Buying carbon credits should not be presented to consumers as though a business has cut its own emissions, Australia’s competition regulator warned in guidance released on October 20.
The ACCC’s central test is what the audience is likely to understand. An emissions calculation may be technically defensible while the wording, images or placement of a claim leave consumers with a different impression.
The guidance applies existing Australian Consumer Law obligations against misleading conduct. It is not a new statutory prohibition on using credits, nor a finding against an individual company.
Businesses are asked to check the boundaries and baseline of their emissions accounting, identify exclusions and use complete, credible evidence. Broad claims should not rest on a highly selective part of a product or operation.
Credits and certificates require particular care. The ACCC recognises that they can complement direct reductions, but says consumers need to understand when the advertised benefit comes from a project elsewhere. Claims that one activity neutralises another need a reasonable basis.
Its checklist also addresses double counting: businesses should check ownership of credits and whether another party is claiming the same environmental attributes.
A further distinction separates voluntary effort from legal requirements and changes available across the market. Advertising should not imply a business-specific achievement where the underlying change is not its own.
Promises about future performance require reasonable grounds. Businesses should make clear what has happened, what is planned, and which assumptions, resources and timing underpin the promise.
The ACCC says it will keep monitoring claims and consider targeted enforcement. It advises businesses whose existing messaging raises concerns to refine it, obtain stronger evidence or stop using it.
