The European Commission’s move to address greenwashing practices among airlines is significant. Greenwashing, especially in industries as impactful as aviation, undermines consumer trust and misleads individuals about the environmental consequences of their choices.
Air France, its Dutch subsidiary KLM, and Lufthansa’s Brussels Airlines are among the 20 airlines under investigation by the European Union for potential greenwashing practices. It’s unclear which other airlines have received a letter from the EC.
Eco-Friendly Flight or Marketing Mirage?
The Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) works with the European Commission to enforce EU consumer protection laws. They address cross-border issues, triggered in this case by a BEUC alert about misleading green claims by airlines.
The European Green Deal and the New Consumer Agenda prioritize sustainability and combatting greenwashing. Directives like the one on unfair commercial practices prohibit misleading actions.
Additionally, the proposed Green Claims Directive aims to enhance consumer protection by requiring traders to substantiate explicit environmental claims and be transparent about offsetting claims, specifying the portion that relies on buying carbon offsets. The Directive ensures that traders adhere to requirements when making claims about the environmental performance of products.
The involvement of the CPC emphasizes the collaborative effort to enforce EU consumer laws and hold airlines accountable for their practices. This approach sends a clear message to the industry that greenwashing will not be tolerated.
BEUC’s advocacy and the support of consumer organizations further highlight the growing awareness and demand for genuine sustainability efforts. Consumers deserve accurate information to make informed choices, and actions like this help protect their rights.
Legal Eagles vs. Misleading Claims: Aviation Edition
The recent legal rulings against KLM and Austrian Airlines demonstrate the consequences of misleading advertising in the aviation sector. Such rulings set precedents and serve as deterrents for other airlines engaging in similar practices.
The EC, along with EU consumer authorities, is targeting misleading claims regarding the environmental impact of flying. They particularly focus on airlines’ assertions that carbon emissions can be offset through additional fees or the use of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).
SAF is from renewable and sustainable resources, offering a way to reduce emissions when combined with fossil-based jet fuel. It’s a “drop-in” fuel, meaning airlines can use it without modifying their existing infrastructure. SAF is viewed by experts as a highly promising solution for accelerating the aviation sector’s transition to a low-carbon future.
The identified misleading practices include:
- Creating the incorrect impression that additional fees can fully counterbalance CO2 emissions.
- Using the term “sustainable aviation fuel” without adequately justifying its environmental impact.
- Using terms like “green,” “sustainable,” or “responsible” without clear justification.
- Claiming to move towards environmental performance like net zero emissions without verifiable commitments, targets, and monitoring systems.
- Presenting flight emissions calculators without scientific proof of reliability.
- Comparing flight emissions without providing sufficient information on the methodology.
These actions follow the EU Commission’s legislative proposals aimed at protecting consumers from greenwashing. These include updates to directives like the unfair commercial practices directive (UCPD) and the consumer rights directive (CRD). These updates aim to include green transition aspects and introduce rules banning unverified environmental claims and requiring independent verification of green claims.
Věra Jourová, EC Vice-President for Values and Transparency, emphasized the importance of providing consumers with accurate and scientific information, saying:
“More and more travelers care about their environmental footprint and choose products and services with better environmental performance. They deserve accurate and scientific answers, not vague or false claims. The Commission is fully committed to empowering consumers in the green transition and fighting greenwashing.”
EU’s Greenwashing Battle Plan
The European Commission and CPC authorities have taken proactive steps to address concerns regarding environmental marketing claims made by airlines under EU consumer law. By inviting companies to provide responses within a specific timeframe and organizing meetings to discuss proposed solutions, the Commission is fostering dialogue and collaboration to ensure alignment with consumer legislation.
The process involves:
- Invitation for Response: Companies have 30 days to outline proposed measures to address concerns raised about their environmental marketing claims.
- Dialogue and Discussion: Following receipt of replies, the Commission will organize meetings with the CPC network and the airlines to discuss proposed solutions.
- Monitoring Implementation: The Commission will monitor the implementation of agreed-upon changes to ensure compliance with EU consumer law.
- Enforcement Actions: If airlines fail to take necessary steps to address concerns, CPC authorities have the authority to take further enforcement actions, including sanctions.
Overall, these legislative measures and directives aim to promote transparency and combat greenwashing, particularly involving airlines’ use of carbon offsets. By targeting airlines that make misleading claims about use of carbon offsets or the sustainability of flying, the Commission is taking a proactive step toward ensuring transparency and accountability in the sector.
The post EU Takes Action Against 20 Airlines for Greenwashing Claims appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
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 Energy1 year agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Climate Change2 years agoAnalysis: China’s CO2 falls 1% in Q2 2024 in first quarterly drop since Covid-19
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测