The Product Carbon Footprint, or PCF for short, shows the calculated greenhouse gas emissions of a specifically described printed product – for example, in a defined print run, specification, and system boundary. It is information about the product. It is not a quality judgment or a seal of sustainability.

No. The PCF does not make the product any better or worse. It merely makes visible which emissions have been calculated for the defined print product. This creates a reliable basis for decision-making and communication.

Both can be useful. The reference value helps when comparing identical print products. The total value shows the emissions of the specific job. What is crucial is that it is clear which reference value the figure refers to.

It does not state that a print product is climate-neutral, climate-friendly, or more environmentally friendly than another product. Nor does it make any statement about whether a company has reduced its emissions. It describes the calculated emissions of the defined print product.

So that the figure remains understandable and easy to categorise. A PCF without context invites incorrect comparisons. This is why we document what the value refers to, which process steps are included, which methodology was used for the calculation, and when the calculation was created.

No. It is an access point to the product-related CO₂ information. The QR code leads to the documented data of this printed product. It does not say: 'This product is better than others.'

A sustainability seal is not automatically required for objective, traceably documented CO₂ information. The decisive factors are a clear statement, a traceable data context, and the absence of misleading product claims. A seal suggesting exceptional environmental performance is a different matter entirely.

A PCF always refers to a sufficiently described printed product. If the print run, paper, volume, finishing, shipping or other essential parameters change, an updated calculation may be required.

The PCF describes the printed product. The climate contribution – documented by ecozoom as voluntary project support – describes what your company is doing in addition. The PCF remains unchanged. The project support is not deducted from it and is not offset against it.

Because not everything we do has to change the character of a product to be meaningful. You can provide reliable product data and additionally support a project that is important to you. Both deserve an honest, separate presentation.

Correct. It does not change the declared PCF. It documents a voluntary decision by your company to support a project beyond the print product.

Project support must represent actual, documentable support – not just free access to a character or a tracking page. The minimum contribution creates a reliable framework for this for each order.

The CO₂ value of the printed product serves as a traceable reference value for the scale. It is not a "compensatory calculation". The pricing logic and the minimum contribution applicable to the order are displayed before the order is placed.

The suggested contribution is a recommendation for further voluntary project support. It does not claim to offset the PCF. Depending on the offer, you can choose between the minimum contribution, the suggested contribution or a higher contribution of your own.

No. As factual product information, CO₂ data can also be commissioned without project support. Anyone who additionally decides on a project will receive the corresponding certificates and separate tracking.

In the past, product data, project support and communication services were often combined into a single statement. Today, we make the individual components transparent: calculation and documentation of product data, voluntary project support and, where applicable, communication materials.

Depending on the chosen project, it finances documented project work or certified project elements, including the necessary selection, verification and processing services. The tracking and contribution record documents which project was supported for which order.

Project support is not presented as a mere pass-through. Depending on the type of project, selection, documentation, proof, and processing are also part of the model. The decisive factor is that the project, form of support, and proof are disclosed in a traceable manner.

Yes, within the available projects. This allows you to choose a project that suits your company or the respective printed product. The selection is documented for the specific order.

In the case of certificate-based projects, support is proven via documented and retired project elements in accordance with a recognised standard. In the case of direct project support, you directly fund a concretely described measure or project.

We do not want direct support to be automatically equated with a specific amount of CO₂. Instead, we document the project, region, timeframe, measure, and the respective proof. This is a different, but clear form of transparency.

The proof relates to the specifically funded measure or project work. It makes visible which project is being supported and what information is available about it. It does not claim that this has altered the PCF of the printed product.

No. It answers a different question. Certificate-based projects document a specific form of allocation. Direct project support shows what concrete work a company enables. We do not equate the two, but rather explain the respective evidence transparently.

Yes – as a voluntary commitment by your company. The phrasing is important: we do not say that this makes the printed product climate-neutral or lower in emissions. We say that the company is additionally supporting a project.

Because this can easily give the impression that the contribution alters or reduces the PCF. The information may appear on the same page, but must remain clearly separated in terms of statement and design.

For the printed product, we may state the actually determined CO₂ data with reference values and data context. We avoid statements such as 'climate-friendly', 'CO₂-neutral', 'compensated', 'offset' or 'with a reduced CO₂ footprint' if they are not based on an actual improvement within the value chain.

No. The factual product information can also be used without the communication package, provided that the product, reference unit and data context are correct. The package provides prepared materials for this and facilitates coordination, but is not a requirement for the PCF.

It turns data into a usable handover: with a key factsheet, text templates, a handover email to the customer, and an approval loop before publication. It is not an environmental performance indicator or a seal. It facilitates coordination and publication.

For example: Not everything we do makes our products better. Some things we do because we believe they are right. A carbon footprint was calculated for this printed product. In addition, our company voluntarily supports a project. Both are reported separately.

Because the rules for environmental communication are changing. We don't want to show less, but rather show it more clearly: which CO₂ data belongs to your print product – and what voluntary commitment your company is additionally undertaking. In this way, a quick label becomes traceable and transparent information.

For consumer communication, stricter rules for environmental claims and sustainability labels will apply from 27 September 2026. Particularly important for printed products: support for external projects must not serve as a justification for claiming that a product is 'climate neutral', 'compensated', or CO₂-reduced.

The EU rules are aimed at consumer communication. Nevertheless, we consistently align our public product communication with this clear separation – even if a contract is processed between businesses. This ensures that the print product, website, and documents remain consistent.

Voluntary support for an external climate protection project does not change the carbon footprint of the printed product. For this reason, we do not use claims such as 'climate neutral', 'compensated' or 'offset' for this approach. We present the product data and the voluntary commitment separately.

It corresponded to an approach that was common in the past. Today, expectations regarding traceability are higher – and the rules are more concrete. That is why we are developing our communication further: not less commitment, but a more precise language for it.

We do not evaluate third-party offers. What is always decisive is exactly what is being claimed and what that claim is based on. Our position is clear: we do not use any neutrality or offsetting claims for a printed product that are based on support outside of its value chain.

For new editions and new means of communication, we will switch to the new logic. For materials that have already been produced, it depends on the content, use, and timing. This will be examined individually as required, rather than making a blanket promise.