If your website, packaging or proposals still say “carbon neutral” because you buy carbon credits, that wording has been a legal risk across the EU since 27 September 2026. EmpCo, the EU directive on empowering consumers for the green transition, puts a ban on most carbon neutral claims based on credits when they reach consumers.
Buying carbon credits remains legal, and so does talking about them. What changed is the claim you attach to them.
The short answer. Under EmpCo, a product or service may no longer be called “carbon neutral”, “CO2 compensated” or “climate positive” because of carbon credits. That ban applies to consumer communication in all circumstances, even with an explanation or a label. Generic company-wide claims such as “we are a climate neutral company” are also prohibited unless the company can show recognised excellent environmental performance, which carbon credits do not provide. You can still communicate, transparently and specifically, that you finance verified carbon credit projects.
What EmpCo bans: offsetting-based product claims
EmpCo adds a list of practices to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive that are banned in all circumstances, with no case-by-case test. Two points on that list in Directive (EU) 2024/825 matter for carbon credit buyers.
Annex I point 4c bans “claiming, based on the offsetting of greenhouse gas emissions, that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.” Recital 12 gives the examples: “climate neutral”, “CO2 neutral certified”, “carbon positive”, “climate net zero”, “climate compensated”, “reduced climate impact” and “limited CO2 footprint”. “Product” includes services, so a carbon neutral delivery, flight, event or subscription falls under the same ban.
Annex I point 4a bans generic environmental claims for which the trader cannot demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.
A carbon neutral claim built on credits is the clearest example of what EmpCo prohibits. No certificate, footnote or “learn more” link repairs it.
Free tool
Not sure your claim is still allowed?
Enter your claim and the EmpCo Claim Checker tests it against the EmpCo rules and suggests safer wording.
Check your claim
Free · no account needed
Company claims versus product claims
The offsetting ban in point 4c is written for products. The European Commission confirms in its Q&A on the directive (September 2026 version) that point 4c does not apply to company-level claims. Several guides read that as a green light for “we are a carbon neutral company”. It is not one.
The same Q&A states that generic claims “such as ‘carbon-neutral’, ‘climate neutral’, ‘carbon compensated’, or ‘carbon positive’, are prohibited unless the trader can demonstrate recognised excellent environmental performance”. Carbon credits are not evidence of your own environmental performance. The Dutch consumer authority ACM has advised against absolute claims based on CO2 compensation since its 2023 guidelines on sustainability claims, also at company level. So a company-wide carbon neutral claim towards consumers is caught by point 4a instead of 4c.
Does EmpCo apply to B2B communication?
EmpCo amends consumer law, so its bans apply to business-to-consumer communication. A claim that only reaches business customers, for example in a tender response or a contract, falls under the general rules against misleading advertising instead (in the Netherlands, art. 6:194 of the Civil Code).
The boundary is thinner than many B2B companies assume. A public website, a LinkedIn post or a press release can be seen by consumers. If a claim can reach consumers at all, treat it as consumer communication.
Sustainability reporting under a reporting framework is typically outside EmpCo’s scope. Copy that wording into marketing and the stricter rules apply again.
Carbon credit claims under EmpCo: the overview
The four claims below cover most of what we find on the websites and in the proposals of companies that buy credits. The overview reflects the directive, the Commission’s Q&A and ACM guidance as of October 2026. It is orientation, not legal advice.
Claim | Consumers, product or service | Consumers, company as a whole | Business customers only |
|---|---|---|---|
“Carbon neutral” / “climate neutral” | Not allowed (4c) | Not allowed (4a, Q&A) | Possible with conditions |
“CO2 compensated” / “offset” | Not allowed (4c) | Not allowed (4a, Q&A) | Possible with conditions |
“Net zero by [year]” | Not allowed as a product claim (4c) | Only with a public, verified plan | Possible with conditions |
“We fund verified climate projects” (contribution) | Low risk if specific | Low risk if specific | Low risk if specific |
“Possible with conditions” for B2B means the claim must not mislead a professional buyer. An unqualified “carbon neutral” in a proposal is hard to defend when the buyer knows credits do not reduce your emissions.
Climate positive, reduced-impact and label claims follow the same logic, with a few differences per audience. To test a specific sentence, run it through the free EmpCo Claim Checker: it gives the outcome for each claim, the legal source and wording you can use instead.
