Legal imperatives for decarbonisation and the greenwashing reckoning in the EU’s fashion sector

The Brazilian Presidency’s mutirão concept, introduced at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, challenges the global fashion industry to move beyond rhetoric and take real, collective action to bridge the gap between fashion’s climate pledges and stark realities.​

This unified, society-wide approach highlights the necessity of transformative change across an industry responsible for 20% of global wastewater and 6-10% of greenhouse gas emissions.[1] Despite commitments from over 70 major brands to phase out coal by 2030 and increase renewable energy uptake, emissions in fashion supply chains rose by 7.5% in 2023[2], revealing a significant disconnect between pledges and reality. Mutirão stresses the legal imperative for robust, mandatory climate transparency, especially for Scope 3 emissions, which constitute roughly 80% of the sector’s carbon footprint.[3] It also means scaled climate finance targeted at vulnerable supply chains and systemic adaptation measures to safeguard workers and communities facing escalating climate risks.[4]

Globally, the apparel sector remains one of the world’s least regulated industries, leading to greenwashing and allowing voluntary targets that in any case two-thirds of companies are currently failing to meet.[5] This reality underscores the urgent need for enforceable legal frameworks that hold the industry accountable, moving beyond voluntary commitments towards genuine climate action rooted in transparency, accountability and justice. However, without binding legal regulations and a clear understanding by businesses of their compliance obligations, achieving these climate goals will remain impossible.

EU paradox – regulation amidst simplification pressure
Regardless of the extensive delays in EU legislation, the EU is still stepping up with legislative measures. For instance, the Omnibus I Simplification Package, a proposed EU law introduced in February 2025, aims to reduce administrative burdens and may revise reporting thresholds for smaller entities under directives such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive[6] (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive[7] (CSDDD). However, this proposed measure focuses on administrative ease and postponement without retreating from the binding environmental and social obligations imposed on the sector. This point was underscored by widespread disapproval of EU directions at COP30 in Brazil.

Take greenwashing as an example. Greenwashing refers to the practice of using false, misleading, selective or incomplete information about a company’s environmental or social impact. The high prevalence of such claims, one report found that 60% of sustainability claims by European fashion giants could be found unsubstantiated, has prompted aggressive regulatory intervention in the EU.[8]

The outcome? A ban on generic claims has been introduced by the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive[9]. This EU law is already in force but requires implementation by Member States by March 2026, with rules applying from September, 2026. It explicitly prohibits vague, generic environmental claims (such as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘green’, or ‘sustainable’) that are not supported by high, verifiable ecological efficiency.[10] Additionally, it forbids claims about an entire product based solely on the characteristics of a part.[11] The Directive also bans claims of neutral, positive, or limited environmental impact if that claim is justified solely by carbon offsetting.

Although the law is pending final implementation, many European countries have already adopted measures to combat greenwashing based on national consumer protection legislation.  The existing Unfair Commercial Practices Directive[12] has provided sufficient rules against misleading claims since 2005, enabling countries to challenge greenwashing practices. For instance, in 2025, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) fined an ultra-fast-fashion giant €1 million for spreading vague and misleading claims, particularly concerning its special features collection, where claims of product recyclability were often inaccurate due to the materials used.[13] Similarly, France has pursued legal action against two major sportswear brands for ambiguous environmental marketing, such as promoting shoes as being “partially made of recycled materials” when this only applied to a small component like the upper, or using ambiguous ‘green leaf’ labels for products with only 50% sustainable materials, levying fines up to €300,000 or 80% of the fraudulent campaign’s cost.

Meanwhile, work on the EU Green Claims Directive[14], which would govern substantiation of green claims, including mandating independent verification of environmental claims, and impose fines of up to 4% of annual turnover for non-compliance, is currently suspended – but it has not been completely withdrawn. We may see some simplifications to the directive as a compromise, but there will be no complete dismissal.

The pressing crisis of fashion overproduction demands true accountability, as greenwashing continues despite enforcement efforts.

Fashion industry and the cost of overproduction
To tackle risks in global supply chains, the EU’s CSDDD obligates large companies to implement due diligence processes to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harm. Non-compliance can lead to fines of at least 5% of global turnover.[15]

The 2024 Italian investigation into one of the Italian luxury brands exemplifies these risks. Italy’s competition authority (AGCM) probed the well-known luxury brand for misleading consumers on ethical supply chain practices, uncovering labour abuses like excessive overtime and poor safety conditions at subcontractors.  The brand committed €2 million to strengthening supplier audits and improving working conditions, illustrating that legal and reputational risks extend throughout the entire global value chain.

While the CSDDD application is delayed until 26 July 2028 for larger firms, enforcement risks are already material in proactive Member States. France’s 2017 Loi de Vigilance enables civil lawsuits for supply chain failures, and Germany’s LkSG imposes administrative fines. In contrast, most other EU countries lack comparable national rules, limiting sanction exposure elsewhere.​

Simultaneously, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) systems for textiles, mandated by the amended Waste Framework Directive[16] requires textile and footwear producers to fund waste management and recycling infrastructure, with national laws to be implemented by June 2027. Effective execution demands strong cooperation between the private sector and regulators to avoid hollow regulation that could stifle innovation.

Despite the EU’s efforts to simplify administrative procedures, global regulatory trends increasingly mandate strict sustainability standards rather than deregulation. The EU’s forthcoming ban on the destruction of unsold clothing starting in 2026 will significantly transform apparel disposal practices. Meanwhile, France has introduced a tax targeting “ultra-fast fashion” items to combat overproduction and environmental pollution, with penalties escalating until 2030. More changes are still to come.

These developments are driving the fashion industry toward authentic environmental responsibility.​ Now is the time for brands to lead boldly, innovate sustainably, and prove that fashion can be both stylish and sustainable. 

[1] Fashion Supply Chain Challenge – White Paper 2025 (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Fashion%20supply%20chain%20challenge_white%20paper%202025.pdf )

[2] What Fuels Fashion? 2025, Fashion Revolution (What Fuels Fashion? 2025 : Fashion Revolution

[3] Fashion Supply  Chain Challenge (…)

[4] Open Letter, Scaling Climate Solutions in the Fashion Sector: Looking at COP 30 and beyond, Fashion for Climate 2025. (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Fashion%20Charter%20COP30%20Communique.pdf

[5] Li, M.; Cavender, R.; Lee, M.-Y. Consumer Awareness of Fashion Greenwashing: Insights from Social Media Discussions. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2982. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17072982

[6] Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting.

[7] Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859

[8] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Sustainable Fashion Communication Playbook (2023), https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/42819/sustainable_fashion_communication_playbook.pdf?sequence=3    

[9] Directive (EU) 2024/825 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 February 2024 amending Directives 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU as regards empowering consumers for the green transition through better protection against unfair practices and through better information

[10] Article 1 of the Directive.

[11] Ibidem.

[12] Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council

[13] https://www.cleanhub.com/blog/greenwashing-examples

[14] Proposal for a Directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims (Green Claims Directive)

[15] https://www.eco-stylist.com/the-cycle-of-fast-fashion-greenwashing/

[16] Directive (EU) 2025/1892 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 September 2025 amending Directive 2008/98/EC on waste