Webinars & Masterclasses

Ebooks & Whitepapers

Blogs

Events

Press

Guide

Videos

Unser Produkt

Alle Fragen

Wie wir unterstützen Sie

Über Carbmee & Dekarbonisierung

Frequently asked questions and their answers about EIS carbon management solution of carbmee in DE.

Unser Produkt kann von Kunden verwendet werden, die daran interessiert sind, ihre CO₂-Emissionen zu messen und zu reporten. Es geht jedoch darüber hinaus; es wurde zur Reduzierung entwickelt – um Kunden zu helfen, datengesteuerte Entscheidungen auf der Grundlage von Fakten über ihre Emissionen in der Wertschöpfungskette zu treffen und auf kosteneffiziente Weise Net-Zero-Ziele zu erreichen.

Die meisten Plattformen unserer Mitbewerber verwenden ausschließlich Spend-based Berechnungen, die nicht präzise genug sind, um primäre Betriebsdaten einzubeziehen oder Ergebnisse zu liefern, die Unternehmen dabei helfen können, umsetzbare Hotspots zu identifizieren. Unser Ansatz besteht darin, sowohl Spend-based - als auch Activity-based Berechnungen zu verwenden, um möglichst gründliche und präzise Ergebnisse zu erzielen.

Wir bieten eine Spend-based Berechnung, um eine Baseline für Scope 1 und 2 festzulegen und bei Bedarf Hotspots zu identifizieren. Gleichzeitig leiten wir unsere Kunden dazu an, ihre Emissionsdaten innerhalb der Organisation zu sammeln und zu erweitern, und die Activity-based Datenabdeckung zu erhöhen.

Wir bieten Activity-based Berechnungen an, um Emissionen zu bewältigen, die in der gesamten Wertschöpfungskette, z.B. Scope 3, am schwierigsten zu messen sind. Während viele Wettbewerber aufgrund ihrer Komplexität die Verwendung Activity-based Berechnungen vermeiden, hat carbmee den Prozess gestrafft, um Ergebnisse zu liefern die 30% genauer sind und geben umsetzbare Erkenntnisse für Strategien zur CO₂-Reduktion.

Was unterscheidet carbmee von seinen Mitbewerbern? 

Wir haben unsere eigene Kategorisierung entwickelt, wie wir alle Emissionen Ihres Unternehmens aufschlüsseln, und zwar:

      Company Carbon Footprint...

berechnet CO₂e-Emissionen über das gesamte Unternehmen, d. h. alle Lieferanten, internen Prozesse und Produkte

deckt alle Phasen des Unternehmens ab, also Scope 1, 2 und 3

erfüllt regulatorische und Sustainability Reporting Anforderungen

ermöglicht die Identifizierung strategischer Reduzierungsmöglichkeiten

Product Carbon Footprint...


berechnet die Klimawirkung eines Produkts

ermöglicht die CO₂-Reduktion entlang des - Produktentwicklungsprozesses

Deckt alle Phasen des Lebenszyklus des Produkts ab

häufig erforderlich, um Ausschreibungen zu gewinnen, über Fortschritte zu berichten und Vorschriften einzuhalten

Supplier Carbon Footprint...


berechnet die Klimaauswirkungen über alle Lieferanten hinweg

deckt alle Phasen der Lieferkette ab, also Scope 3

identifiziert Leferanten-/kategorieübergreifende Reduzierungsmöglichkeiten

ermöglicht die Zusammenarbeit mit Lieferanten zur gemeinsamen CO₂-Reduzierung

Welche Art von CO₂-Fußabdruck berechnet carbmee?

Ja, unsere Lösung ist systemunabhängig und kann in jedes ERP-System integriert werden.

Können wir die Daten unseres ERP-Systems direkt in die EIS™-Plattform von carbmee integrieren?

Ja, unsere Lösung liefert präzise Informationen für die Einhaltung der wichtigsten Standards für die Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung wie CDP und GHG Protocol.

Können wir internationale Berichtsrahmen verwenden?

Excel ist zwar die klassische Lösung für das Formatieren, Organisieren und Berechnen von Daten, aber es ist auch eine rein manuelle Lösung, die für die Komplexität des CO₂-Managements in Unternehmen überhaupt nicht geeignet ist.

