Transparency postponed: EU delays risk fuelling fashion’s greenwashing crisis

Transparency postponed: EU delays risk fuelling fashion’s greenwashing crisis | Photo: freestocks

In a global marketplace where fashion defines not only culture but also environmental and labour realities, regulatory choices in Europe matter far beyond its borders. The European Union once positioned itself as a frontrunner in reshaping supply chains toward fairer, greener practices. Yet recent decisions to dilute or delay crucial frameworks risk eroding both trust and progress. For an industry already linked to water pollution, textile waste and exploitative labour, the consequences of retreating from ambitious commitments are profound.

Watered-down due diligence

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), adopted in mid-2024, originally promised oversight across full value chains. However, its recent revision trims responsibility to only tier 1 suppliers. This effectively removes scrutiny of raw materials production, where the most damaging impacts often occur, from cotton cultivation’s heavy water use to hazardous dyeing practices in textile hubs. The enforcement horizon has also shifted, with member states given until July 2027 to transpose rules into law, and the largest firms spared compliance until 2028. This extension risks stalling systemic change at precisely the stage when pressure should be accelerating.

Reporting postponed, transparency lost

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) was designed to standardise ESG disclosure, giving investors and consumers clarity on corporate performance. Now, deadlines have been pushed back two years, large enterprises will only begin reporting in 2028, listed SMEs in 2029. With fashion’s global supply chain notoriously opaque, 80 per cent of apparel companies admit lacking visibility beyond tier 1, this delay widens the gap between what consumers are told and what is actually happening.

Deforestation rules softened

Another measure, the Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), aimed to cut links between European consumption and deforestation in leather, packaging and textiles. Instead of tightening controls, deadlines were extended and scope narrowed, leaving high-risk regions and industries less accountable. Considering that fashion is responsible for around 10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, any dilution in such regulation directly undermines climate targets.

The uncertain fate of green claims

The Green Claims Directive, designed to curb greenwashing, is under threat of being withdrawn entirely. Without it, companies retain wide leeway to market collections as “eco-friendly” or “sustainable” without substantiating their claims. Research suggests that more than half of sustainability claims in fashion lack evidence, deceiving consumers while sidelining more responsible competitors.

Competitiveness over sustainability

Europe’s latest “Competitiveness Compass” reflects a policy tilt, framing sustainability as an economic burden rather than a non-negotiable responsibility. Calls from powerful member states, including France and Germany, to exempt companies below thresholds of 3,000 employees and €450 million turnover further weaken the framework. If adopted, such thresholds would exclude the majority of European apparel firms, rendering regulations symbolic rather than structural.

Why this matters

By loosening oversight, Europe risks slipping from global leader to reluctant regulator. The fashion sector’s most harmful stages, from raw fibre cultivation to outsourced garment assembly, remain largely shielded from accountability. Without robust regulation, the window for corporate greenwashing widens, and the pressure to prioritise profit over people persists. The broader message is equally concerning, Europe’s backslide may embolden other regions to delay or dilute their own reforms, leaving the most vulnerable workers and ecosystems unprotected.

A call for vigilance

Regulation in fashion is not about bureaucratic burden, but about addressing a sector that consumes 79 billion cubic metres of water annually, produces 92 million tonnes of waste, and employs millions under precarious conditions. Retreating now sends a signal that sustainability is optional, rather than essential.

Civil society organisations are already filling part of the vacuum left by weakened legislation. The Clean Clothes Campaign continues to press brands to respect labour rights in global supply chains. Fashion Revolution, a movement born after the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh, pushes for transparency by asking “Who made my clothes?”. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation works on circular economy models to reduce waste and overproduction, while the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre monitors abuses and reports on corporate accountability. These organisations highlight both the urgency of reform and the cost of delay, showing that meaningful change remains possible if pressure is maintained.

Policymakers, industry leaders and citizens must ask whether the true cost of delay is a competitive advantage, or a legacy of harm borne by future generations.

For further reading on these issues, see Clean Clothes Campaign, Fashion Revolution, Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Vogue Business, and Financial Times.