グリーンウォッシュとカーボンオフセット：未解決の規制上の交差点 — カーボンオフセットを用いたグリーンウォッシュをめぐる法的枠組み

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:グリーンウォッシュ規制とオフセット品質の法的交差点を比較制度論として整理する枠組みを提供する。

🏢実務担当者:カーボンニュートラル表明やオフセット調達時の開示・根拠整備の必要性を再確認できる。

🏛政策担当者:オフセット品質・時期・執行に関する規制設計の比較材料として、開示型と禁止型の長短を検討できる。

Greenwashing and carbon offsetting intersect in complex and consequential ways. This paper examines whether the existing regulatory framework adequately addresses greenwashing through carbon offsetting, with a comparative focus on the European Union and India. Carbon offsetting allows entities to claim climate neutrality by financing emission reductions elsewhere, but it is frequently misused through vague claims, phantom credits, and insufficient disclosure. Drawing on legal cases, independent investigation reports, and a critical analysis of regulations, including the EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), India's Greenwashing Guidelines 2024, and the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), the paper evaluates how effectively these frameworks address the core concerns. The analysis finds that while the EU has developed a more granular disclosure-based regime, India's broader prohibitory approach has potential but requires further specificity. Both jurisdictions would benefit from stronger enforcement, standardized methodologies, and clearer provisions on offset quality and timing. The paper concludes that carbon offsetting can contribute to genuine climate finance if underpinned by a robust, transparent, and enforceable regulatory architecture. Greenwashing and carbon offsetting intersect in complex and consequential ways. This paper examines whether the existing regulatory framework adequately addresses greenwashing through carbon offsetting, with a comparative focus on the European Union and India. Carbon offsetting allows entities to claim climate neutrality by financing emission reductions elsewhere, but it is frequently misused through vague claims, phantom credits, and insufficient disclosure. Drawing on legal cases, independent investigation reports, and a critical analysis of regulations, including the EU's Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), India's Greenwashing Guidelines 2024, and the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), the paper evaluates how effectively these frameworks address the core concerns. The analysis finds that while the EU has developed a more granular disclosure-based regime, India's broader prohibitory approach has potential but requires further specificity. Both jurisdictions would benefit from stronger enforcement, standardized methodologies, and clearer provisions on offset quality and timing. The paper concludes that carbon offsetting can contribute to genuine climate finance if underpinned by a robust, transparent, and enforceable regulatory architecture. Keywords: greenwashing, carbon credits, climate neutrality, CCTS, ESG disclosure, comparative law

• openalex https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2026.v15n4p1first seen 2026-10-09 04:47:54
• semanticscholar https://ecsdev.org/ojs/index.php/ejsd/article/download/2091/2007first seen 2026-10-10 05:41:08