Climate neutral through offsetting? What EmpCo will prohibit

Can companies still market a flight, a delivery or a product as “climate-neutral” if they purchase carbon credits to do so? From 27 September 2026, the EmpCo Directive, implemented in the Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb – UWG), draws a clear line here: product-related claims about a neutral, reduced or positive climate impact must no longer rest on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions.

Climate protection projects may still be communicated. The key is that the external contribution is not equated with a specific climate impact of the advertised product. Below, we show where this line is drawn, which types of wording will be affected, and what companies will still be allowed to communicate.

Note: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is part of our blog series on the EmpCo Directive and the amendment to the UWG. You can find all relevant information on this topic in the first article, EmpCo Directive from September 2026: environmental claims under scrutiny.

From “climate-neutral flights” to the new ban on compensation-based product claims

Many consumers are already familiar with this option when purchasing a plane ticket: for an extra fee, the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the flight are supposed to be offset. This does not prevent the emissions from the flight itself. Instead, the airline funds external climate protection or carbon removal projects.

In advertising, this often turned into claims such as a “climate-neutral flight”, “CO₂-neutral delivery”, or a “climate-compensated product”. The EmpCo Directive specifically addresses this link between a product’s climate impact and external offsetting.

Why does EmpCo distinguish between reduction and offsetting?

The new ban addresses a genuine risk of misleading consumers: A claim such as “climate-neutral flight” can give the impression that the flight itself produces no meaningful greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, these emissions still occur — they are simply offset by measures taken elsewhere.

Recital 12 of the EmpCo Directive therefore makes clear that offsetting outside a product’s value chain is not equivalent to a product’s actual climate impact over its life cycle. Consumers should not be led to assume that buying offset credits means a product has no – or a reduced – greenhouse gas impact.

Are offsetting claims prohibited? What does the UWG specifically stipulate?

From 27 September 2026, the following business practice will be added to the UWG's so-called “blacklist”:

Claiming that, because of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, a product has a neutral, reduced or positive effect on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The prohibition applies where two conditions are met:

1. The claim refers to a product, a part of a product or a service, such as a flight, a delivery or an event.
   
   
2. The claimed environmental impact is based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions.

Since the practice will be on the blacklist, no additional assessment is required to determine whether the specific claim has influenced or is likely to influence the transactional decision of an average consumer. 

• “climate-neutral”,
• “CO₂-neutral certified”,
• “carbon-positive” or “climate-positive”,
• “emission-free”,
• “with carbon offsetting”, or
• “climate-conscious”.

The specific wording alone is not the decisive factor here: Images, seals, product names, or the overall visual presentation can also convey that a product has a certain climate impact due to an external offsetting measure.

The ban does not apply across the board to corporate statements

The explicit ban applies to product-related claims — in other words, to goods and services. According to the European Commission’s FAQ, corporate statements are not automatically covered by this specific ban. 

However, this does not provide a free pass for statements such as “our company is climate-neutral through offsetting”. Such claims remain subject to the general provisions of the UWG regarding misleading commercial practices. Key factors include the impression the statement creates, which emissions are accounted for, what organisational boundaries apply, and the extent to which actual reductions or external offsetting measures underpin the claim.

Where a statement refers to something a company aims to achieve in future — such as “our company will be climate-neutral by 2030” — the additional requirements for claims about future environmental performance apply. These include a detailed, realistic implementation plan and regular review by an independent external expert. Our next EmpCo article looks in detail at what is required when communicating future environmental performance, climate targets, reduction pathways and transformation plans.

Which claims are affected — and which are not?

The following overview shows the key dividing line:

These examples do not constitute a definitive assessment of every individual case. Above all, they demonstrate that it is not just the choice of wording that matters, but rather the claimed impact and the evidence on which the company bases it.

What can companies still say about climate projects?

EmpCo does not prohibit companies from financing external climate protection projects or communicating factual information about them. Recital 12 of the Directive explicitly clarifies that companies may continue to communicate about investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, provided that the information is not misleading. 

Rather than presenting the project as a feature of the product, communications should clearly frame it as what it is: an external contribution.

Less appropriate wording: “This product is climate-neutral thanks to reforestation project X.” 

More appropriate, factual wording: “In 2026, we are funding reforestation project X with 50,000 euros.”

Details of purchased credits can generally be communicated too, as long as the quantity, project, time period and actual transaction are represented accurately. As mentioned above, it is important to ensure a clear separation from individual products: an explanatory note must not, either through its heading or its graphic design, create the impression of a climate-neutral product.

