Communication & climate-claims
What applies from 2026 onwards – and how to keep claims compliant and easy to understand.
In a climate context, language sometimes needs a second layer.
How companies avoid misunderstandings by putting their statements into context.
From 2026, climate statements made by companies will be assessed more thoroughly. The goal is not to catch anyone out, but to make claims understandable. The rules essentially say:
If you make a claim, you should briefly be able to show how you arrived at it.
A substantiation is nothing complex. It is a simple explanation: Which data was used? How was it calculated? Nothing more.
The EmpCo Regulation and the Green Claims Directive provide the framework – so that climate claims become traceable and comparable.Many terms appear clear but only are with context: “environmentally friendly”, “climate neutral”, “durable”. Without a short explanation, they will be considered inadmissible in the future.
This does not mean these words must be avoided. You just need to say what you can substantiate – in a few sentences. The rule is simple: a claim without context will no longer be acceptable.
Especially for climate claims, it is expected that the statement and its evidence align – a central requirement of the Green Claims Regulation.“Climate neutral” was long used as a catch-all term. Today, people want to understand how such a statement comes about.
Was it measured? Reduced? Offset?
The term is not banned – it just requires a clear explanation. That is not a hurdle; it creates clarity.
With ISO 14068 and Net-Zero standards, the interaction between reduction and offsetting is moving into focus – including how it is communicated transparently.Good climate communication is simple:
What are we doing? Why are we doing it? What does it mean for us?
Technical jargon rarely helps. Clear sentences do – immediately. Internally and externally. There is no need to “make things bigger” – being understandable is enough.
This applies to every form of climate communication, from internal updates to public climate claims.
Common misunderstandings in climate claims
Three misconceptions show up often:offset = neutral
certified = automatically transparent
we do a lot = we can say a lot
All three disappear quickly once the statement is explained. Many debates arise only because something remains unsaid.
Especially when greenwashing accusations are in the air, this context helps make claims clearer and more reliable.Drei Missverständnisse tauchen oft auf:
kompensiert = neutral
zertifiziert = automatisch transparent
wir tun viel = wir dürfen viel sagen
Alle drei sind schnell aus der Welt, wenn man die Aussage erklärt. Viele Diskussionen entstehen nur, weil etwas unausgesprochen bleibt.
Gerade im Kontext von Greenwashing-Vorwürfen hilft diese Einordnung, Claims ruhiger und sicherer zu gestalten.A substantiation is not a report. It is a short note:
This data, this method, this result.
That’s it. “We do a lot” explains nothing. A simple explanation is entirely sufficient.
The new requirements ask exactly for this: clear data, clear method – not extensive documentation.Traceable means:
What are we saying? How did we arrive at it? What supports it
This structure always works – even for SMEs. It doesn’t require extensive documentation, only clarity. A statement doesn’t need to be perfect, only understandable.
Transparent climate claims follow this logic and become both compliant and easy to communicate.Numbers help, but only if people can interpret them.
“18 tonnes of CO₂” is abstract.
“About the same as three typical company cars per year” is clear.
Nothing needs to be simplified, only translated. The complexity remains, but becomes readable.
Understandable climate communication relies on such comparisons – not on technical language or details.Most mistakes arise because statements are too general.
Better: briefly explain what is meant.
What are we saying? Why are we able to say it?
Keeping this in mind avoids the typical pitfalls – without legal manuals.
This allows greenwashing risks to be reduced early and climate claims to be clearly positioned.A solid climate strategy makes communication easier. You simply describe what you are doing: measuring, reducing, offsetting, explaining.
Then a claim doesn’t need big words. It rests on an understandable process – and appears calmer and more reliable.
Reduction targets, measures and the CO₂ balance together form the basis for clear, robust climate claims.