Verboden begrippen
Advertising "CO₂ Neutral": What Is Banned from September 2026
Offsetting-based neutrality claims such as "climate neutral" or "CO₂ neutral" are heavily restricted by the EmpCo Directive. This article explains what becomes risky and which statements remain possible.
Advertising with "CO₂ neutral" or "climate neutral" was long part of the standard repertoire of sustainability communication. With the EmpCo Directive (EU) 2024/825 and its German implementation, this changes fundamentally. Claims that justify neutrality essentially through the offsetting of emissions are among the explicitly addressed risk cases. In Germany, the Directive is transposed by the 3rd UWG Amendment Act (BGBl. 2026 I No. 43) and becomes binding from 27 September 2026.
Why are offsetting-based neutrality claims so critical?
The core of the problem lies in the impression such a claim creates. If a product is advertised as "CO₂ neutral" because the company balances the resulting 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 offset on paper. The EU legislator sees significant potential to mislead in this.
The EmpCo Directive classifies environmental claims that rest entirely on offsetting as fundamentally impermissible. In doing so it sharpens a line that German courts had already suggested when they imposed strict requirements on explaining the basis of neutrality claims.
What specifically becomes risky from 27 September 2026?
From that date, the new requirements apply in Germany. Considered particularly risky are claims that
- present a product or company blanketly as "climate neutral", "CO₂ neutral", "net zero" or "climate positive", and
- base this assertion essentially on offsetting rather than on actual emission reductions.
The widespread claim "climate-neutral shipping" also falls into this area if it rests solely on offsetting transport emissions. This does not mean that every mention of climate-protection measures becomes impermissible. What remains decisive is the distinction between verifiable, actually achieved reductions and accounting-based offsetting.
What is the difference between reduction and offsetting?
This distinction is the key to understanding the new rules. Reduction means that a company actually lowers its own emissions – for example through more efficient processes, renewable energy or changed materials. Offsetting means that persisting emissions are balanced on paper via certificates or the financing of external climate-protection projects.
The EmpCo Directive deliberately treats the two differently. Substantiated reductions can be communicated because they describe a real improvement. Offsetting-based neutrality, by contrast, suggests a state that does not actually exist and is therefore considered particularly problematic. Anyone who mixes the two risks a misleading overall claim.
Which statements remain possible after the change?
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 2021" – 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 share of renewable energy, recycled materials or low-emission delivery with traceable figures.
Such statements shift the focus from a hard-to-defend overall assertion towards verifiable individual facts. How this distinction works in detail is explored in the article "Climate Neutral" from 2026: What Is Still Allowed.
How should offsetting still be handled?
Offsetting is not impermissible in itself. It becomes problematic when it serves as the basis for a blanket neutrality claim. Transparency is decisive: 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 remain clearly separated so that no false overall impression arises.
What should companies review now?
An early inventory is sensible: where are neutrality claims used – on the website, in campaigns, on packaging, in product data sheets and in the shipping process? Because packaging and print materials have long lead times, a timely changeover is advisable. Where existing claims no longer appear defensible, rewording towards concrete statements can significantly reduce the risk.
Because the national implementation of the EmpCo Directive may vary across member states, an individual legal review is advisable for cross-border advertising and for particularly pointed claims such as "climate positive".
Conclusion
Blanket neutrality advertising on an offsetting basis is losing its foundation. From 27 September 2026, stricter standards apply in Germany, and claims such as "CO₂ neutral", "net zero" or "climate-neutral shipping" carry a high risk when they essentially rest on offsetting. Those who instead rely on concrete, verifiable reduction statements and separate offsetting transparently communicate more safely in legal terms and often more credibly as well.