The European Green Deal is a pact that looks to improve the well-being and health of citizens and future generations by providing a range of basic necessities, such as fresh air, clean water, healthy soil, healthy and affordable food, cleaner energy, future-proof jobs, and much more.
It bases much of this on the European Union (EU) becoming greener. Recently, the European Commission released a series of new rules focused on corporate responsibility that aims to strengthen the path toward its carbon-neutral goal.
How will these changes affect life in the EU? We review the upcoming EU rules on green claims and greenwashing and what they mean.
What Is the European Green Deal policy?
The European Union (EU) and European Parliament recognize that climate change and environmental degradation threaten all life in Europe and worldwide. To help get past these challenges and improve the chances of a clean, safe world for future generations, all 27 EU Member States agreed to the European Green Deal.
This environmental agreement will help convert the EU into a modern, resource-efficient, and competitive economy by ensuring:
- A reduction in net greenhouse gas emissions by 55% of 1990 levels by 2030
- Zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHG emissions) by 2050
- Economic growth becomes decoupled from resource use
- No person or place is left behind economically or ecologically
- EU’s energy independence
- Job creation and growth
- An improvement in the overall health and well-being of EU citizens
Financing for the European Green Deal will come from dipping into one-third of the 1.8 trillion euro ($2.022 trillion) investments from the NextGenerationEU Recovery Plan and the EU’s seven-year budget.
What Is the New EU Environmental Legislation?
Newly proposed legislation for the European Green Deal focuses heavily on green claims. Green claims are any claim an organization makes that it’s taking action to combat GHG emissions and to help slow climate change.
Currently, EU laws don’t regulate environmental claims, which leads to inconsistencies with regard to the handling of these claims among Member States.
The changes would also better define green claims. They would be defined as: “any message or representation, which is not mandatory under Union law or national law, including text, pictorial, graphic or symbolic representation, in any form, including labels, brand names, company names or product names, in the context of a commercial communication, which states or implies that a product or trader has a positive or no impact on the environment or is less damaging to the environment than other products or traders, respectively, or has improved their impact over time.”
This is all in an attempt to prevent greenwashing — when an organization focuses more on marketing itself as environmentally friendly than minimizing its environmental impact.
Let’s review the main proposed changes.
Rules for Methodology
To help ensure all green claims are valid and harmonious across the EU, EU Member States must validate environmental claims through science-based methodologies.
Accepted methodologies are expected to have to follow these basic guidelines:
- They must be based on widely recognized scientific evidence and state-of-the-art technical knowledge and account for relevant international standards. Claims are not allowed if no recognized scientific method exists or there’s insufficient evidence to assess environmental impacts and aspects.
- They must assess environmental impact throughout the product’s life cycle.
- They must account for the composition of products, the materials they use when producing products, the amount of emissions created during production, the use of the product, and the product’s durability, reparability, and end-of-life aspects.
- They must assess if achieving positive environmental impacts, aspects, or performance significantly increases any other negative environmental impact.
- They must be third-party accessible with a reasonable access fee, if applicable.
- They require regular review from a third party that can account for technical and scientific progress and the development of relevant international standards.
Rules on Green Claims
source
So, what will be considered valid green claims under these proposed rules? While nothing is official yet, the green claims directives will be as follows:
- They can only make environmental claims substantiated through an approved methodology that meets specific criteria, which we’ll cover later.
- They cannot make positive environmental claims if a product has a positive and negative environmental impact. They may publicize the positive claim, but they must also communicate the negative impact clearly and understandably.
- They must make the information on the assessment on which the environmental claim is based available
With regard to the final bullet point, the information on the assessment that should be made available includes:
- Information about the product or activities of the trader subject to the claim; Environmental aspects, environmental impacts, or environmental performance the claim covers
- Methodology used
- Underlying studies or calculations they used to analyze, measure, and monitor the claim’s environmental impact
- A brief explanation of how they improved environmental performance via a weblink, QR code, or equivalent
There also needs to be a review of the accuracy of their environmental claims every five years at minimum.
