If your event has called itself “carbon neutral” on the strength of an offset purchase, that specific claim now falls under an EU ban that took effect on September 27, 2026. Since that date, a carbon neutral event claim based on offsetting has stopped being a sustainability story in the EU and become a prohibited practice.
The EU’s EmpCo Directive bans claims that a product or service is climate neutral, reduced, or positive in impact based on greenhouse gas offsetting, in force since September 27, 2026. It covers business-to-consumer claims only, but applies to any organizer marketing to EU consumers regardless of location. The fix: measured, category-level emissions data.
What does the EmpCo Directive actually ban?
EU member states have had to apply EmpCo’s measures since September 27, 2026, with transposition into national law due by March 27, 2026 (Directive (EU) 2024/825). Since that date, the directive has placed offset-based neutrality claims in Annex I: the list of practices considered unfair “in all circumstances,” with no case-by-case defense available.
Concretely, a trader can no longer claim a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive climate impact on the basis of greenhouse gas offsetting. “Carbon neutral,” “climate neutral,” and “CO2 compensated” all fall inside that prohibition when offsetting is the basis for the claim.
EmpCo also bans generic environmental claims (“eco-friendly,” “green,” “ecological”) unless the trader can demonstrate recognized excellent environmental performance behind them. This piece focuses on the neutrality-claim ban specifically, since that’s the one most event organizers are exposed to today.
The “in all circumstances” wording matters: most unfair-practice rules allow some case-by-case defense, room to show a claim was accurate even if the wording sounds generic, but Annex I practices get none. Now that offset-based neutrality language is listed, the rigor of the offset supplier’s methodology is irrelevant. The claim itself, “neutral because we offset,” is what’s prohibited, not the quality of the offsetting behind it.
Are carbon neutral event claims banned in the EU from September 2026?
Not everywhere, and not for everyone. EmpCo covers business-to-consumer claims only, and it reaches any organizer marketing to EU consumers no matter where that organizer is headquartered.
The B2C-only scope matters more than it might first appear. Purely business-to-business communication falls outside EmpCo and stays governed by the existing Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive (2006/114/EC). EmpCo protects consumers, meaning people acting outside their trade or profession. A private pitch deck to a corporate client is B2B.
A festival’s public website, ticketing pages, and on-site signage are B2C, and squarely in scope. Professional conferences sit in between: a delegate buying a ticket on their employer’s behalf is generally acting in a business capacity, but open public ticketing, consumer-facing marketing, and mixed audiences blur that line quickly. If your event sells to the public at all, treat the claim as in scope.
The territorial reach is broader than “we’re not an EU company” would suggest. EmpCo applies to any trader marketing to consumers in the EU regardless of where the trader is established, and covers consumers physically in the EU, including temporary visitors such as tourists and international attendees (Heuking, summarizing the European Commission’s official FAQ).
Put concretely: a US-headquartered promoter running a music festival in Chicago, selling tickets to European visitors and naming European sponsors on its website, cannot lean on “we’re not an EU company” to keep an offset-based “carbon neutral festival” claim live. The claim is being made to EU consumers, and that’s what triggers the directive, not the organizer’s registered address.
What if you’re in the US, Australia, or part of a multinational?
EmpCo itself only reaches claims made to EU consumers. A purely domestic US or Australian event, with no EU attendees, sponsors, or marketing, sits outside it entirely. That is not the same as no risk: both markets are independently tightening the same substantiation bar, just through different mechanisms.
In the US, the FTC’s Green Guides are non-binding interpretive guidance, not a rule with the force EmpCo has. They don’t ban “carbon neutral” outright. The FTC opened a review in December 2022 that asked specifically about carbon offset and climate change claims. As of mid-2026, no revised Guides have been issued, and the 2012 version remains current. Softer than EmpCo, but the direction is the same: more scrutiny of offset-based claims, not less, and the FTC’s general authority over deceptive practices already applies regardless of whether the Guides themselves change.
In Australia, the ACCC’s own guidance interprets existing Australian Consumer Law misleading-conduct provisions, and it already flags “carbon neutral” and “climate neutral” claims as high risk, recommending that businesses clearly separate genuine emissions reduction from reliance on purchased offsets (ACCC). The cost of getting this wrong just rose sharply and independently of the EU: the fixed-amount component of the maximum corporate penalty under the Australian Consumer Law increased to AUD 100 million for conduct on or after March 28, 2026.
For a multinational, the practical answer is usually simpler than tracking three regimes separately. If any part of your operation touches EU consumers, sponsors, or attendees, as in the Chicago festival example above, that slice of your marketing is in EmpCo’s scope regardless of where the parent company sits. A common approach for teams handling multiple markets is to set one global claims standard at the strictest bar that applies anywhere they operate (here, EmpCo’s), rather than maintaining market-by-market claim variants that are themselves a leak risk. A measured Scope 1/2/3 figure with a stated methodology is also the kind of evidence US and Australian regulators ask for, which makes building to the EU standard the most efficient route across all three.
EmpCo vs. the Green Claims Directive: don’t confuse the two
Worth being precise here, because general coverage of this topic often isn’t. EmpCo is a separate, binding instrument from the EU’s proposed Green Claims Directive, which the European Commission signaled its intent to withdraw on June 20, 2025, though it has not been formally withdrawn.
