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.
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.
What is carbon offsetting?In voluntary carbon offsetting, companies purchase credits from external climate protection or carbon removal projects, which typically lie outside the value chain of the product in question. These may, for instance, include projects designed to:
Mandatory emissions trading systems, such as the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), are a separate matter. The purchase and surrender of emission allowances by companies subject to the scheme are not equivalent to the voluntary offsetting of a product’s carbon footprint. |
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.
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:
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.
Examples of wording that may be affected, depending on the specific claim and context, include: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 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.
The following overview shows the key dividing line:
|
Claim |
Classification |
|
“This flight is climate-neutral thanks to a reforestation project.” |
A product-related neutrality claim based on offsetting. Covered by the ban. |
|
“Our deliveries are carbon-neutral because we offset the emissions.” |
A product- or service-related neutrality claim based on offsetting. Covered by the ban. |
|
“This packaging has a reduced climate impact through the purchase of certificates.” |
A product-related claim about a reduced climate impact based on offsetting. Covered by the ban. |
|
“In 2026, we fund Climate Protection Project X with 50,000 euros.” |
Factual information about an external commitment. Not automatically excluded by the ban on compensation-based product claims alone; the UWG's other requirements still apply. |
|
“We have cut emissions in the production of this product by 25 percent since 2020.” |
A claim about an actual reduction within the value chain. Needs a solid evidence base and a clearly defined comparison. |
|
“The life cycle of this product results in 2.4 kg CO2e in greenhouse gas emissions.” |
A quantified product-related claim. The reference point, system boundary, method and underlying data must all match the claim. |
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.
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.
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.
Possible starting points include, for example: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.”
Before making a claim like this, companies should be able to answer questions such as: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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.