Rules on Comparative Environmental Claims
Organizations can make comparative environmental claims as a part of marketing efforts, but experts anticipate the new rules to crack down on such claims. Some of the proposals include:
- Organizations must utilize the identical methodology as the products or traders they compare themselves to.
- Organizations must generate or source the data to substantiate comparative claims equivalently to ensure comparability.
- Organizations must account for the most significant stages along the value chain for all products and traders compared.
Rules on Forward-Looking Claims
Organizations may also claim anticipated environmental benefits under the newly proposed green claims directive. However, authorities would require these future-looking claims to follow specific guidelines, including:
- They must include commitments and milestones that they need to achieve within clearly specified time frames.
- They must indicate a baseline year for all targets, the desired result compared to the baseline year, and the target year to achieve the claim. For example, they might say something like, “We commit to making a 50% reduction in emissions by 2035 compared to our 1990 levels.”
- They cannot include previously achieved targets.
Rules on Enforcement
The proposed rules will also include how they will expose non-compliant organizations. In the proposed rules, public authorities would require Member States to perform compliance monitoring:
- As part of their regular checks
- In cases where they have sufficient reason to believe an environmental claim may infringe upon the rules
- If complaints arise
If an organization makes non-compliant environmental claims, the proposed rule changes would require it to fix the issues quickly. Once the organization receives a non-compliance notification, it would have 10 business days to respond with substantiation.
If the organization doesn’t provide a timely or satisfactory answer, regulatory officials will require it to modify the offending claim or cease all communication of it immediately as consumer protection. The trader will have 30 business days to implement corrective actions.
This enforcement aims to ensure all environmental labels and claims are credible and trustworthy, allowing consumers to make more educated purchasing decisions.
What Are the Current EU Environmental Policies?
The current European Green Deal may not be as extensive as the proposed regulation changes. However, it still looks to take on climate change and help prevent the potential global existential crisis it causes.
To help with this, the European Commission has adopted many climate-focused initiatives and policies, such as:
- Reducing car emissions by 55% by 2030
- Reducing van emissions by 50% by 2030
- Reducing all new-car emissions to 0% by 2035
- Performing energy-efficiency-improving renovations on 35 million buildings by 2030
- Reaching 40% renewable energy by 2030
- Reaching 36% to 39% energy efficiency by 2030
- Restoring Europe’s forests, soils, wetlands, and peatlands to increase carbon absorption to 310 megatonnes (Mt)
What Is the New EU Sustainability Directive?
The EU requires large companies and all listed companies — listed micro-enterprises are excluded — to disclose what they view as risks and opportunities associated with social and environmental issues. They must also disclose their activities’ impact on people and the environment.
This disclosure helps investors, civil society organizations, consumers, and other stakeholders evaluate companies’ sustainability performance as part of the European Green Deal.
In January 2023, the new Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) was enacted. This new directive modernizes and strengthens the social and environmental information companies must report. A broader set of large companies and listed SMEs — approximately 50,000 companies — must now report on sustainability.
To be affected by this new reporting directive, a company must meet at least two of the three following criteria: employ 250-plus people, have assets totaling at least 20 million euros, and have turnover totaling at least 40 million euros.
Companies will begin applying the new reporting rules in the 2024 financial year for reports published in 2025. Until then, the current Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) national law will remain in force, requiring affected organizations to report on environmental protection (Scope 3 emissions included), social responsibility, the treatment of employees, human rights, anti-bribery and anti-corruption, and company board diversity.
Once the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) begins in 2024, corporations will have to report on all information in the current NFRD plus:
- Double materiality, including the company’s sustainability and climate risk, and the impact the company has on society and the environment
- Material-topic-selection process for stakeholders
- More forward-looking information, including organizational climate targets and its progress toward the targets
- Information regarding intangible items, including social, human, and intellectual matters
- Reports aligning with the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and European Union’s Taxonomy Regulation
Upcoming EU Rules on Green Claims Seek to Elevate Corporate Responsibility
To accelerate the battle against climate change and global warming, the EU continues updating policies and proposals to the existing European Green Deal. The latest proposals focus on empowering European organizations to improve their climate-neutral reporting and to make this a common practice among more European companies.