What is still possible for product-related climate communication under EmpCo?

Claims based on actually measured impacts and improvements achieved within the product life cycle should be distinguished from the overall ban on compensation-based product claims.

In the previous article in our EmpCo series, PCF, LCA & EPD: how to substantiate product claims under EmpCo, we demonstrated how to establish a solid data foundation for product claims.

• reduced material use,
• reduced emissions in production,
• lower-emission energy sources,
• shorter transport distances,
• a longer product lifespan,
• different raw materials , or
• improvements in the use and end-of-life stages.

The same principle still applies: The underlying data must support the specific claim. A reduction achieved during manufacturing does not automatically prove a smaller footprint over the entire product life cycle.

One example: “Greenhouse gas emissions in the manufacture of this product model were reduced by 18 percent compared to the previous model.”

• Were both products assessed using the same method?
• Are the system boundaries and functions comparable?
• Does the reduction only apply to manufacturing?
• Is the previous model a fair basis for comparison?

A Product Carbon Footprint or a Life Cycle Assessment can provide a solid basis for this, provided the scope, system boundary and comparison method align with the communicated statement.

Special case: carbon storage within the product life cycle

The European Commission’s FAQ distinguishes between external offsetting and the product’s actual life-cycle impact within its own value chain.

As a possible example, the Commission points to certain bio-based products where more CO₂ might be sequestered across the product’s life cycle than is emitted along the value chain. A claim like this would not constitute a neutrality claim based on external offsetting – but it would need to be backed by a proper Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and would still have to meet the UWG's other requirements.

A blanket application to all bio-based products should be avoided: the origin and processing of the raw material, land-use change, service life, disposal route and the permanence of storage can all influence the result.

Are your products based on biogenic raw materials? Find out exactly what matters in this case here: Biogenic carbon: The decisive factor in your carbon footprint?

The data foundation for credible climate communication according to EmpCo

Anyone wanting to communicate product-related climate impacts credibly should not start with the claim, but with the data: What environmental impact was actually measured, and can the specific claim be reliably derived from it?

The essential starting point is the measurement of actual greenhouse gas emissions. Depending on the statement and objective, it may also be useful to consider additional environmental impact categories. This allows for the early identification of one-sided improvements and potential conflicting objectives. 

In our previous article, we outlined the tools best suited for this purpose: PCF, LCA & EPD: how to substantiate product claims under EmpCo. 

What does this mean for your company?

From 27 September 2026, the new requirements will also apply to existing communications and to products and packaging already manufactured, ordered, distributed or placed on retailers’ shelves. There is no transition period for these existing products. 

Five questions for your offsetting claim check

1. Do you use terms such as “climate-neutral”, “climate-positive”, “climate-friendly” or similar?
2. Does the claim refer to a product or a service?
3. Is the claimed impact based, wholly or partly, on external certificates or climate projects?
4. Where does the claim appear? On packaging, websites, product pages, in sales materials or on social media?
5. Are the product’s impact and the company’s engagement in carbon offsetting clearly distinguished from each other, both in wording and visually?

Tip: Start with claims on packaging and materials that have long production and update cycles, along with older digital content, product names and seals. The EmpCo checklist introduced in the second article of this series offers a structured process for exactly this.

How does EurA provide support?

Credible sustainability communication requires a robust data foundation. That is exactly what we help companies build — from systematically collecting and assessing relevant sustainability data to developing a sound evidence base for substantiated environmental claims and embedding the results in operational processes.

• Life Cycle Assessments (LCA), Product Carbon Footprints (PCF), and Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) to assess and report on product-related environmental impacts
• Corporate Carbon Footprints (CCF), transition plans and implementation roadmaps, including SBTi-related services, for measuring and managing corporate greenhouse gas emissions 
• Materiality assessments, sustainability strategy and reporting under ESRS or VSME (soon to become the EU Voluntary Standard, VS), embedding sustainability strategically and meeting regulatory requirements

In addition, the accredited verification body offers verification of greenhouse gas inventories and transition plans in accordance with internationally recognised standards.

➔ Would you like to know which of your climate neutrality and offsetting claims remain valid under EmpCo and how your climate impact can be reliably demonstrated? We support you with in-depth analyses such as Product Carbon Footprints and Life Cycle Assessments — from the data foundation to the identification of concrete reduction potentials. Feel free to schedule a free initial consultation with us.