#Knowledge
Communication & brand
With the EmpCo Directive, the rules for sustainability communication are changing fundamentally. Claims such as “climate-neutral” or “CO₂-neutral” may no longer be based on the argument that greenhouse gas emissions generated by a product or service have been offset through the purchase of carbon credits. However, this does not mean that companies need to remain silent about their climate contributions. Instead, they should explain and contextualise them more precisely.
The shift in communication is therefore: away from neutrality claims and towards transparent, verifiable climate contributions.
Companies that offset CO₂ emissions may no longer present the respective product, service or business activity as climate-neutral. This is prohibited under the European EmpCo Directive, which has been incorporated into German law through the Act Against Unfair Competition (UWG), Annex to Section 3 UWG, paragraph 3.
Even before the EmpCo Directive entered into force on 27 September 2026, the German Environmental Action Association (Deutsche Umwelthilfe) and consumer organisations had already successfully challenged climate-neutrality claims made by international companies. One example is Lufthansa: Regional Court: Lufthansa’s “climate-neutral” advertising deemed misleading.
An important distinction remains: EmpCo does not prohibit investments in climate protection projects. Companies may also continue to communicate these investments. The EU Directive explicitly allows companies to provide information about investments in carbon credits, provided that such communication is not misleading.
By voluntarily purchasing carbon credits, companies finance climate protection measures outside their own value chain. A carbon credit generally represents a quantified amount of greenhouse gas emissions that has been avoided, reduced or removed from the atmosphere. The underlying projects can take very different forms. They may include emissions avoidance measures, nature-based carbon sequestration or technological solutions for the permanent removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. The quality of climate protection projects is assessed by third-party organisations, which verify criteria such as additionality, measurability, verifiability and permanence. They also ensure that emission reductions or removals are not counted more than once.
However, one point is crucial: purchasing and retiring carbon credits does not initially change the company’s or product’s own carbon footprint. The climate impact takes place elsewhere, while the offset represents a calculated balancing of emissions.
The European consumer protection authorities have not announced a rigid approach. Instead, they describe the factors that national enforcement authorities should take into account when exercising their discretion.
The specific circumstances of each individual case should therefore be considered, including:
However, it remains crucial that companies are already actively working to implement the new requirements and document their actions in a transparent and traceable manner.
Following the strategic three-step approach to achieving net zero, companies should first measure their CO₂ emissions, then avoid and reduce them, and finally compensate for emissions that cannot yet be avoided.
Compensation can therefore make an important contribution alongside targeted reduction measures, but it is not a substitute for reducing a company’s own emissions.
This is where the concept of a Contribution Claim comes into play: the financing of a climate protection project is communicated as an additional climate contribution that is explicitly separated from the company’s own emissions reductions. When communicating a Contribution Claim, companies should explain the compensation measure accurately and position the purchase of carbon credits as an additional element of their climate strategy on the path to net zero. In other words, the contribution should be placed within a broader strategic context.
The climate contribution should also be described as specifically as possible. Relevant information may include the company’s carbon footprint, the number of carbon credits purchased and the climate protection project supported. In this way, a general neutrality promise is replaced by a verifiable statement about a specific climate protection measure.
Despite stricter rules around sustainability communication, climate contributions do not lose their impact. Companies should therefore not interpret the disappearance of the “climate-neutral” claim as a reason to deliberately withhold information about their sustainability activities – a practice often referred to as greenhushing.
Companies that deliberately remain silent risk making their progress less visible and may ultimately create the impression that their sustainability activities lack long-term substance.
The key principle is therefore: do not communicate less – communicate more precisely and, as a result, more credibly.
EmpCo primarily changes the way companies communicate climate contributions. Purchasing carbon credits can remain an additional component of a climate strategy, but it must not be used to market products or services as “climate-neutral” or “CO₂-neutral”.
The decisive factor is clear differentiation: companies should measure and reduce their own emissions while communicating additional climate contributions separately and transparently. Contribution Claims provide a suitable approach when companies clearly explain which climate protection projects they support and what contribution their financing makes.
For companies, this means: do not communicate less about climate action, but communicate it in a more specific, transparent and verifiable way.
