One Year of the myclimate Impact Label – an Interim Assessment

In December 2022, myclimate launched the Engaged for Impact label. The label offers companies the opportunity to communicate their commitment to climate protection without using terms such as “climate neutral” or “offsetting”, which have since come under criticism. The strategic decision to change the term was a response to the changing regulatory framework in the carbon market. At the same time, it was a move towards greater transparency in climate communication. Just over a year later, myclimate can look back on a positive result. The example of Exped shows how our customers have taken this important step and implemented the change.

As a long-established climate protection organisation, myclimate sees it as its duty to constantly review and adapt the effectiveness, quality and integrity of its services. Just over a year ago, we decided to remove the “climate neutral” label from all portfolios and introduce a new, credible concept in its place. This change affected not only the carbon neutral label, but also the entire principle of offsetting.  

The paradigm shift initiated by the 2015 Paris Agreement was responsible for this change. The rules for the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, adopted in Glasgow in 2021, also affect the voluntary carbon market. Corresponding adjustments (CAs) have been a particular focus of attention for climate protection projects. The purpose of CAs is to prevent the simultaneous crediting of emissions reductions to more than one party. The aim is to prevent both a company that finances a climate protection project and the country in which the project is implemented from offsetting the resulting emissions reductions. As there are no projects with CAs on the market yet, a “climate neutral” label could no longer be issued. 

Another important reason was the growing desire of our customers to find a solution to end consumers’ growing mistrust of carbon neutral labels. Accusations of greenwashing or indulgence trade were increasingly being levelled at efforts to make companies or their product portfolios climate-friendly. Through close cooperation and many discussions, myclimate was able to find an answer and convince many existing customers even before the official launch of the label. 

The newly introduced Engaged for Impact label recognises those that take financial responsibility for their emissions. In this way, companies can effectively support demonstrable climate protection outside their value chain. The new buzzword for this is “beyond value chain mitigation” – in other words, a company assumes financial responsibility for its own emissions in addition to internal reduction measures by making a contribution to a climate protection project. The impact label is part of myclimate’s holistic climate protection programme, which consists of advice, education and climate protection projects

We spoke to the outdoor brand and myclimate customer Exped about the concrete implementation and the success (and difficulties) that they’ve had. Exped was the first company to shift to the new communication style. We spoke to Muriel Weber, Sustainability Manager at Exped, about her experience: 

Read the full interview with Muriel Weber, Sustainability Manager at Exped, here.

How would you assess our new strategic direction with the introduction of the Engaged for Impact label? Or on a more personal level, what were your first thoughts when myclimate introduced the new label and announced the end of the climate neutral label? 

As we had previously introduced and communicated the climate targets for our product range using the term “climate neutral”, it was quite a change. However, awareness of sustainability issues is developing incredibly quickly in all areas, so we saw this development as a logical and welcome step from the very beginning.


The term “climate neutral” has become popular because it’s easy for end consumers to understand. At the same time, it has come under increasing criticism, and with some justification. To what extent did you consider the label and possible criticism beforehand? 

The criticism is nothing new and has always been discussed and regularly raised by our customers. The term “climate neutral” is not that clear-cut, so we had already invested in training and clarification before making the change. Now that the term is more widely used, many more people encounter it in passing, increasing the risk of misinterpretation. 


How did you make the change? Have you applied the label to your entire product portfolio? Has there been any special training for the communications and sales team to clarify the new concept internally?

We apply the label to all our products and use it on our packaging and website. As was the case before the wording was changed, we carry out regular training on the subject. This training is conducted for all internal staff as well as our distributors worldwide. 


What difficulties and/or unexpected benefits have you encountered in implementing the new label? 

We believe that the more detailed wording better reflects the complexity of the issue. The transparent wording is easy to understand and summarises very well what our climate commitment with myclimate entails: Exped determines all of the climate emissions from the production and transport of all product groups and finances certified myclimate climate protection projects to the same extent. 


Do you feel that consumers perceive the new impact label differently to “climate neutral”? How do you monitor how the label is received by your customers? 

Our mostly critical and well-informed customers probably feel that they are taken more seriously with the new wording, because it doesn’t hide anything and can therefore no longer be interpreted as greenwashing. 

Stay informed!