Carbmee's EIS™ Carbon Management Solution automatisiert das CO₂-Management und macht es nicht nur einfacher, sondern liefert auch mehr:  

Berechnungen 80-90% schneller als mit Excel

ein höheres Maß an Genauigkeit und Präzision

vertrauenswürdigen Datenschutz und Sicherheit

die Möglichkeit, bei der Datenerfassung zusammenzuarbeiten - Rationalisierung von Daten aus verschiedenen Quellen (z. B. Lieferanten, verschiedene interne Teams usw.)

eine Vielzahl von Funktionen für die Reduzierung, wie z. B. Analysen für die einfache Identifizierung von Hotspots, einen Initiativplaner für die Planung von Reduzierungspfaden und Initiativen mit hohem ROI sowie eine automatisierte Berichterstattung.

Warum ist carbmee besser als die internen Excel-Lösungen meines Unternehmens?

Wir verwenden eine Vielzahl von Datenbanken, inklusive umfassender tätigkeitsbasierter Datenbanken wie ecoinvent, sowie branchenspezifischer Datenbanken wie carbon minds und Exiobase für Kunden, die ausgabenbasierte CO₂-Berechnungen benötigen.

Welche Datenbank verwenden Sie für die Emissionsberechnungen?

Ja, alle unsere Drittanbieter-Datenbankpartner stellen auf Anfrage transparente und überprüfbare Daten zur Verfügung.

Wir bieten verschiedene Angebote, die je nach den Bedürfnissen des Kunden und der Komplexität der Wertschöpfungskette zusammengestellt werden können. Sprechen Sie mit einem unserer Dekarbonisierungsexperten, um ein Angebot für Ihr Unternehmen zu erhalten.

FAQ about our product and solution in DE

How carbmee can help you in your decarbonization journey and how our EIS carbon management software can help reduce your carbon footprint.

Unser Team besteht aus Branchenexperten, die auf Beschaffung, Unternehmensberatung, Technologie und mehr spezialisiert sind. Das bedeutet, dass wir über das Fachwissen verfügen, um die Herausforderungen und Bedürfnisse unserer Kunden zu verstehen - und das Know-How, um sie zu lösen.

Damit unsere Kunden die größtmögliche Wirkung auf ihrem Weg zum net-zero erzielen können, bieten wir außerdem:

Persönliche Beratung und Empfehlungen, wie Kunden ihre Dekarbonisierung beginnen und ausbauen können

Online-Kurse, die erklären, was Net-Zero ist und wie Sie unser Produkt von Anfang bis Ende in Ihrem Unternehmen einsetzen können

Webinare und Veranstaltungen mit Branchenexperten, die sich mit dem Thema "Net-Zero" befassen, sowohl für den Planeten als auch für die nachhaltige Leistung Ihres Unternehmens

Wie unterstützt carbmee Ihr Team beim nahtlosen CO2e-Tracking

Ja, unsere Beratungspartner sind der Schlüssel zur Unterstützung unserer gemeinsamen Kunden bei der Beseitigung von Umsetzungshindernissen, der Maximierung der CO2-armen Kapazitäten und der Erzielung von Durchbrüchen bei der nachhaltigen Unternehmensleistung.

Wir sind ein Beratungsunternehmen, das an EIS™ Carbon Management für die Projekte seiner Kunden interessiert ist. Können wir eine Partnerschaft mit carbmee eingehen?

Ja, carbmee bietet sowohl persönliche Unterstützung durch unsere Customer Success Manager als auch durch unsere interaktive Lernplattform, die carbmee Academy. Die Customer Success Manager stellen sicher, dass jeder Kunde begleitet wird durch:

ihre Dekarbonisierungsreise, d.h. die Nutzung von Carbmee mit den Geschäftszielen und der Strategie abzustimmen

die Nutzung von EIS Carbon Management, um sinnvolle Ziele zur Emissionsreduzierung zu erreichen

die Zuordnung von Herausforderungen zu passenden Lösungen, d. h. Produktfindung und gemeinsame Entwicklung

Gibt es Unterstützung bei der Verwendung von EIS™ Carbon Management?

Wie carbmee Sie unterstützen kann

Erfahren Sie mehr über die Mission, Vision und Geschichte von carbmee. Carbmee hilft Organisationen auf ihrem Weg zur Dekarbonisierung.

