Green Claims: What You Can and Cannot Say
In recent years, the European Union has focused strongly on combating greenwashing. At the center of the debate has been the Green Claims Directive, a 2023 proposal that generated much attention — but also much confusion. In June 2025, under pressure from the European People's Party and several member states, the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw the proposal. The main reason: the risk of burdening micro-enterprises (fewer than 10 employees or less than €2 million in turnover) with disproportionate bureaucratic burdens. The process was suspended without a date for its possible resumption.
What the Green Claims Directive Was
The original Commission proposal, launched in March 2023, had a precise objective: to require that any voluntary environmental claim — "ecological", "carbon neutral", "low impact" — be verified by an accredited third party before being communicated to the public. This preventive verification mechanism (ex-ante) became the most controversial point.
In June 2025 the European Commission suspended the legislative process. Yet the risk related to environmental claims has not disappeared at all: another already adopted directive — the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EmpCo) — becomes fully applicable from September 2026 and changes the rules in a concrete and binding way.
What Remains in Force: the EmpCo Directive
The suspension of the Green Claims Directive does not mean freedom to communicate without constraints. The EmpCo Directive, adopted by the EU in March 2024 and in force from September 2026 after transposition into national legal systems, introduces precise and binding prohibitions.
Explicitly prohibited practices:
• Generic and undemonstrable environmental claims: expressions such as "eco-friendly", "green", "sustainable", "planet-friendly" are prohibited unless the company can demonstrate recognized and certified environmental excellence
• Climate neutrality claims based exclusively on offsets: it is illegal to claim that a product is "climate neutral", "CO₂ neutral" or "carbon neutral" if this neutrality is based solely on the purchase of carbon credits, without real emission reductions in the value chain
• Future claims not supported by concrete plans: promises such as "we will be carbon neutral by 2030" require a credible, verifiable and publicly accessible implementation plan
These prohibitions apply to communications towards consumers (B2C). Institutional sustainability reports — such as those provided for by the CSRD — remain outside the scope of the directive, being addressed to investors, not consumers.
The Issue of Carbon Credits in Corporate Communications
Carbon credits remain a legitimate and useful instrument. But the way they are communicated to the public makes all the difference. The logic that European regulations are imposing — and that German and Dutch courts are already applying — is: reduction first, offsetting then. And if you offset, say exactly how.
In practice:
• It is not sufficient to buy credits and declare "climate neutrality" on a product or in advertising
• It is necessary to communicate transparently how many emissions have actually been reduced and how many have been offset, with which standard, verified by whom
• Credits must be of high quality and verified (VCS, Gold Standard, CCP label)
• Communication must be contextual: a QR code or external link is not enough — information must be accessible directly in the context of the claim
What Changes in Practice
| Communication | Before 2026 | From September 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Our product is carbon neutral (offset only) | Widespread but risky | Prohibited |
| "Eco-friendly" without data | Common | Prohibited |
| We offset 20% of residual emissions with certified VCS credits | Already correct | Correct and compliant |
| We are reducing emissions by 40% by 2028 (with published plan) | Possible | Compliant if documented |
Why This Matters Even for B2B Companies
Companies that do not sell to consumers are not immune from reputational and legal risks. An increasing number of corporate buyers, investors and credit institutions require that environmental statements be documented. Several member states — particularly Germany, Netherlands and Spain — are applying similar standards also in commercial relationships between companies, through national unfair competition regulations.
The ruling of the German Federal Court of June 2024 is a concrete example: the use of the term "klimaneutral" was declared illegal without a direct and contextual explanation of how this neutrality was achieved — reduction, offsetting or both.
The Picture in Summary
The failure of the Green Claims Directive in its original form does not mean that greenwashing is without consequences. It means that the rules will arrive through another path — already underway. From September 2026, those who communicate in a generic or misleading way about their sustainability risk sanctions from national authorities.
For companies using carbon credits, the safest — and most credible — path is to measure emissions rigorously, reduce them where possible, compensate only residual emissions with high-quality credits, and document every step in a transparent and verifiable way.
It is not just a matter of compliance. It is a matter of credibility.