Claims After Retiring Credits: What You Can Say Publicly

Retiring credits is the end of the purchase but often the start of the communication. The marketing team wants a line for the annual report, the product team wants a badge on the packaging, and the board wants to say the company is "carbon neutral". This is where many buyers get into difficulty, not because the credits were poor, but because the words used about them went further than the evidence.

This page sets out general principles. It is not legal advice. Rules on environmental claims differ by country and sector and are changing, so check any public claim with your legal or compliance adviser before you publish it.

Start with what actually happened

A defensible claim describes a fact. After a retirement, the facts are usually:

• your organisation retired a stated number of tonnes (tCO₂e);
• from a named project, standard and vintage;
• on a recorded date, in your name as beneficiary;
• against a defined set of emissions, such as a reporting year or an event.

If your claim says no more than this, it is hard to fault. For example:

In FY 2025–26 we retired 1,200 tCO₂e of verified carbon credits from a mangrove restoration project registered under a recognised carbon standard, to compensate for part of our business travel emissions. Retirement records are publicly available on the registry.

Notice what this does. It names the quantity, the type of project, the scope covered and where to check. It says "part of" because that is true.

Words that need care

Certain words carry promises your evidence may not support.

"Carbon neutral" or "net zero". These imply that all relevant emissions have been measured and balanced. If you offset only Scope 1 and 2, or only one product line, an unqualified neutrality claim overstates what you did. "Net zero" in particular is widely understood to mean deep cuts in emissions with only a small residual balanced by removals, so using it for an offsetting purchase alone is risky.

"Zero emissions" or "emissions-free". Retiring credits does not stop your own emissions. Avoid these phrases for offset activity entirely.

"Offset" versus "contribution". Saying you have offset emissions implies a tonne-for-tonne exchange. Some companies instead describe the purchase as a contribution to climate action beyond their own value chain. Both approaches exist in the market; pick the one that fits your evidence and use it consistently.

"Removed" versus "avoided". Each listing on our marketplace shows whether a project is a Removal, Reduction or Avoidance. Only removal credits represent carbon taken out of the atmosphere. Do not describe credits from a solar or cookstove project as having "removed" carbon.

Co-benefit claims. If you mention support for clean water, jobs or biodiversity, make sure the project documents evidence it. Our page on SDGs and co-benefits explains how much weight these carry.

Scope and boundary

Most problematic claims fail on boundary rather than quality. Ask:

1. Which emissions? Scope 1, 2, a share of Scope 3, a product, an event, a flight?
2. Which period? Match the vintage and retirement date sensibly to the reporting year.
3. Measured how? Name the inventory or methodology behind the emissions figure.
4. What share was covered? If not all, say so.

Put the boundary in the claim itself, or one click away, rather than in a footnote no one reads.

Reductions first, credits second

Regulators, investors and the public increasingly expect a company to show it is cutting its own emissions, with credits playing a supporting role. A claim that pairs retired credits with real reduction progress, such as "we cut fleet diesel use by 18% and retired credits for the remaining emissions", is generally received better than one that relies on credits alone.

Corresponding adjustments and double claiming

When a credit comes from a host country, that country may also count the reduction towards its national climate target. If the host country has not authorised the credit and applied a corresponding adjustment, some observers argue a company should not claim the tonne as its own offset, because it is effectively counted twice. Others accept unadjusted credits for voluntary contribution claims. There is no single settled view, so be precise about which type you bought. Our explainer on corresponding adjustments covers the background.

For airlines, CORSIA has its own rules: eligible units for current periods must carry host-country authorisation and a corresponding adjustment, and cancellations are reported to the national authority. Public statements about CORSIA compliance should match what has been reported.

Keeping the evidence

Every claim should trace back to a file you can produce within a day. Keep:

• the retirement certificate and serial numbers;
• a saved copy of the public registry record;
• the emissions inventory the claim relates to;
• the project documents you reviewed;
• the exact wording you published, with the date and where it appeared.

Review the claim each year. A statement that was accurate for last year's retirement does not automatically carry over. Our guide to retirement certificates explains how to assemble and verify the core records.

A short checklist before you publish

• Does the claim state the quantity and the scope covered?
• Does it avoid "zero", "neutral" or "net zero" unless you can fully support them?
• Does "removed" appear only for removal credits?
• Can a reader find the registry record?
• Has your legal or compliance adviser seen it?

If you would like a second pair of eyes on whether the credits you hold support the claim you have in mind, send us a note with the draft wording and the registry details.