On 20 October 2026, the ACCC has released new guidance to assist businesses in making public claims about greenhouse gas emissions (“emissions”). This guidance is intended to supplement the existing ACCC environmental claims guidance with additional specific guidance for emissions related claims.
Climate litigation, in particular for misleading and deceptive sustainability claims (greenwashing), is increasing. Most notably, a few days prior to the release of this new guidance, a Federal Court class action has been instituted against AGL for carbon neutral products, alleging that these carbon neutral claims are misleading and deceptive.
This guidance has been produced to assist businesses in providing emissions information to consumers and stakeholders in a way that reduces the risk of this information being misleading and improves consumer transparency.
What are the ACCC’s six key principles?
The ACCC has set out its 6 key principles for making emissions claims with an overarching golden rule: always consider the consumer audience – marketing context matters:
| Principle | Analysis |
1. | Make sure emissions claims are based on complete, reputable and clear accounting | Emissions claims should be supported by reputable accounting frameworks and methodologies which are proportionate to the businesses size and circumstances. Supporting information should be readily available and easy to find (for example, on a website or via a QR code) to ensure consumers to access more detail about the claims. This should be in a format that a person without technical knowledge / industry background can understand. Claims should not be deliberately selective and emissions claims should not exclude emissions sources an ordinary and reasonable consumer would expect to be included, unless appropriate justification is provided as to why they have been omitted. |
2. | Avoid highly selective, or broad and non-specific claims | Clear language should be utilised and businesses should not assume that claims supported by third party certifications / trust marks cannot be misleading or deceptive. Furthermore, terminology such as “net”, “neutral” or “positive” can be ambiguous and any use of these terms should be clearly defined. Comparisons should be clear and sweeping comparative statements without additional context should not be made (for example, claiming a product is lower emissions without an appropriate comparison). |
3. | Be transparent about the use of credits | It should be clear if emissions have been reduced, removed from the atmosphere or hypothetically avoided and whether this occurred because of operational changes, purchased credits or activities supporting supply chain improvements. In particular, where claims are made which allude to carbon credit projects neutralising or cancelling out emissions, there must be a reasonable basis for this claim. There is growing recognition and concern that not all projects avoid, reduce or remove carbon in a way that is equivalent to emissions being released. |
4. | Emissions changes should not be double counted | For example, an organisation cannot claim to have reduced its Scope 2 emissions if the renewable energy certificates (“REC’s”) it generates from on-site solar are then on sold and not surrendered by the organisation that generated the REC’s. |
5. | Consumer marketing claims should be clear about your own efforts, broader changes available to all, and legal obligations | Where an organisation is required to make changes as required by law (for example, in accordance with the Safeguard Mechanism), disclosures should be carefully considered to ensure that they do not leave an impression that emissions reductions have been undertaken as a result of voluntary action. The ACCC provides an example of an organisation claiming to now be powered partially by renewable energy which has actually occurred because of grid wide changes which gives the impression that the organisation itself has actively sourced renewable energy. |
6. | You must have reasonable grounds to make claims about the future | Qualifications accompanying emissions claims, in particular future targets, should be communicated. If future plans are not yet economically or technologically feasible, this should be made clear. Furthermore, consumer facing emissions reduction claims should be considerate of the fact that consumers understanding of technical matters such as carbon accounting may be limited. |
What action should organisations take now?
Organisations should carefully review emissions claims in light of this new guidance and recent case law such as Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility v Santos Limited [2026] FCA 96 which clarify the boundaries of what constitutes misleading and deceptive emissions claims.
How we can assist
Cowell Clarke’s ESG team helps organisations assess their emissions and environmental claims against the ACCC’s guidance and recent greenwashing case law.
If your organisation makes emissions, carbon neutral or other environmental claims, now is an appropriate time to test whether those claims would withstand regulatory or legal scrutiny.
Contact Emma Peters or Alexandra Kenny to discuss a review of your organisation’s environmental claims and disclosures.
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only and does not constitute professional legal advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional legal advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication and to the extent permitted by law, Cowell Clarke does not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting or refraining to act in relation on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.