Contribution vs offsetting
Why the word has shifted and what it changes for you
CSR, marketing and legal teams: anyone deciding how the company communicates about its climate.
A credit no longer 'offsets' anything. It finances the transition. The right word is contribution. Product-level neutrality claims are banned in the EU from September 2026.
Offsetting, contribution, neutrality: three words, three different logics. The market has shifted from one framework to another within a few years. Understanding why avoids costly mistakes.
'Offset' implies a credit cancels an emission. The SBTi has explicitly rejected this logic.
'Contribute' acknowledges that you finance the transition beyond your value chain. It is defensible.
Product-level 'carbon neutral' claims are banned in the EU from 27 September 2026.
Offsetting vs contribution
| Criterion | Offsetting | Contribution |
|---|---|---|
| Logic | Cancel emissions | Finance the transition |
| Associated claim | 'Carbon neutral' | 'Contributes to climate finance' |
| Framework | No unified framework | SBTi BVCM, VCMI |
| SBTi compatible | No | Yes |
The word has shifted: why
For years, offsetting was the norm: you bought a carbon credit, you claimed neutrality for a product or an organisation. Three actors shifted that frame. The SBTi published its Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) in February 2024, explicitly rejecting the word 'offsetting'. France's ADEME has recommended since 2022 against 'carbon neutral' at the product or company level. The British PAS 2060 standard, used as a reference for neutrality claims since 2010, was withdrawn by BSI in November 2025 in favour of the new ISO 14068-1 'net zero' standard. Three converging signals marking the end of a vocabulary.
Why 'offsetting' became misleading
The term 'offsetting' suggests cancelling an emitted tonne with a tonne sequestered elsewhere, like a net-zero accounting calculation. This logic clashes with science: a tonne of CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere remains a tonne, and a credit does not make it disappear. It finances a project that contributes to the climate transition. The nuance may sound semantic, it is in fact fundamental: it conditions the legitimacy of any communication. Regulators, NGOs and courts now favour a strict reading that treats 'neutrality' as a misleading claim absent robust proof, which is nearly impossible to provide at the product level.
The BVCM logic: finance, do not cancel
The SBTi's Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM), published in February 2024, formalises the contribution logic. It describes four operational steps. Step one: validate a 1.5°C-aligned decarbonisation trajectory with short-term targets (5-10 years) and long-term net-zero covering scopes 1, 2 and 3. Step two: deploy a tangible reduction plan with internal budgets and KPIs. Step three: define an annual carbon contribution budget expressed in tonnes or as a share of residual emissions. Step four: communicate without neutrality claims. The Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0, expected in spring 2026 and applicable from 2028, reframes BVCM as 'ongoing emissions responsibility': a signal that contribution is meant to be ongoing.
ECGT: the ban that flips the market
The EU's ECGT Directive (Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition), adopted in 2024, applies from 27 September 2026 with no transition period. It bans any product-level claim based on offsetting: 'carbon neutral', 'CO₂ neutral', 'climate positive', 'zero emissions'. It also bans generic environmental claims ('environmentally friendly', 'green', 'biodegradable', 'eco-responsible') not backed by recognised certification. It applies to any trader selling to EU consumers regardless of headquarters: a US or Asian product sold on Amazon Europe is concerned. Sanctions are national: administrative fines, civil actions, reputational risk. This directive is what makes vocabulary migration urgent.
Green Claims: the directive that does not exist
Many decks still confuse ECGT with the Green Claims Directive, which the European Commission announced it was withdrawing in June 2025 after the Council cancelled the final trilogue. It was never formally adopted, is not in force, and may never be. If you still see a slide presenting it as upcoming legislation, it is outdated. The active framework on environmental claims is ECGT, and only ECGT. This clarification matters because legal teams often confuse the two, delaying product communication compliance.
What you can say at corporate level
ECGT targets product-level claims aimed at consumers. At corporate level (annual report, B2B communication, CSR), contribution claims remain possible, provided they are documented and embedded in a credible reduction trajectory. The VCMI framework (Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative) offers three tiers (Silver, Gold, Platinum) depending on trajectory ambition and credit quality. Silver is accessible to companies with a validated SBTi trajectory covering 20 % of their residual emissions. The defensible language is 'contribution to financing the climate transition', not 'neutrality'. In practice, replace 'our product X is carbon neutral' with 'we contribute to financing Y climate projects for Z tCO₂e per year'.
Common mistakes to avoid
Three recurring mistakes. (1) Keeping 'carbon neutral' on product packaging assuming ECGT will allow some leniency: it will not, 27 September 2026 is firm. (2) Communicating a contribution without a reduction trajectory: this is the very definition of greenwashing under SBTi and VCMI. (3) Using vague vocabulary ('neutral', 'sustainable', 'eco-responsible') without verifiable evidence: this is exactly what ECGT targets beyond carbon claims. Rule of caution: a claim must be backed by material evidence (registry, standard, vintage, volume) and defensible under audit. If not, drop it rather than take reputational and legal risk.
The question is no longer 'do we offset?' but 'how do we contribute, and can we prove it?'
Frequently asked questions
Ready to take action?
Explore buyer support