Climate greenwashing: a growing problem
As climate awareness takes hold in society, green claims are proliferating in the corporate world. "Carbon neutral", "zero emissions", "100% offset", "climate positive company" — marketing phrases are blossoming on websites, packaging, and advertisements. But behind these attractive claims, the reality is often quite different.
Greenwashing refers to all practices that involve projecting an ecological image without this being grounded in real and verifiable actions. In the field of carbon offsetting, it takes various forms and can be difficult for an uninformed consumer to detect.
In 2023, a Guardian investigation revealed that more than 90% of forest carbon credits sold by the leading global standard (Verra/VCS) did not correspond to any real emission reductions. A revelation that shook the entire voluntary offsetting sector and illustrates the scale of the problem.
Warning signs to look out for
1. No prior reduction effort
The first warning sign is a company that claims "carbon neutrality" without having reduced its absolute emissions. Offsetting should only come as a last step, after significant and documented reduction efforts. A company that keeps its emissions stable or rising while purchasing carbon credits is engaging in greenwashing.
"Offsetting without prior reduction is like trying to fill a leaking bathtub by turning the tap on harder." — Carbon Market Watch
2. Carbon credits that are too cheap
If a company offers to offset your emissions for 2 or 3 euros per tonne of CO2, be wary. A genuine quality carbon credit, certified by rigorous standards, involves audit, monitoring, and certification costs that make prices below 10-15 euros per tonne highly suspect. The cheapest REDD+ forest projects are often those whose quality is most questionable.
3. Opacity about funded projects
A serious carbon offset must allow you to know exactly which project you are funding. Project name, precise location, emission reduction calculation method, certifying body, registration number in the public registry. If you cannot find this information, it is a strong signal of a lack of transparency.
4. Use of vague and unverifiable terms
Phrases like "we act for the climate", "our eco-responsible approach", or "our green commitment" without quantified data or contractual commitments are markers of environmental communication without substance. Demand figures: how many tonnes emitted, how many offset, according to which method, verified by whom?
5. Offsetting all emissions of a large company
When a major international group claims "total carbon neutrality" based on offsets, it is almost always a red flag. The emissions of a multinational often represent tens or hundreds of millions of tonnes — a volume that is simply impossible to "offset" credibly with forest projects or renewable energy.
Labels: the good and the not-so-good
Recognised standards
Not all labels are equal. Here is a ranking of the main standards by level of rigour:
- Gold Standard: the most demanding on the voluntary market. Independent audits, strict social criteria, consultable public registry. It is the reference if you want to offset reliably.
- Label Bas-Carbone (France): the official French standard, solid for agricultural and forestry projects on national territory.
- Verra/VCS: the most widespread but also the most contested. Its forest methodologies have been severely criticised. To be used with discernment depending on the project type.
- Plan Vivo: a serious community-based label, but limited in volume.
- Climate Action Reserve (CAR): a rigorous North American standard, primarily for projects in the United States.
Labels to avoid or question
- In-house certifications created by the company itself without third-party audit
- Labels with opaque or unpublished criteria
- "Offsets" offered directly by airlines without mention of a recognised standard
How to distinguish a genuine offset?
The 5 criteria of a quality offset
For an offset project to be considered serious, it must meet five fundamental criteria:
- Additionality: the project would not have happened without offset funding. The protected forest was genuinely threatened, the wind turbine would not have been built without this additional revenue.
- Measurability: emission reductions are calculated using a transparent and reproducible methodology, with clearly documented uncertainties.
- Permanence: the reductions are lasting. For forest projects, "buffer pool" mechanisms (safety reserves) must exist to cover the risks of fire or future deforestation.
- Independent verification: the calculations are audited by an accredited third party, independent of the project developer.
- No double counting: the credits are retired from a public registry to prevent them from being sold multiple times.
Questions to ask before buying an offset
- Which standard certifies this project and who is the independent auditor?
- Can I find this project in the standard's public registry (Gold Standard Registry, Verra Registry)?
- What is the serial number of the credits purchased?
- Have these credits been officially "retired" from the registry?
- What is the generation date of the credits? (be wary of very old credits)
The regulatory framework is tightening
Faced with the proliferation of misleading practices, European and French authorities are taking action. The European anti-greenwashing directive, adopted in 2024, notably prohibits carbon neutrality claims based solely on offsets, without prior documented reduction. In France, the ARPP (Professional Advertising Regulation Authority) is tightening its recommendations on environmental communication.
The European Commission is also working on a European standard for carbon offsets (Carbon Removal Certification Framework) which is expected to come into force progressively from 2025-2026.
To identify genuinely certified and reliable offset projects in 2024, consult our guide: The best certified carbon offset projects in 2024.
Genuine offsetting: some concrete examples
To illustrate what a serious carbon offset can look like, here are two examples of projects that meet the quality criteria:
Kariba Project (Zimbabwe): VCS-certified, this forest protection project covering 785,000 hectares protects a forest threatened by illegal agricultural exploitation. Despite the controversies around VCS, this project has undergone rigorous independent audits and includes a social programme for local communities.
"Improved Cookstoves Uganda" project (Gold Standard): this programme distributes efficient cooking stoves in Ugandan villages, reducing firewood consumption by 50% and significantly improving the quality of life for women and children.
For a comprehensive understanding of how carbon offsetting works and how to engage responsibly, read our reference article: Carbon offsetting: the complete guide to understanding and taking action.
Conclusion: demand proof
The golden rule when faced with corporate environmental claims is simple: demand proof. A credible carbon neutrality claim must be based on a substantial reduction in absolute emissions, a minimal residual offset with quality certified projects, and total transparency on data and methods. Everything else is, at best, poorly managed communication, and at worst, deliberate greenwashing.