Carbmee sitzt an der Schnittstelle von Technologie, Digitalisierung und Nachhaltigkeit, mit der Vision, die nachhaltige Transformation von Unternehmen mit Umweltintelligenz voranzutreiben, um bis 2050 Net-Zero zu erreichen. Das Environmental Intelligence System™ (EIS) von carbmee ist eine Unternehmenssoftwarelösung für Value Chain Carbon Management, spezialisiert auf Scope-3-Emissionsanalysen und Reduktionspotenziale.

Die EIS™ Carbon Management Solution von Carbmee ist nicht nur ein Reporting-Tool oder eine Offsetting-Plattform – unsere Lösung befasst sich mit der Integration von betrieblichen ERP-Daten, um zu ermitteln, durch die Emissionen an ihrer Quelle reduziert werden können, und um Initiativen zur CO2-Reduktion so effektiv wie möglich zu verwalten. Durch die Verknüpfung von Emissionen aus Materialien, Transaktionen, Logistik und Lieferantendaten mit weltweit anerkannten Standards und Methoden berechnet unsere Lösung CO2-Fußabdrücke bis auf ein lieferantenspezifisches Niveau.

Was ist die EIS™ Carbon Management-Lösung von carbmee?

Wir versuchen, die größtmögliche Wirkung zu erzielen, und das bedeutet, mit einigen der weltweit größten Unternehmen zusammenzuarbeiten, die auch komplexe Lieferketten haben (z.B. Unternehmen mit erheblichen Scope-3-Emissionen). Wir arbeiten auch direkt mit Lieferanten zusammen, um deren CO2-Fußabdruck zu analysieren und zu überprüfen.

Mit welchen Unternehmen arbeitet carbmee zusammen?

Die Klimakrise verschärft sich und damit auch die Notwendigkeit für Unternehmen, Vorschriften einzuhalten, aber auch widerstandsfähigere Lieferketten zu entwickeln, ihr Klimarisiko zu senken und ihre Geschäftstätigkeit insgesamt kontinuierlich nachhaltiger zu gestalten. Unsere Lösung gibt Unternehmen die Möglichkeit, nicht nur ihre Versprechen zur Reduzierung von Emissionen zu erfüllen, sondern jetzt und in Zukunft wirklich Carbon-bewusst zu arbeiten.

Warum sollte mein Unternehmen seine Wertschöpfungskette dekarbonisieren?

Scope-1-Emissionen sind direkte Emissionen aus eigenen oder kontrollierten Quellen.

Scope-2-Emissionen sind indirekte Emissionen aus der Erzeugung eingekaufter Energie.

Scope-3-Emissionen sind alle indirekten Emissionen (nicht in Scope 2 enthalten), die in der Wertschöpfungskette des berichtenden Unternehmens auftreten, einschließlich vor- und nachgelagerter Emissionen.

About carbmee & decarbonization DE

Alle häufig gestellten Fragen zur CO2-Management-Lösung von carbmee und die Antworten darauf

All questions regarding carbmee's product in DE

At the turn of the quarter century, we face a converging set of forces reshaping society: climate change, intensifying natural shocks, tightening resource constraints, shifting geopolitics, evolving demographics, rising social expectations, and the accelerating sweep of AI and digital technologies. For businesses, these dynamics bring more than increased risk - they will define which models remain investable, insurable, and licensed to operate.

While none of this is entirely new, the scale and speed of change have raised the stakes. For example, between 2020 and 2024, the European Union recorded average annual economic losses from climate and weather-related extremes of around EUR 45 billion - a 127% increase from the previous decade.

As these pressures intensify, the question is no longer whether to respond, but how. The most future ready organisations are reframing volatility as opportunity - transforming risk into resilience, and resilience into value. Here are three strategic levers we see leading businesses using to make that shift.

Engineer value through sustainable design

Sustainable design, guided by the 4R principles: Reduce, Reuse, Replace, and Recycle - aligns business models and products with a resource-constrained, cost-competitive world. Circular approaches such as product-as-a-service, repair, and reuse can not only stabilise revenue but also reduce exposure to volatile input costs. Lower-impact product lines open pathways to expanding markets seeking cleaner, smarter solutions. Even simple design choices, such as minimal-waste packaging, can define brand identity - signalling quality, responsibility, and innovation while reducing operational and compliance costs.

As an example, Philips has embraced circular economy principles across several product lines. By designing medical devices for remanufacturing and reuse, they reduce dependency on virgin raw materials - some of which are subject to geopolitical or tariff-related risk. This not only cuts environmental impact but also strengthens supply security.

