eco-label: a retailer designs a green logo with the text "Sustainable Choice" based on internal non-audited criteria. It violates the express prohibition of displaying labels that are not based on third-party certification or established by public authorities.

4. Minority component extrapolated to the whole: a company markets a coat under the slogan "Made with 100% recycled materials" when only the lining and buttons are recycled. The ECGT prohibits making a claim about the whole product when it only concerns one component.

5. Generic comparison without baseline data: a distributor claims that its line is "50% more ecological than the industry standard". Article 7 requires that comparisons be based on information about method, products and suppliers.

6. Circularity claims without a return infrastructure: a brand promotes garments as "100% circular" on the basis that the design uses theoretically recyclable monomaterials. If it does not have real post-consumer collection infrastructure, the claim is sanctionable.

7. Ambiguous use of geography ("Made in..."): promoting a garment as "Produced locally and therefore emission-free" without a Life Cycle Assessment that corroborates the impact of raw material manufacturing violates the prohibition of claims lacking demonstrated excellent environmental performance.

8. Multi-brand claim applied to a specific collection: an operator that groups various brands claims that "Our company operates with 100% renewable energy" when that metric only applies to one administrative headquarters. The ECGT prohibits a claim about the entire business when it concerns a non-representative activity.

5 operational decisions for the next 12 months

1. Execution of a pre-publication legal audit of claims: the company must institute a prior and binding control procedure, where the legal and compliance department assesses every environmental claim, label or seal before its public dissemination.

2. Drafting of an internal glossary of permitted and prohibited terms: the drafting and mandatory distribution of a commercial writing manual is required, sharply censuring blacklist terms such as "ecological", "carbon neutral", "green" or "environmentally friendly", unless the strictly defined evidentiary exceptions apply.

3. Reconciliation of claims with [DPP](/recursos/glosario/dpp), EPR and [CSDDD](/recursos/glosario/csddd) data: companies must harmonise their marketing narratives with the technical databases they are already building for the Digital Passport and the SCRAPs. Any discrepancy represents incriminating evidence against the operator.

4. Active monitoring of the national transposition of the [ECGT](/recursos/glosario/ecgt): the operator must monitor the process of integrating Directive (EU) 2024/825 into the Spanish LGCU, whose deadline expires on 27 March 2026.

5. Structuring of an evidence plan for the future Green Claims: although the proposal is still in progress, the operator must anticipate the ex ante verification requirement. Select accredited certification entities, define Life Cycle Assessment methodologies and budget the associated costs.