Last week, it was announced that the European Parliament had adopted the directive 'Empowering consumers for the green transition'. It aims to protect consumers, so that we can all make well-informed choices in the store without the risk that the product is marketed in a dishonest way regarding its environmental and climate impact. The European Parliament wants to use legislation to ensure that companies stop what we usually call greenwashing once and for all.

This is fundamentally sound - consumers are very keen to do the right thing - to choose the product with the lowest impact. Today, there is a plethora of more or less serious labels that allude to environmental and climate performance. In addition, many terms are used in marketing that don't really mean much - 'green', 'sustainable', 'eco-friendly', etc. These are very difficult to evaluate, often lack a robust basis for calculation and dilute trust in companies.

The problem arises when no one can or dares to say anything about the environmental and climate performance of their product or company at all because they risk fines or other penalties - greenhush. This phenomenon is at least as serious as greenwash - for the consumer, the same problem actually arises. Choosing the right product from an environmental and climate perspective becomes at least as difficult as before.

At ZeroMission , we have clients who invest a lot of time and money in their climate work. They calculate their climate impact, set reduction targets and reduce emissions at the rate they have the resources to. We also have customers who voluntarily take on an extra cost to take responsibility for the emissions they have anyway by financing certified climate projects where carbon dioxide is either prevented from being released or sequestered from the atmosphere. The traditional concept is carbon offsetting - compensating for the climate-impacting emissions you have. Linked to this, there are very clear frameworks in standards such as ISO that define certain climate statements. If a company follows a specified methodology for calculating its greenhouse gas emissions throughout the value chain and then voluntarily buys carbon credits equivalent to the same number of tons of_CO2e, a company or product can be designated "climate neutral". In other words, a lot of resources are put into obtaining the certificate.

The new EU directive now wants to ban the use of the term climate neutral, regardless of whether a company has done its homework or not. This risks being really counterproductive for the climate. Instead of fining companies that do not do anything for the climate, the regulations are steering towards fining many who try to do everything right. There is now a risk that consumers will not be able to distinguish climate-friendly products from those with a higher impact.

The systems that currently exist around carbon credits, standards and certifications are not perfect. But they exist and they are constantly evolving. Research* also shows time and again that the companies that buy carbon credits are the ones that are most likely to calculate greenhouse gas emissions, set Science Based Targets and do more to reduce their own emissions. Carbon credit purchases are simply part of a broader coordinated climate strategy, not a way to buy their way out as many opponents of carbon credits (still) stubbornly claim. The purchase of carbon credits is now seen as crucial to achieving climate goals at all, not just reducing emissions. They finance projects that often also generate a wide range of other benefits such as biodiversity benefits, cleaner water, cooler microclimates and food security (learn more about the next generation of carbon credits Projects are usually located in areas of the world where the impacts of climate change will be most severe. Without the voluntary financing of the projects, all the benefits, both for the climate and for people, are lost.

EU Member States have two years to create legislation in line with the directive, so it is still some way off. However, various court cases on environmental and climate claims, combined with the previously controversial Green Claims Directive, have already created a lot of confusion and silenced companies on their environmental and climate ambitions. What should now be clear about what is and is not allowed to be communicated will now instead drag on for a long time. This does not benefit consumers and, worst of all, it does not benefit the climate. We don't have time to try to get the perfect system. Climate change is already here and we all need to use all available tools in the box to slow it down.

We go to work every day with the mindset of helping our customers reduce their climate impact. Inspire and offer concrete tools to minimize climate change as much as possible. We are simply what we are called - our mission is to work for a planet with zero climate emissions. ZeroMission. For us, it's a no-brainer - being silent about your climate work is not a good way out! Instead, more people should speak up, be role models and inspire others to be on the right side of history when it comes to tackling climate change.

We at ZeroMission follow the development closely and if you have questions, we would like to support your company's climate work to continue in the best way while your marketing communication may need to be updated.

(*)

Ecosystems Marketplace Report 2023 

Trove Research Report 2023

Sylvera Report 2023

SLU, recently written master's thesis