“Net zero by 2040” and future environmental claims

Published 9 July 2026 · Directive (EU) 2024/825 · General information, not legal advice

Short answer

Allowed — but only with a verified plan

You can make a future-dated environmental claim — but only if it’s backed by a real, verified plan. Under Directive (EU) 2024/825, a claim like “net zero by 2040” must rest on clear, objective and publicly-available commitments set out in a detailed, realistic implementation plan — with measurable, time-bound targets and regular verification by an independent third-party expert. A pledge without that plan is a misleading commercial practice. And if the target leans on offsetting, the offset-neutrality ban bites instead.

This is general information to help you screen your own copy — not legal advice. A flag here is a well-founded warning, not a ruling. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) can interpret the directive with binding force, and the European Commission’s guidance on it is non-binding. Where money or reputation is at stake, take the cited provision to qualified counsel before you act.

The rule: new Article 6(2)(d)

Directive (EU) 2024/825 amends Article 6(2) of the UCPD (2005/29/EC) — the misleading-actions provision — adding a new point that treats a future environmental-performance claim as misleading if it isn’t properly backed. In substance, a claim about achieving future environmental performance (net zero by a date, climate neutral by a date, and the like) must be supported by:

Clear, objective, publicly available and verifiable commitments;
set out in a detailed and realistic implementation plan that shows how they’ll be achieved (including, where relevant, budget and technology);
with measurable and time-bound targets and interim milestones;
and regular verification by an independent third-party expert, whose findings are made available to consumers.

Miss those and the forward-looking claim is misleading and therefore unlawful.

Why aspirational pledges are risky

A distant target with no concrete pathway is exactly what the directive is aimed at. “Net zero by 2040” on a homepage, with nothing behind it a consumer can inspect, is the textbook case. The EU’s answer is not to ban ambition — it’s to require that the ambition be evidenced, staged, and checked by someone independent.

The offset trap inside future claims

Watch the interaction with the offset ban. If your route to “net zero by 2040” is really “we’ll offset the balance”, you are heading toward the outright prohibition on offset-based neutrality claims (Annex I point 4c), not just the substantiation duty. A credible future claim is built on a reduction pathway, not a promise to buy credits later.

How to make a future claim defensibly

Publish the plan. A dated, public roadmap with interim milestones — not a slogan.
Make the targets measurable and time-bound. Absolute or intensity figures with dates, tied to a baseline.
Get independent verification, and show it. Third-party expert review, with findings accessible to consumers.
Base it on reductions, not offsets. Keep any offsetting reported separately, never as the basis of the neutrality claim.
If you can’t meet those, remove the claim until you can.

Frequently asked questions

Can I still say "net zero by 2040"?

Yes, but only if the claim rests on clear, objective, publicly available commitments in a detailed, realistic implementation plan, with measurable time-bound targets and regular verification by an independent third-party expert whose findings are available to consumers. Without that, it is a misleading commercial practice under the new Article 6(2)(d) of the UCPD.

What must the implementation plan contain?

A realistic, detailed pathway showing how the target will be achieved — measurable and time-bound targets, interim milestones, and where relevant the budgetary resources and technology involved — plus independent third-party verification.

What if my future target relies on offsetting?

Then you risk the outright ban on offset-based neutrality claims (Annex I point 4c), not just the substantiation duty. A defensible future claim is built on an evidenced reduction pathway; report any offsetting separately, not as the basis of the claim.

Does this apply to interim targets too, like "50% by 2030"?

Forward-looking environmental-performance claims generally need to meet the same standard: a clear, verifiable commitment backed by a plan and independent verification. Interim targets are easier to evidence because they are nearer and more concrete, but they still must be substantiated.