New Rules: How to Implement and Communicate Climate Strategy for Companies
2023 was a big year for climate action. We saw major announcements of new global governance and regulations across the world:
- In the US, California passed SB-253 Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act and AB-1305 Voluntary carbon market disclosures.
- In Europe, the European Commission released its Proposal for a Directive on Green Claims.
- Globally, new rules for the quality and use of carbon credits were issued ICVCM (The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market) and VCMI (The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative), both receiving significant praise from global leaders at the most recent COP28.
At Terrapass, we’re excited by these developments. The world recognizes the need to significantly scale all climate solutions including voluntary carbon markets. For this we must have globally aligned standards. This came together on multiple fronts in 2023.
So, what does this mean for sustainability professionals and everyday consumers?
For everyday consumers this is great news. These regulations ensure that any climate accomplishments promoted by a business will be supported with details that clearly show how those claims were achieved. The rules also ensure that companies are actively working to reduce their own carbon emissions in addition to offsetting their remaining emissions. Please visit Terrapass for more information about your personal or small business carbon footprint.
For sustainability professionals the list of new rules and regulations might seem daunting, but it is also good news. This is a sign of a maturing industry. Policy and consumer experts are contributing their expertise to help make climate action impactful and understandable to both sustainability professionals and everyday customers.
Historically, professional sustainability terms like carbon neutral and net-zero often made their way into marketing and product messaging. Consumer advocates rightly recognized that everyday customers can’t evaluate these phrases on their own. Additionally, vague phrases like green, eco, and sustainable are often used to promote sustainability without any supporting information. Consumer advocates also recognized that customers must be able to see why a product is green. These new regulations in California and Europe ensure that climate communications are always factual and transparent. They ensure that companies can promote their sustainability accomplishments with confidence and that customers have information to evaluate those accomplishments.
New global governance, VCMI in particular, ensures that companies apply sustainability solutions in the most effective way. Terrapass has long promoted the principle of 1. Calculate, 2. Conserve, and 3. Offset in our sustainability guidance to customers. This approach prioritizes:
- First, understand where carbon emissions are in your business,
- Second, disclose your plan to reduce the carbon emissions of your business and regularly report progress, and
- Third, balance your remaining emissions with carbon credits that fund global emission reduction projects.
When companies describe their climate strategy, they sometimes combine these different elements into one term like “carbon neutral.” Phrases like this do reflect an important environmental achievement. However, they hide the distinction between your company’s emission reductions vs. global emission reductions funded through carbon credits. Emission reduction and offsetting must be separate elements of your sustainability strategy and they should also be separate elements of your climate communications. Key elements for your climate communications include:
Steps and priorities:
- Measure your carbon emissions, reduce emissions on a science-based trajectory, and disclose your progress publicly.
- Address your remaining emissions by funding high-quality carbon credits that help reduce greenhouse gases globally.
Tell two different stories in your climate communications:
- Business Emission Reduction: Our carbon footprint was 5,000 mT in 2023, a reduction of 500 mT vs. 2021 and 5% ahead of plan.
- Global Climate Contribution: We purchased 5,000 mT of carbon credits in 2023 to fund global carbon reductions equal to our remaining emissions.
Other considerations:
- Climate communications should be factual, specific and detailed; provide evidence of all environmental claims made.
- Talk about carbon credits as a way to balance your remaining emissions by funding global carbon reduction.
- Talk about carbon credits as a way to support other global sustainability goals (UN SDGs) when applicable.
- Avoid using vague, generic terms like green, eco, climate friendly, sustainable, etc. that are not substantiated.
- Avoid terms that combine your company’s emission reduction and carbon offsetting into one phrase like carbon neutral, climate neutral, etc.
Highlights from each of the new rules and regulations are provided below. Please contact a Terrapass sustainability advisor to help your company navigate its specific needs.
California SB-253 Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act
- For entities with total annual revenues in excess of $1,000,000,000 that do business in California:
- Starting in 2026: Report Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions
- Starting in 2027: Report Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions
- Other requirements:
- For the reporting entity’s prior fiscal year
- Reporting is due annually on a date to be determined by the state board.
- Reporting follows the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
- Reporting entity must obtain an assurance engagement, performed by an independent third-party assurance provider, of the entity’s public disclosure as provided.
California AB-1305 Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures
- Entities operating in California and making climate-related claims:
- Must publicly disclose information documenting how the claim was determined to be accurate or accomplished, and the measurement of interim progress.
- Applies to claims of net-zero emissions, carbon neutrality or similar, as well as claims of significant reductions in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions,
- Entities operating in California and using voluntary carbon credits to support a climate-related claim.
- Must publicly disclose detailed information related to the credits purchased, the underlying offset projects and any independent verification of the climate-related claims made.
EU Green Claims Directive
- Applies to EU companies and non-EU companies making environmental claims aimed at EU consumers.
- Aims to eliminate greenwashing across EU markets by setting out detailed rules for how companies should market their environmental impacts and performance. It targets “vague, misleading or unfounded information on products’ environmental characteristics. “
- The current list of commercial practices that are banned in the EU is updated to include generic environmental claims – such as ‘environmentally friendly’, ‘natural’, ‘biodegradable’, ‘climate neutral’ or ‘eco’ – unless they can be properly evidenced.
- On the use of carbon credits specifically, the Green Claims Directive allows companies to make “carbon neutral” claims supported by carbon credits, but only if the carbon credits are disclosed correctly:
- Clearly state that carbon credits are being used to offset emissions.
- Disclose sources of emissions and amounts addressed with carbon credits.
- Identify carbon offset project types and distinguish between Reduction and removal offsets (requested, not required)
ICVCM (The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market)
- New global quality standards for voluntary carbon credit projects; “regulatory-like”
- Program will be fully implemented over the course of 2023-2024.
- Rules for each carbon credit Category (Methodology/Project Type) were released in June 2023
- CCP-Eligible Programs (Registries) and CCP-Approved Categories (Project Types) will be announced in 2024.
- Not a one-time rule, standards will continuously evolve.
- First revision process for the CCPs in 2025, aimed at implementation starting in 2026.
- ICVCM points to VCMI for guidance on how businesses should use carbon credits.
VCMI (The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative)
- VCMI was established in 2021 to help ensure that voluntary carbon markets make a significant, measurable, and positive contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goals.
- The VCMI Claims Code addresses market integrity on the demand side by guiding companies on:
- How they can credibly make voluntary use of carbon credits as part of their climate commitments, and
- The associated claims they can make regarding the use of those credits.
- The VCMI program should be followed together with ICVCM rules for high-integrity carbon credits.
Note: The above article provides introductory information only. Every organization must independently evaluate these rules and regulations, and determine specific actions needed for its own compliance.
Brought to you by terrapass.com
Written by Sam Tellen
Images per Copyright free
The post New Rules Tell Companies How to Implement and Communicate Climate Strategy appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits

