Avoiding Greenwashing with Nature Claims

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

How to avoid carbon offset greenwashing: which nature and carbon claims hold up, how to choose credible credits, and the rules now shaping claims.

To avoid carbon offset greenwashing, make specific, accurate claims, use high-quality credits you have checked, disclose exactly what you bought and retired, and show that credits come on top of cutting your own emissions, not instead of it. Most greenwashing problems come from the claim, not from the act of buying credits.

Scrutiny of nature-based credits has grown after critiques of REDD+ baselines and of vague “carbon neutral” labels. Regulators, NGOs and journalists now look closely at forest claims. Indonesian credits, a large share of Southeast Asian supply, are part of that attention.

Where nature claims go wrong

Step-by-step: building claims that hold up

1. Reduce your own emissions first, and report progress against a science-based target where you have one.
2. Define your claim before buying credits. The claim determines what kind of credit you need.
3. Choose quality credits. Check ratings, the CCP label, methodology version and safeguards. Use our buyer due diligence guide.
4. Use a recognised claims framework. The VCMI Claims Code sets conditions for corporate claims based on credit use alongside emission cuts.
5. Match removals and avoidance to the right claim. See removals vs avoidance.
6. Disclose details: project names, standards, serial numbers, vintages and retirement dates.
7. Check local rules in every market where you make claims, including consumer protection law.
8. Review annually, since rules and project ratings change.

Rules shaping claims

• EU consumer rules: EU legislation on empowering consumers for the green transition bans product-level claims of neutral or reduced climate impact based on offsetting, applying from September 2026. It affects companies selling to EU consumers, including Indonesian exporters whose buyers make such claims.
• ICVCM: the CCP label requires two ticks, a CCP-Approved methodology used under a CCP-Eligible program. Some forest categories received approvals; some methodology versions did not.
• Indonesia: POJK 10/2026 applies consumer protection principles to parties in exchange-based carbon trading. Sellers marketing Indonesian credits should be accurate about domestic registration and authorisation status.

For Indonesian sellers and developers

Greenwashing risk also falls on sellers. Developers who overstate baselines, promise “Article 6 compliant” units without authorisation, or publish impact numbers they cannot back up damage the market for everyone. Ratings show quality is achievable: BeZero rates 11 ex-post Indonesian projects at an average of A, against B as the most common nature-based rating elsewhere. Keep marketing claims inside what your verified data supports.

Wording that works and wording that does not

Specific, numbered and verifiable statements protect you better than broad adjectives. If you cannot give the number, you probably should not make the claim.

Keep an evidence file behind every public claim: the retirement certificates, the project documents, the ratings or label status at the time of purchase, and your own emissions data. If a journalist, regulator or customer asks, you should be able to answer within days, not months.

Common mistakes

• Using “offset” and “neutral” language without checking current rules.
• Treating the price paid as proof of quality.
• Claiming biodiversity or community benefits with no monitoring data.
• Retiring credits without publishing serial numbers.
• Making the same claim for a credit that a host country also counts.

Read more in the forest carbon hub, or ask our due diligence service to review credits before you make a public claim.