From 27 September 2026, the topic of greenwashing, carbon credits, legal risks, green claims, EU Directive 2026 stops being “just reputational” and becomes much easier to challenge on legal grounds as well. The reason is the application of the rules introduced by Directive (EU) 2024/825, which amends the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD, Dir. 2005/29/EC) and introduces “per se” bans against certain typical forms of greenwashing. National transposition is due by 27 March 2026 (in Italy, this means the rules will be implemented through Italian national legislation by that deadline). Sources: Library of Congress

From 2026, the scope is not “a new climate law”, but a strengthening of the rules on how you can communicate environmental benefits to consumers. In practice: Directive 2024/825 enters national law and makes certain claims riskier because they become easier to qualify as misleading, or even prohibited in certain forms.

The most exposed claims, including in B2B contexts, are those that sound absolute and “close the case” with a single word. Typical examples in product sheets, offers, tenders, datasheets, LinkedIn campaigns and trade fairs:

  • “carbon neutral”, “climate neutral”
  • “net zero”
  • “zero emissions”, “zero climate impact”

The critical point is when the statement is based on compensation (offsets), or when it is phrased in an absolute way without explaining boundaries, method and evidence. This ties into the EU debate on limiting claims based on offsets. Source: European Parliament

Another high-risk area is generic claims. Words such as:

  • “eco-friendly”, “green”, “sustainable”, “climate-friendly”

become problematic if they are not supported by recognised excellent environmental performance or if they are not clearly specified in the same medium where the claim appears (the “same medium qualification” logic). Source: MDPI

Concrete examples of “at-risk” claims when credits come into play:

  • “Carbon neutral product thanks to certified credits” (without explaining what was reduced and what was offset).
  • “Climate neutral shipping included” (without a calculation method and without credit quality and traceability).
  • “Net zero supply” (without distinguishing internal reductions vs offsets, and without minimum details: standard, vintage, credit type, access to verifiable evidence).

Here the issue is not “using credits” in itself. It is presenting the offset as fully equivalent to “zero impact”, or failing to make the statement checkable.

Finally, there is the cross-border effect. Even though the Directive is consumer-law, in practice it impacts B2B because:

  • marketing teams work on unified messaging across multiple countries,
  • buyers include requirements for verifiable claims in specifications,
  • European and UK enforcement shows high expectations on substantiation for absolute claims. Source: ASA (UK)

When a “carbon neutral” or “net zero” claim becomes greenwashing: criteria, evidence and limits of using credits

A claim becomes greenwashing when it promises a climate outcome that the public reasonably interprets as “no emissions” or “no impact”, but the evidence says otherwise, or is not accessible and verifiable.

Buyers and legal teams now expect substantiation with very concrete elements:

  • Claim boundaries: product, service, site, company.
  • Scopes 1-2-3: what is included and what is not.
  • Base year and period: which year “neutral” refers to.
  • Calculation methodology: references such as the GHG Protocol or ISO standards.
  • Clear separation between:
    • emissions reduced (real actions),
    • residual emissions offset with credits.

This is consistent with the approach of standards such as ISO 14068-1:2023, where offsets are allowed only for residual emissions and must be declared transparently. Source: ISO 14068-1

The key distinction is between an absolute claim and a qualified claim. “Carbon neutral” without qualifications can suggest an absence of emissions. To reduce risk, you need operational, verifiable qualifications, in the same medium or with immediate access to evidence. An example of a “qualified” approach is:

  • “Emissions measured within boundary X; reduced through actions Y; residual offset with credits of type Z; public evidence available.”

The expectation of clarity is also visible in cases of advertising challenged for unsubstantiated climate claims. Source: TIME on an ASA decision

Then there is the more uncomfortable point: “offset” does not mean “neutralised”. Credits can be vulnerable on technical points that, if they emerge, make the claim fragile:

  • additionality (would the project have happened anyway?),
  • permanence (does the benefit last?),
  • leakage (emissions shifting elsewhere),
  • MRV uncertainty (measurement, reporting, verification),
  • baseline and over-crediting risk.

A useful example for understanding over-crediting risk is the literature discussing inflated estimates in some cookstove programmes compared to independent assessments. It is a didactic case because it shows how “1 credit” may not equal “1 tonne avoided” in the way the public imagines. Source: Berkeley Carbon Trading Project

The practical limit, from a communications standpoint, is this: if your claim strategy makes it look like buying credits is equivalent to decarbonisation, the risk of challenge increases. This is where concepts such as high-integrity credits and market benchmarks like the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) come in—useful for setting purchasing policies and for explaining “why these credits” in a defensible way. Source: ICVCM CCP

Typical B2B examples where the claim breaks easily:

  1. An OEM that states “carbon neutral components” because headquarters buys credits, but without SKU allocation rules.
  2. A logistics provider selling “net zero shipments” including offsets without explaining calculation, boundaries and credit quality.
  3. A SaaS company communicating “climate neutral company” without an implementation plan and verifiable targets, and without distinguishing reductions vs offsets.

In all three cases, the risk is not only “saying too much”. It is being unable to demonstrate, consistently and repeatably, what sits behind the claim.

Directive 2024/825 does not introduce “a single EU-wide fine”. It requires Member States to provide effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties in their national transposition. This creates a multi-jurisdiction risk: it is not enough to be aligned in Italy if you sell and communicate in multiple EU countries (Italy being one of the Member States that will implement the Directive through national rules). Source: dcommerce.it

For a B2B company that also communicates to consumers, or uses mixed channels, the practical legal tracks are three:

  1. Unfair commercial practices / misleading advertising (UCPD and national implementations).
  2. Consumer law (pre-contractual information, labelling, claims).
  3. Unfair competition and litigation between competitors: injunctions, reputational damage, exclusion from or loss of tenders.