These upcoming EU rules on green claims and greenwashing may help Europe get on track and remain on a path to help reverse climate change. You can also do your part to help this process by offsetting your carbon footprint by purchasing voluntary carbon credit from Terrapass. We offer a wide range of options for businesses and individuals.
Choose the right option for you, and start offsetting your carbon footprint today.
Brought to you by terrapass.com
Featured image:
The post Upcoming EU Rules on Green Claims and What They Mean appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Industries with the biggest nature footprints and what their decarbonisation looks like
A corporate carbon footprint is never just an accounting figure. It maps onto real ecosystems. Before a product leaves the factory gate, something on the ground has already paid the cost. A forest has been converted. A river has been depleted. A patch of savannah that was once home to dozens of species now grows a single crop in every direction.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules
More than 60 global companies, including Apple, Amazon, BYD, Salesforce, Mars, and Schneider Electric, are pushing back against proposed changes to global emissions reporting rules. The group is calling for more flexibility under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), the most widely used framework for measuring corporate carbon footprints.
The companies submitted a joint statement asking that new requirements, especially those affecting Scope 2 emissions, remain optional rather than mandatory. Their letter stated:
“To drive critical climate progress, it’s imperative that we get this revision right. We strongly urge the GHGP to improve upon the existing guidance, but not stymie critical electricity decarbonization investments by mandating a change that fundamentally threatens participation in this voluntary market, which acts as the linchpin in decarbonization across nearly all sectors of the economy. The revised guidance must encourage more clean energy procurement and enable more impactful corporate action, not unintentionally discourage it.”
The debate comes at a critical time. Corporate climate disclosures now influence trillions of dollars in capital flows, while stricter reporting rules are being introduced across major economies.
The Rulebook for Carbon: What the GHG Protocol Is and Why It’s Being Updated
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the world’s most widely used system for measuring corporate emissions. It is used by over 90% of companies that report greenhouse gas data globally, making it the foundation of most climate disclosures.
It divides emissions into three categories:
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from operations
- Scope 2: Emissions from purchased electricity
- Scope 3: Emissions across the value chain

The current Scope 2 rules were introduced in 2015, but energy markets have changed since then. Renewable energy has expanded, and companies now play a major role in funding clean power.
Corporate buyers have already supported more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity globally through voluntary purchases. This shows how influential the current system has been.
The GHG Protocol is now updating its rules to improve accuracy and transparency. The revision process includes input from more than 45 experts across industry, government, and academia, reflecting its global importance.
Scope 2 Shake-Up: The Battle Over Real-Time Carbon Tracking
The proposed update would shift how companies report electricity emissions. Instead of using flexible systems like renewable energy certificates (RECs), companies would need to match their electricity use with clean energy that is:
- Generated at the same time, and
- Located in the same grid region.
This is known as “24/7” or hourly or real-time matching. It aims to reflect the actual impact of electricity use on the grid. Companies, including Apple and Amazon, say this shift could create challenges.

According to industry feedback, stricter rules could raise energy costs and limit access to renewable energy in some regions. It can also slow corporate investment in new clean energy projects.
The concern is that many markets do not yet have enough renewable supply for real-time matching. Infrastructure for tracking hourly emissions is also still developing.
This creates a key tension. The new rules could improve accuracy and reduce greenwashing. But they may also make it harder for companies to scale clean energy quickly.
The outcome will shape how companies measure emissions, invest in renewables, and meet net-zero targets in the years ahead.
Why More Than 60 Companies Oppose the Changes
The companies argue that stricter rules could slow climate progress rather than accelerate it. Their main concern is cost and feasibility. Many regions still lack enough renewable energy to support real-time matching. For global companies, aligning energy use across different grids is complex.
In their joint statement, the group warned that mandatory changes could:
- Increase electricity prices,
- Reduce participation in voluntary clean energy markets, and
- Slow investment in renewable energy projects.
