Claims assessment · Entity claim
We offset all our emissions
Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.
Market comparison
How this claim is typically treated
Five major markets · one reviewed comparison
| Market | Typical treatment | Legal basis | What is required |
|---|---|---|---|
| European UnionEU | Restricted | View legal reasoningEmpCo Annex I (offset-based product claims banned); CSRD/ESRS E1-7 credit disclosure | Product-level neutrality-by-offsetting prohibited from 27 Sep 2026; entity-level claims must separate gross emissions, reductions and credits; credits disclosed per ESRS E1-7. |
| United KingdomUK | Conditional | View legal reasoningCMA Green Claims Code | Quantify offset share vs reductions; disclose credit standard and vintage; no neutrality implication without full boundary. |
| United StatesUS | Conditional | View legal reasoningFTC Green Guides 260.5; CA AB 1305 | Competent evidence offsets represent real additional reductions; AB 1305 website disclosures for CA claimants. |
| CanadaCA | Restricted | View legal reasoningCompetition Act s.74.01(1)(b.2) | Business-level claim needs internationally recognised methodology substantiation incl. offset integrity. |
| AustraliaAU | Conditional | The cited source is recorded in the assessment. View legal reasoningACL s.18; ACCC offset guidance | ACCC expects heavy reduction-first framing; offset quality and retirement evidence. |