How to communicate your decarbonisation strategy and avoid greenwashing

Communicating decarbonisation well means claiming only what you can prove with auditable data. From 27 September 2026, European rules ban generic environmental claims and neutrality statements based solely on offsetting, so rigour stops being good practice and becomes a legal obligation.

Regulatory pressure, international commitments and the expectations of customers and investors are forcing companies to reduce their climate footprint and demonstrate progress credibly. But communication matters as much as the actions: a solid strategy can fail if it is conveyed through vague or technically unsupported messages, leading to accusations of greenwashing that damage reputation and, increasingly, expose the company to penalties.

This article explains how to communicate with rigour, which rules apply in 2026, which standards to use and which mistakes to avoid.

What is greenwashing and why is it now a legal risk?

Greenwashing is a deceptive practice that consists of exaggerating or misrepresenting an organisation’s environmental achievements, creating a distorted perception among consumers, investors and regulators. Common examples include companies announcing “net-zero” plans while expanding fossil-fuel-intensive operations, or brands promoting “green” products made with only a minimal share of recycled materials.

Until recently it was mainly a reputational risk. Today it is also a legal one. In France, the loi Climat et Résilience restricts advertising that claims a product is carbon neutral without accessible justification, and several European consumer regulators have opened cases over unsubstantiated green claims. The framework tightens decisively with the new European regulation on environmental claims.

What changes in 2026: Directive (EU) 2024/825

Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as “Empowering Consumers” for the green transition, amends the rules on unfair commercial practices and consumer rights. Member States had to transpose it by 27 March 2026 and its rules apply from 27 September 2026. Its key points for climate communication are:

• It bans generic claims such as “eco-friendly”, “green”, “environmentally friendly” or “climate neutral” when excellent, recognised environmental performance cannot be demonstrated (for example, through the EU Ecolabel).
• It bans claiming that a product is “carbon neutral” based on offsetting emissions with credits. Offsetting can no longer be presented as a synonym for the product’s neutrality.
• Only sustainability labels established by a public authority or based on certification schemes verified by an independent third party are allowed.

It should not be confused with the Green Claims Directive: in June 2025 the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw that proposal, which was put on hold. Directive 2024/825, by contrast, is already in force and is the one that sets the rules. We analyse its implications in detail in our guide to the anti-greenwashing directive that applies from September 2026.

How to communicate your decarbonisation strategy credibly

The first principle is verifiability: every claim must be backed by concrete and, ideally, audited data. The GHG Protocol is the global standard for compiling an emissions inventory across the three scopes: Scope 1 (direct), Scope 2 (energy) and Scope 3 (value chain). Without that foundation, any message is fragile.

Align targets with science

Targets must follow science-backed pathways. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) validates targets compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Communicating that your targets have been approved by SBTi is an unmistakable signal of real commitment, far more solid than a slogan.

Transparency on offsetting

Many companies have communicated climate neutrality relying solely on the purchase of carbon credits. That approach not only breeds distrust but, for products, falls outside the law from September 2026. The correct narrative makes clear what percentage of emissions is reduced internally (through energy efficiency, electrification or renewable energy) and what part is addressed through offsetting, without presenting the latter as neutrality. Standards such as ISO 14068-1 offer a verifiable framework for neutrality claims, in contrast to the withdrawn PAS 2060.

Consistency over time

A one-off announcement is not enough. Results should be updated regularly in sustainability reports, investor disclosures and the corporate website. Constant, coherent communication builds credibility and reduces the risk of accusations of opportunism.

Which frameworks reinforce transparency?

Credibility does not depend only on the narrative, but on relying on recognised frameworks that validate the data and allow comparison across sectors and countries.

CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project)

The CDP asks companies and cities to report on their climate risks and opportunities. Responding to its questionnaires forces you to organise reliable information, lets you benchmark against competitors and produces a public score that many investors consult before allocating capital.

GRI Standards

The GRI Standards offer clear guidance for producing transparent, auditable sustainability reports, designed to communicate to both experts and a general audience.

CSRD and ESRS

In Europe, the CSRD integrates detailed information on climate risks, emissions and transition plans into the management report, following the ESRS standards. After the Omnibus package, adopted in early 2026, its scope has been narrowed (broadly, companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in turnover) and the deadlines postponed, but the principle remains: sustainability is information subject to verification. We review the changes in our analysis of the Omnibus package and its effect on the CSRD.

ISO 14064

ISO 14064 provides a framework for the independent quantification and verification of greenhouse gas emissions, useful for backing the figures communicated through CDP or GRI with a technical seal.

Integrating these tools does not only make communication more robust: it eases access to climate finance, green bonds and ESG-linked loans, and improves your position in public tenders or contracts with large customers that prioritise suppliers with verified metrics.

Which messages should be avoided?

The biggest challenge in climate communication is resisting the temptation to oversimplify.

Ambiguous expressions

Resorting to labels such as “eco-friendly”, “green” or “zero impact” without technical backing breeds distrust and, from September 2026, breaches Directive 2024/825.

Commitments without deadlines or metrics

Phrases like “we will be carbon neutral in the future” lack credibility without dates, interim milestones and a verifiable action plan. Investors and regulators look for trajectories, not open-ended promises.

Confusing CSR with climate strategy

Mixing corporate social responsibility initiatives (recycling, volunteering, donations) with the climate strategy is a mistake: they are positive, but they do not replace effective emission reductions and can be read as a way of diverting attention.

Exaggeration

Presenting minor achievements as major milestones, or partial reductions as full neutrality, fuels suspicions of greenwashing. Acknowledging the remaining challenges builds more trust than empty marketing.

If you want to go deeper into the measurement that underpins any credible communication, see our practical guide to the 15 categories of Scope 3. And to turn your inventory into defensible messages, Manglai’s carbon footprint software helps generate traceable, auditable data.

Frequently asked questions

Can you communicate progress without verification?

It is not advisable. Every figure communicated should be backed by an external audit or a recognised verification system; otherwise the risk of greenwashing and non-compliance increases.

Can I still say my product is “carbon neutral” through offsetting?

Not for products in the EU from 27 September 2026. Directive (EU) 2024/825 prohibits basing that claim solely on the purchase of offset credits.

How should offsetting be communicated?

Always as a complement to real internal reductions and in a clearly differentiated way, never as a synonym for the product’s neutrality.

What happened to the Green Claims Directive?

The Commission announced in June 2025 its intention to withdraw it and the proposal was put on hold. The obligations in force come from Directive 2024/825 and the general framework on unfair commercial practices.

How often should communication be updated?

At least once a year in the sustainability report, and whenever significant milestones in the climate strategy are reached.