They argue that current market-based systems, such as RECs, have helped scale clean energy quickly over the past decade. Removing flexibility could weaken that momentum.
This reflects a broader tension between accuracy and scalability in climate reporting.
Big Tech Pushback: Apple and Amazon’s Climate Progress
Despite their push for flexibility, both companies have made measurable progress on emissions reduction.
Apple reports that it has reduced its total greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% compared to 2015 levels, even as revenue grew significantly. The company is targeting carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030. It also reported that supplier renewable energy use helped avoid over 26 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025 alone.

In addition, about 30% of materials used in Apple products in 2025 were recycled, showing a shift toward circular manufacturing.
Amazon has also set a net-zero target for 2040 under its Climate Pledge. The company is one of the world’s largest corporate buyers of renewable energy and continues to invest heavily in clean power, logistics electrification, and low-carbon infrastructure.

Both companies argue that flexible accounting frameworks have supported these investments at scale.
The Bigger Challenge: Scope 3 and Digital Emissions
The debate over Scope 2 reporting is only part of a larger issue. For most large companies, Scope 3 emissions account for more than 70% of total emissions. These include supply chains, product use, and outsourced services.
In the technology sector, emissions are rising due to:
- Data centers,
- Cloud computing, and
- Artificial intelligence workloads.
Global data centers already consume about 415–460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global power demand. This figure is expected to increase sharply. The International Energy Agency estimates that data center electricity demand could double by 2030, driven largely by AI.
This creates a major reporting challenge. Even with cleaner electricity, total emissions can rise as digital demand grows.
Climate Reporting Rules Are Tightening Globally
The pushback comes as climate disclosure requirements are expanding and becoming more standardized across major economies. What was once voluntary ESG reporting is steadily shifting toward mandatory, audit-ready climate transparency.
In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is now active. It requires large companies and, later, listed SMEs, to share detailed sustainability data. This data must match the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This includes granular reporting on emissions across Scope 1, 2, and increasingly Scope 3 value chains.
In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aims for mandatory climate-related disclosures for public companies. This includes governance, risk exposure, and emissions reporting. However, some parts of the rule face legal and political scrutiny.
The United Kingdom has included climate disclosure through TCFD requirements. Now, it is moving toward ISSB-based global standards to make comparisons easier. Similarly, Canada is progressing with ISSB-aligned mandatory reporting frameworks for large public issuers.
In Asia, momentum is also accelerating. Japan is introducing the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) rules that match ISSB standards. Meanwhile, China is tightening ESG disclosure rules for listed companies through updates from its securities regulators. Singapore has also mandated climate reporting for listed companies, with phased Scope 3 expansion.
A clear trend is forming across jurisdictions: climate disclosure is aligning with ISSB global standards. There’s a growing focus on assurance, comparability, and transparency in value-chain emissions.
This regulatory tightening raises the bar significantly for corporations. The challenge is clear. Companies must:
- Align with multiple evolving disclosure regimes,
- Ensure emissions data is verifiable and auditable, and
- Expand reporting across complex global supply chains.
Balancing operational growth with compliance is becoming increasingly complex as climate regulation converges and intensifies worldwide.
A Turning Point for Global Carbon Accounting
The outcome of this debate could shape global carbon accounting standards for years.
If stricter rules are adopted, emissions reporting will become more precise. This could improve transparency and reduce greenwashing risks. However, it may also increase compliance costs and limit flexibility.
If the proposed changes remain optional, companies may continue using current accounting methods. This could support faster clean energy investment, but may leave gaps in reporting accuracy.
The new rules could take effect as early as next year, making this a near-term decision for global companies.
The push by Apple, Amazon, and other companies highlights a key tension in climate strategy. On one side is the need for accurate, real-time emissions reporting. On the other is the need for flexible systems that support large-scale clean energy investment.
As digital infrastructure expands and energy demand rises, how emissions are measured will matter as much as how they are reduced. The next phase of climate action will depend not just on targets—but on the systems used to track them.
The post Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测