Resilient supply chains are a foundation of business continuity. Improving the visibility and monitoring of supply networks through a combination of digital tooling and supplier engagement programmes can limit exposure to labour, regulatory, climate and nature risks and bolster investor confidence. Integrating sustainability into procurement decisions, enforcing high supplier-standards, and forging long-term supplier partnerships strengthens reputation and can ensure preferential access to materials. Working across industries in coalitions on regenerative agriculture or green materials, for example, can drive systematic change, spread innovation costs and position participants to lead as markets and regulations evolve.

As an example, Apple, highly dependent on Chinese manufacturing, began shifting parts of its supply chain to other countries like India and Vietnam. For instance, iPhone production has increasingly moved to Foxconn and Pegatron facilities in India to reduce exposure to Chinese tariffs and geopolitical risks.

Deepen trust through social value creation

Trust, earned through measurable contributions to people and society, underpins business performance. Empowering employees by investing in skills, flexible work models, and purposeful career pathways builds credibility from the inside out, whilst also creating a motivated, adaptable workforce. Managing technological shifts responsibly - by developing digital capabilities, safeguarding data privacy, and preparing for AI adoption demonstrates integrity and safeguards stakeholder confidence. Investing in local and regional economies through partnerships, infrastructure, and enterprise development extends trust outwards, fostering economic development and reinforcing the license to operate.

Competitive advantage itself is being redefined by the forces reshaping the global economy. These three levers – 1) Engineering value through sustainable design, 2) Building resilient supply chains, and 3) Deepening trust through social value creation - help businesses translate that shift into tangible performance through protecting revenues and gaining access to preferential financing deals. The organisations that lead in the next quarter century will be those that see sustainability not as constraint, but as the engine of competitiveness.

The following post is an excerpt from Carbmee’s Industry Benchmark Report, 2026 Green Transformation in Practice, which analyzes year-over-year trends in energy, carbon, and sustainability execution across industrial sectors. Based on insights from over 100 senior decision makers, the report features expert perspectives from leaders at Jaggaer, PwC, and ERM. In this excerpt, we spotlight one of those expert interviews, offering a first-hand view into how leading organizations are navigating the challenges and opportunities of green transformation in 2026. 

Transforming climate and social risks into resilience and value | Carbmee

Future-proof your business by reframing volatility as opportunity. Learn how sustainable design and resilient supply chains secure long-term competitiveness.

Transforming climate and social risks into resilience and value

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, or CSRD, is the EU’s new regulatory framework that requires companies to disclose their environmental and social impacts in a standardized and transparent manner. It represents a major shift in corporate sustainability reporting and replaces the earlier Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), expanding both the scope and the depth of reporting obligations.

CSRD is designed to increase accountability among European companies by making sustainability information more comparable and reliable. It aims to ensure that investors and stakeholders can make better-informed decisions based on the environmental and social footprint of an organization. From emissions to diversity, CSRD covers a wide range of topics that fall under the ESG umbrella.

Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, in Simple Terms

CSRD applies to large companies and listed small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in the European Union. Specifically, it affects companies that meet at least two of the following three criteria: more than 250 employees, over 25 million euros in assets, or more than 50 million euros in annual revenue. Listed SMEs will also be included in the scope in the coming years, although micro-enterprises are currently excluded.

At its core, the directive mandates that companies publicly disclose how their operations affect people and the planet. It introduces the concept of double materiality, which requires organizations to report both on how sustainability issues impact their financial performance and how their activities impact the environment and society. This holistic view is one of the most transformative aspects of the CSRD.

Companies under CSRD must follow the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), which define specific disclosures across a wide range of ESG topics. These include greenhouse gas emissions, water use, waste generation, biodiversity impact, social responsibility, and governance practices.

The directive is being rolled out in phases to give organizations time to adapt. Reporting requirements begin in 2025 for large companies already subject to NFRD, covering the 2024 financial year. Other large companies will start in 2026, and listed SMEs will be required to comply starting in 2027. The reports must be integrated into the management report and will be subject to external assurance, meaning companies need to ensure both the quality and auditability of their data.