In Italy, the issue is already “live” in court as well: there are signs of attention to environmental communications qualified as misleading in collective injunctive actions. For managers, this is a clear indicator: it is not a purely theoretical topic that starts in 2026. Source: DWF

There is also a managerial and governance liability angle. Typical risks include:

  • internal sign-offs and approvals (marketing, compliance, legal),
  • misrepresentation in offers to large customers (tenders and procurement),
  • inconsistencies between commercial claims and ESG reporting, with knock-on effects on investor relations.

As an operational benchmark, ASA cases in the United Kingdom show that an absolute environmental claim requires a high level of evidence and clear qualifications. It is a useful reference for pan-European teams even though the ASA is not an EU authority. Source: ASA (UK)

In summary: greenwashing, carbon credits, legal risks, green claims, EU Directive 2026 means a higher likelihood of challenges, higher defence costs, and more commercial friction if you do not have an evidence framework ready.

How to build a compliance dossier: data, traceability, audits and credit governance (avoiding double counting)

An effective dossier starts with a simple rule: if you cannot have it verified by a third party, it is not a “safe” claim. The package should be audit-ready for procurement and legal, and reusable for communications and tenders.

Recommended minimum structure:

  1. GHG inventory
    • organisational and operational boundaries,
    • included scopes,
    • emission factors and sources.
  2. Reduction plan
    • measures already implemented,
    • roadmap and internal responsibilities.
  3. Residual/offset logic
    • what has been reduced,
    • what remains residual and why.
  4. Credit details
    • registry and standard,
    • serial number,
    • vintage,
    • methodology and project,
    • buffer and reversal policy (if relevant).
  5. Evidence of ownership and retirement
    • proof of retirement/cancellation,
    • date and entity retiring,
    • link to the claim (product/year/customer).

“Double counting” needs to be explained operationally, because it is one of the first questions buyers ask. Double counting means, for example:

  • the same credit being “used” by multiple parties,
  • claims on reductions already counted elsewhere,
  • credits not retired but only “held”.

Practical controls:

  • use reliable registries,
  • keep evidence of retirement,
  • segregate credits by business unit,
  • define allocation rules by product/customer and periodic reconciliations.

For quality and due diligence, a useful reference is alignment with ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles, to be used as an internal benchmark for credit policy and vendor due diligence. Source: ICVCM CCP

Internal governance: without a chain of responsibility, the dossier will not hold up over time. You need a clear RACI across sustainability, legal, marketing and procurement, plus:

  • a claim approval policy (templates, mandatory qualifications, evidence library),
  • a material change procedure (if methodology or emission factors change, or if cancellations/issues emerge on credits).

Useful red flags in credit due diligence:

  • high MRV uncertainty,
  • unmanaged permanence risk,
  • incomplete documentation,
  • disputes or known issues with the programme or methodology,
  • over-crediting risk (the cookstoves case is a useful example to justify stricter criteria). Source: Berkeley Carbon Trading Project

Operational checklist for marketing and procurement: how to communicate offsets and reductions without breaching the new EU 2026 rules

The checklist below is designed to prevent a “nice” claim from becoming a legal problem or a boomerang in tenders.

Checklist claim design (marketing)

  • Avoid absolute claims like “zero emissions” if you are actually offsetting.
  • Use qualified wording: “emissions measured and reduced; residual offset”.
  • Put key data upfront: year, boundaries, tCO₂e (if available), what is reduction and what is offsetting.
  • Prepare a “proof” landing page with downloadable documents and Q&A, directly linked to the claim.
  • Make sure commitments are clear, objective, public and verifiable. Source: Library of Congress

Checklist credit procurement (purchasing)

  • Define minimum criteria: programme/standard, methodology, vintage, additionality, permanence, rights and ownership.
  • Require proof of retirement and traceability (serial number and registry).
  • Prefer credits that can be assessed against integrity benchmarks such as ICVCM CCP.
  • Include contractual clauses on credit invalidation and replacement. Source: ICVCM CCP

Checklist documentation (consistency and reconciliation)

  • Credit sheet for each batch purchased and used in claims.
  • Reconciliation between the emissions inventory and the quantity of credits retired.
  • Consistency check between claims, ESG reports and commercial communications. Brochure-vs-data mismatch is one of the most common causes of challenges.

Checklist communication in B2B tenders

  • Always distinguish “operational reductions” (efficiency, renewable energy, redesign) from “offsets”.
  • Provide evidence and limitations, not just slogans.
  • Do not present offsetting as “zero impact”. You risk challenges and, in practice, exclusion from tenders.

Checklist go-live 2026 (internal timeline)

  • Gap assessment by Q4 2025.
  • Update claim policies and credit contracts.
  • Train marketing and sales with examples of permitted and non-permitted claims.
  • Readiness for application from 27 September 2026, with national transpositions due by 27 March 2026 (including Italy’s national implementation). Source: dcommerce.it

If you want a practical rule: before publishing, ask yourself whether a buyer or an authority could reconstruct the claim end-to-end in 30 minutes, using only your evidence. If the answer is no, the risk of greenwashing, carbon credits, legal risks, green claims, EU Directive 2026 is already too high.