Net zero targets: allowed, with a verified plan
EmpCo does not ban net zero targets. It sets conditions for any claim about future environmental performance. A statement such as “net zero by 2040” needs a detailed and realistic implementation plan, with measurable, time-bound targets, that is publicly available and regularly verified by an independent third-party expert whose findings are made public.
A net zero ambition backed only by a future credit budget fails that test. A science-based target with published interim milestones and external verification is the shape regulators expect.
Sustainability labels
Since 27 September 2026, sustainability labels must be based on a certification scheme or established by public authorities (point 2a). The ACM summarises it plainly: own company labels without independent verification are no longer permitted.
A certified “climate neutral” label on a product does not escape point 4c either. If the label says the product is neutral because of offsetting, the label makes the banned claim.
Free tool
Check the claims already on your website
Run each claim through the EmpCo Claim Checker and get wording you can still use.
Check your claim
Free · no account needed
What you can still say: contribution claims
Recital 12 of the directive explicitly keeps room for companies to advertise “their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects”, provided this is not misleading. The Commission’s Q&A confirms it. This is the contribution claim: you state what you financed, without claiming it cancels out your own emissions.
Wording that works, with your own figures (the numbers below are examples):
“In 2026, we financed 1,200 tonnes of verified CO2 removals from biochar production in Ghana, certified under [standard]. This does not reduce our own emissions, which we aim to cut by 40% by 2030.”
“For every order, we fund 5 kg of verified emission reductions from clean cookstove projects in Malawi. This does not reduce the emissions of the order itself.”
“We support peatland restoration in Indonesia through verified carbon credits.”
A typical before and after, for a delivery company that buys credits (illustrative, details simplified):
Before | After |
|---|---|
“All our deliveries are 100% CO2 neutral. We compensate every kilometre through certified climate projects.” | “Since 2022 we have cut emissions per parcel by [X]% by switching to electric vans in city centres. In 2026 we also financed 3,000 tonnes of verified emission reductions from [project type] in [country], certified under Gold Standard. These credits do not reduce the emissions of our deliveries.” |
The rewrite drops “neutral” and “compensate”, keeps the company’s own reductions separate from the credits, names the volume and the standard, and says plainly what the credits do not do. It is also more convincing to a customer than the old line.
Avoid “neutral”, “compensated” and “offset” in any claiming sense, and do not place contribution wording next to a product in a way that suggests the product’s impact is cancelled. Our guide to contribution claims gives ready-to-use wording for each channel, from packaging to proposals.
Tip from Bernard de Wit, Co-founder of Regreener: “Most companies we speak with since September want to keep supporting projects and only need to change the sentence. A contribution claim is only as strong as the credits behind it. If you cannot name the project, the standard and the retirement serial numbers, fix the credits before you rewrite the claim.”
The evidence a contribution claim needs
A contribution claim still has to be truthful and verifiable. Keep this ready before you publish:
Retirement evidence from the registry, with serial numbers retired in your company’s name.
Project details: name, type, country and the standard it is certified under (for example Verra VCS, Gold Standard or Puro.earth).
The volume you financed and the period it covers.
A public page where readers can check the project and the retirement.
Separation from your own emissions data, so the credits are never presented as a reduction.
Credit quality carries legal weight now. A contribution claim about a project with weak additionality, short permanence or unresolved leakage is exactly the kind of claim a regulator or journalist will test. Projects carrying the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles label, or vetted against a framework like Regreener’s 100+ datapoint assessment, give you a defensible basis.
Enforcement in the Netherlands
The Netherlands transposed EmpCo into Book 6 of the Civil Code (Stb. 2026, 152). The offsetting ban sits in art. 6:193g sub ae BW. The ACM supervises and enforces. Other EU member states implement the same directive in their own consumer law, so a claim banned in the Netherlands is in principle banned in Germany, Belgium or France as well. Our article on EmpCo in the Netherlands covers what the ACM expects and the Dutch cases that came before.
Packaging printed before 27 September 2026 gets no automatic exemption. Following a common position of the EU consumer authorities, the ACM says it may take demonstrable old stock into account when it enforces, but it expects companies to work towards full compliance in good time. Websites, proposals and campaign copy can be changed today, so they are where to start.
Check your own claims before someone else does
Every company that bought credits in the past three years has some version of these claims online: on the sustainability page, in an email signature, on an invoice footer or in a press release from 2023. Make a list, test each line against the rules above, and rewrite the ones that fail into contribution claims backed by retirement evidence.
If the claims are fine but you are unsure the credits behind them would survive scrutiny, talk to a Climate Strategist about the projects and the evidence you hold.
