Anti-greenwashing directive: the EU Green Deal own goal. My article in Agenda Digitale

The original article is published in Italian on Agenda Digitale. An English summary is provided below.

→ Read the original article in Italian on Agenda Digitale

A pattern that keeps repeating

There is a mechanism that repeats itself in the European sustainability regulatory process: a real problem is identified, greenwashing, false environmental claims, and a regulation is produced that, in attempting to solve it, ends up penalising exactly the companies that do not have that problem. The ones that have done the most to avoid it.

We saw it with the Green Claims Directive, withdrawn in June 2025 after years of legislative work. We are about to see it again with Italian Legislative Decree 30/2026, which entered into force on 24 March 2026 and becomes fully applicable on 27 September 2026.

What the directive prohibits and what it does not

The directive does not ban companies from purchasing carbon credits. It does not prohibit voluntary carbon markets. It does not outlaw offsetting as a decarbonisation tool.

It prohibits something more subtle, and for that reason more insidious: it bans the use of carbon credit offsetting as the basis for any carbon neutrality claim on a product. You cannot say "carbon neutral", "net zero emissions" or "climate neutral" if that claim rests, even partially, on compensation through offsets.

And it makes no distinction between a credit purchased without verification and one certified according to the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, with independent verification, guaranteed permanence and demonstrated additionality.

The paradox: punishing those who did everything right

ISO 14068-1:2023 is the international standard that defines the rigorous, verifiable path to declaring product carbon neutrality. It requires a full lifecycle assessment, a time-bound reduction plan with verifiable targets, offsetting of only residual emissions with verified credits, and independent third-party verification of the entire process.

A company that obtains ISO 14068 certification has demonstrated something true, under the supervision of an accredited body, according to the most rigorous methodology available internationally.

And yet: with that certification in hand, with the verified dossier on the table, that company cannot tell the consumer "this product is carbon neutral." Not because the credits are illegitimate. Not because the LCA calculation is wrong. Not because the reduction plan does not exist. But because that claim, however true and certified, rests partly on offsetting, and the regulation categorically prohibits using offsetting as the basis of any neutrality claim.

Meanwhile, a competitor that has done nothing can freely communicate "we are working towards a more sustainable future." Vague, unverifiable, free of any concrete commitment. Perfectly legal.

The regulation rewards vagueness. It punishes precision. This is the opposite of consumer protection.

The contradiction with EU instruments

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, signed and ratified by the European Union, establishes international carbon credits as instruments recognised by signatory states as equivalent to direct reductions for the purpose of meeting national climate targets. The EU built its ETS system on the same logic of equivalence. It supported CORSIA mechanisms for international aviation, which are based precisely on offsetting with CO2 credits.

And then it wrote a directive that tells its own companies: those instruments that the agreement we signed recognises as valid, you may continue to use them, but you may not tell the market that you are using them to achieve the climate neutrality of your product.

The window is open: what to do before September 27 2026

The provisions become fully applicable on 27 September 2026. This is not just a compliance deadline: it is a political and legal opportunity.

On the legal front, a company sanctioned for a transparent, documented neutrality claim would have solid defensive arguments: the EU proportionality principle, freedom of commercial expression under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the principle of legitimate expectations for those who have invested in internationally recognised certifications.

On the regulatory front, the European legislative process on environmental claims is officially open after the withdrawal of the Green Claims Directive. The Commission will need to return with a new proposal. This is the opportunity for industry associations, certified companies, standardisation bodies and carbon market experts to bring a technically grounded argument to the European level, showing that ISO 14068 already exists, that the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles are already rigorous, and that a well-designed regulation should build on these standards rather than ignore them.

The solution is not to abandon the fight against greenwashing. It is to do it properly.