"Climate Neutral" from 2026: What Is Still Allowed

Advertising with climate neutrality was long a popular marketing tool. With the EmpCo Directive (EU) 2024/825 and its German implementation, this changes fundamentally. Statements such as "climate neutral" or "CO₂ neutral" that essentially rely on offsetting emissions are among the explicitly addressed risk cases.

Why are climate-neutrality claims so critical?

The core of the problem lies in what the claim actually conveys. If a product is advertised as "climate neutral" because the company offsets emissions elsewhere, consumers may easily form the impression that the product itself causes no or only low emissions. In reality, the emissions may be just as high and merely balanced on paper. The EU legislator and German case law see significant potential to mislead in this.

Even before the EmpCo Directive, German courts had imposed strict requirements on such claims, in particular on explaining how neutrality is achieved. The Directive sharpens this line by classifying offsetting-based neutrality claims as fundamentally problematic.

What changes specifically from 27 September 2026?

From that date, the new requirements apply in Germany. Considered particularly risky are claims that

• present a product or company as blanketly "climate neutral", "CO₂ neutral" or "climate positive", and
• base this assertion essentially on offsetting rather than on actual emission reductions.

This does not mean that every mention of climate-protection measures becomes impermissible. What matters is the distinction between verifiable, actually achieved reductions and accounting-based offsetting.

Which claims remain more defensible?

A lower-risk approach is to make concrete and verifiable statements instead of asserting blanket neutrality. Examples of tendentially more robust wording:

• "We have reduced CO₂ emissions per product unit by X percent since 2020" – stating the baseline year, calculation method and verification source.
• "For the remaining emissions we support the following climate-protection project …" – clearly separated from your own reduction performance.
• Statements about the specific share of renewable energy or recycled materials with traceable figures.

Such statements shift the focus from a hard-to-defend overall assertion towards verifiable individual facts.

How should offsetting be handled?

Offsetting is not impermissible in itself. It becomes problematic when it serves as the basis for a blanket neutrality claim. Transparency is key: those who support offsetting projects may present this – ideally stating which project is supported, to what extent and under which standard. Your own reduction performance and the offset residual emissions should be clearly separated so that no false overall impression arises.

What applies to claims about future climate targets?

Many companies advertise not present but intended climate neutrality – such as "climate neutral by 2040". Under the Directive, such future claims are only defensible where they rest on clear, verifiable commitments. This usually includes a concrete implementation plan, measurable interim targets and independent verification of progress. A mere target announcement without a substantiated roadmap is considered risky, because it suggests progress that is not yet secured.

A practical example

Suppose a company advertises a product as "climate neutral" because it offsets the calculated emissions through certificates. Under the EmpCo Directive this claim is highly risky. A more defensible alternative would be: "Manufacturing this product causes X kg of CO₂. Since 2020 we have reduced this figure by Y percent; for the remaining emissions we support project Z." This wording states concrete figures, separates own reduction from offsetting and avoids the blanket neutrality term. It is therefore both more robust legally and more meaningful for customers.

What about existing campaigns and packaging?

Companies should review early where neutrality claims are used – on websites, in campaigns, on packaging and in product data sheets. Because packaging often has long lead times, a timely changeover is sensible. Where existing claims no longer appear defensible, rewording towards concrete statements can significantly reduce the risk.

Conclusion

The era of blanket climate-neutrality advertising is drawing to a close. From 27 September 2026, stricter standards apply in Germany, and offsetting-based neutrality claims carry a high risk. Those who instead rely on concrete, verifiable statements communicate not only more safely in legal terms but often more credibly as well. For "climate positive" claims and in cross-border cases, an individual legal review is advisable, as national implementation may vary.