The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications has published a draft amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, seeking to transpose the EU’s Consumer Empowerment Directive. Although the directive sets only minimum requirements for member states, Estonia has decided to go further — introducing both new obligations and substantially stricter penalty provisions. Among the planned measures is a fine of up to two million euros per company and the confiscation of illegally obtained revenue. An infringement may be constituted by the mere attachment to a product of a general and unsubstantiated claim such as “eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” “repairable,” “long-lasting,” or similar.

The obligation to substantiate applies to all, regardless of size

At the core of the proposals is the desire to prevent greenwashing and increase consumer awareness. The objective is welcome, but the chosen means may prove disproportionately burdensome. The law applies to all products placed on the market regardless of the size of the manufacturer or distributor — meaning that the greatest compliance costs will fall on Estonia’s smaller producers who market products under their own brand.

In parallel, the European Commission is developing the Green Claims Directive, which should establish the basis for how and by whom green claims are verified. Negotiations on that directive have stalled, however, as there is ongoing debate over whether the substantiation requirements should also apply to micro-enterprises. Estonia has so far supported the broadest possible scope of application. The Commission is to its credit sceptical here — small producers simply do not have the financial capacity to bear the costs associated with certification. While large producers can pass these costs on through pricing, small producers do not have that option.

Do we really need to go further than the directive requires?

The most questionable aspect is the Ministry’s wish to transpose also the obligation to report a product’s key environmental characteristics, even though the Consumer Empowerment Directive does not require this. This is a complex task that presupposes the measurement of a product’s circularity, yet there are currently no practical means for doing so in Estonia.

Our legislation addresses the circular economy largely through the lens of waste — i.e. end-of-life, recovery, and disposal. True circular economy, however, is oriented towards the use of raw materials derived from used resources. That approach does not yet exist in Estonia, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to implement a requirement to substantiate environmental claims about products where the substance of those claims is a comparison of a product’s circularity aspects without clear and valid technical standards.

From the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications’ perspective, the matter involves three requirements: product durability, repairability, and recyclability. Since the same amendment also prepares the infrastructure necessary for digital product passports, it is entirely appropriate to note that the digital passport framework identifies 29 product characteristics describing a product’s circularity. At the same time, we have no cross-sectoral legislation in force that specifies how those characteristics should be compared or measured. The exception is the construction sector, where the European Construction Products Regulation defines 16 environmental aspects, of which 14 are directly related to product circularity.

In summary

Estonia’s ambition to implement EU directives more rigorously than the European Commission itself may at first appear progressive. In practice, however, it means taking on new obligations and shifting the risks onto Estonian businesses — in particular, small and medium-sized producers. The goals of the green transition are important and require careful implementation. But ambition must not come at the expense of the local business environment and practical feasibility.

A recommendation to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications: before implementing requirements stricter than those prescribed by the European Union, it is necessary to ensure that Estonia’s legal framework, businesses, and supervisory system are ready to apply them in a reasonable and equitable manner. Otherwise, the costs of the green transition will once again fall on Estonian producers — without consumers being any better informed for it.

This article was published on the ERR portal on 24 July 2025: https://www.err.ee/1609752477/anu-kull-tarbijakaitseseaduse-muutmine-voib-tuua-ootamatu-lisakoormuse