The date that matters for your event’s claims is EmpCo’s, September 27, 2026. The Green Claims Directive is a different, stalled proposal and not the source of that date. Treating the two as interchangeable is a mistake worth avoiding when briefing legal, marketing, or a sponsor on what’s actually changing. For the wider set of deadlines landing around it, see our timeline of event sustainability regulations.
Can you still make carbon neutral event claims after September 27, 2026?
Yes, in a narrow sense, but not the way most events have been saying it. Funding or investing in verified climate projects can still be communicated. What can’t be communicated is the leap from “we funded this” to “therefore this event was neutral.”
That distinction is the one worth rewriting your claims around. Instead of:
“This summit was carbon neutral.”
a defensible version names the mechanism and the number:
“This summit measured 340 tonnes CO2e across Scope 1-3 for its 2026 edition, 18% lower than 2024 on a like-for-like boundary, calculated using GHG Protocol methodology.”
The second version survives scrutiny because it’s a measured claim, not a neutrality claim dressed up in an offset receipt. It doesn’t claim the summit had no climate impact, and it doesn’t need to. A sponsor, an auditor, or a regulator can check a tonnage figure and a stated methodology against reality. Neither can check a feeling of neutrality.
The boundary matters too: an 18% drop means little if attendance fell by a third, so a defensible claim says what was measured and against what.
This is the same distinction EventZero’s platform exists to make possible: turning event emissions data into structured, audit-ready reporting instead of a pledge that can’t be checked. Organizers who already have Scope 1/2/3 data measured by category don’t need to invent a new claim, they need to state the one they can already defend.
The enforcement mood isn’t only an EU story
This pressure isn’t confined to Brussels. In the UK, outside EmpCo’s jurisdiction entirely, the Advertising Standards Authority’s June 2026 pulse study examined more than seven million ads and found environmental claims in around 1% of them, of which roughly three-quarters were absolute claims like “eco-friendly,” “sustainable,” or “carbon-neutral,” the exact category requiring the strongest substantiation under the CAP Code (ASA). The ASA’s Climate Change and Environment project names carbon neutrality and net zero, alongside transport and travel, among its 2026 enforcement priorities.
To be clear, the ASA enforces a self-regulatory advertising code, a different mechanism from EmpCo’s statutory ban. But the UK has statutory teeth too: since April 2025, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act has allowed the Competition and Markets Authority to fine businesses up to 10% of global turnover for unfair commercial practices, including misleading environmental claims. There’s no UK ban on offset-based neutrality claims as such, but the direction is the same everywhere: evidence over intent. We track these shifts in our industry trends and regulation briefings.
What event teams should do now
Start with an audit, not a rewrite. Before touching any copy:
- List every consumer-facing neutrality claim across your event website, ticketing pages, signage, and sponsor-facing materials, anywhere “carbon neutral,” “climate neutral,” or similar language currently appears.
- Separate contribution language from neutrality language. Keep statements about funding climate projects, if accurate, but strip any wording that implies the event itself has no climate impact as a result.
- Replace neutrality claims with measured, category-level figures: a Scope 1/2/3 tonnage figure, a stated methodology, and a year-over-year comparison on a consistent boundary, the standard a sponsor, auditor, or regulator would actually accept.
- Brief sponsors before they ask. Sponsors with their own EU-facing reporting obligations are often the first to notice an unenforceable claim, since their name sitting next to it becomes their exposure too.
None of this is a messaging exercise. It’s a measurement exercise first, because a claim you can’t measure isn’t a claim you can defend, in the EU or anywhere else your stakeholders are watching.
The claim that survives is the one you can measure
An offset-based “carbon neutral” claim made to EU consumers is no longer a sustainability story. It is legal exposure. The claim that survives scrutiny is the one built on measured Scope 1/2/3 data, not the one built on the best offset supplier you could find.
The deadline has gone. If your published claims haven’t changed, that’s the gap to close now, so book a strategy session and get a structured baseline in place behind the language you’re using.
This article is general information about the regulatory landscape as of September 2026, not legal advice. For decisions about specific claims, speak to a qualified advisor in each market where you operate.
Frequently asked questions
- When did the EU ban on carbon neutral claims start?
- EU member states have had to apply the EmpCo Directive (EU 2024/825) since September 27, 2026. Since that date, claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive climate impact based on greenhouse gas offsetting are treated as unfair in all circumstances, with no case-by-case defense.
- Is carbon neutral banned in the EU from September 2026?
- Offset-based carbon neutral claims are, but only in business-to-consumer communication. Purely B2B communication falls outside EmpCo. The ban applies to any organizer marketing to EU consumers, including temporary visitors such as international attendees, regardless of where the organizer is headquartered.
- Can events still claim to be carbon neutral after the EU ban?
- Not on the basis of offsetting. Events can still communicate that they fund verified climate projects, but not that this makes the event neutral. The defensible alternative is a measured claim: a Scope 1-3 tonnage figure with a stated methodology and a year-over-year comparison on a consistent boundary.