One of the main purposes of the EU Taxonomy is to combat greenwashing, which can be defined as “a marketing tactic used to deceive people into believing an organization’s products, services or operations are more eco-friendly than reality” (IBM Sustainability). By providing measurable, science-based standards, the EU is tackling this problem and enabling companies, investors and banks to consistently assess sustainability performance. At the same time, the Taxonomy guides capital flows by directing investment and financing toward activities that are genuinely environmentally beneficial, ensuring that funding supports the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon economy.

Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, Explained

SFDR applies specifically to financial market participants such as asset managers, investment firms, insurance companies, and pension funds that operate within the European Union. It does not apply directly to companies outside the financial sector, although those companies often provide the underlying data that financial institutions rely on.

Introduced in March 2021, SFDR represents a significant evolution in the EU’s approach to sustainable finance. It requires financial institutions to categorize their products based on their sustainability characteristics and to publish both entity-level and product-level disclosures on ESG matters.

Under SFDR, financial products are classified into three categories: Article 6, Article 8, and Article 9.

Article 6 products integrate ESG risks into investment decisions but do not actively promote ESG characteristics.

Article 8 products promote environmental or social characteristics, provided that the companies in which investments are made follow good governance practices.

Article 9 products have a clear sustainable investment objective, such as investing in clean energy or social housing.

In addition to these classifications, SFDR also introduces the concept of Principal Adverse Impacts (PAIs), which refer to the negative effects that investment decisions can have on sustainability factors. Financial institutions must disclose how they consider these impacts and provide relevant metrics across environmental and social dimensions.

To clarify how these two frameworks differ, it is helpful to look at them side by side. While they are often discussed together, they apply to different audiences, use different reporting standards, and have distinct goals.

Comparison: CSRD vs. SFDR

CSRD: Large companies, listed SMEs, and public-interest entities.

SFDR: Financial market participants and financial advisers.

CSRD: Enhance transparency regarding corporate sustainability and environmental impact.

SFDR: Ensure transparency and comparability of financial products and investment funds.

CSRD: Focuses on ESG impacts and risks at the company level.

SFDR: Focuses on ESG performance and risks at the product and portfolio level.

CSRD: Guided by the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

SFDR: Guided by SFDR Level 1 and Level 2 disclosure requirements.

CSRD: Double Materiality (how the world impacts the company AND how the company impacts the world).

SFDR: Principal Adverse Impacts (PAIs) (identifying the negative effects of investment decisions on sustainability).

CSRD: Included as a dedicated section in the annual management reports.

SFDR: Published on websites and included in formal fund documentation.

CSRD: Phased rollout starting in 2025 for most large companies.

SFDR: Has been in force since March 2021.

This list illustrates that although both regulations aim to improve sustainability transparency, they do so from different perspectives. CSRD looks at the sustainability footprint of companies themselves, while SFDR focuses on how financial products contribute to or detract from sustainability objectives.

Although CSRD and SFDR target different stakeholders, they are deeply interlinked. One of the most important connections between them is the use of shared data. Financial market participants who must comply with SFDR often rely on sustainability data provided by the companies they invest in — data that is disclosed under CSRD.

This interdependence creates a strong incentive for companies and investors to align their ESG data management practices. When companies report accurately and comprehensively under CSRD, it becomes easier for financial institutions to meet their SFDR obligations. In this way, the two frameworks reinforce each other and contribute to a more transparent and reliable ESG ecosystem.

Both CSRD and SFDR are key components of the EU’s broader sustainable finance strategy. Along with the EU Taxonomy Regulation, they form a triad of policies aimed at directing capital toward sustainable economic activities.

Their shared objectives include promoting ESG transparency, standardizing sustainability data, and reducing the risk of greenwashing. They also aim to provide a clearer view of sustainability-related risks, both for businesses and investors.

Many sustainability indicators are relevant for both CSRD and SFDR. These include, but are not limited to:

Greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3)

Energy consumption from renewable and non-renewable sources

Waste generation, including hazardous and radioactive waste

Human rights violations and adherence to OECD and UN principles

This overlap means that data collected for CSRD reporting can often be reused for SFDR compliance, and vice versa. However, aligning these disclosures is not always straightforward.

While the idea of reusing data between CSRD and SFDR is appealing, the reality is more complex. One major challenge is that the two regulations use different terminology and assessment criteria, even for similar indicators. This can lead to confusion and increased workloads for ESG teams trying to align disclosures.

Another issue is materiality. CSRD requires a double materiality assessment, which means companies only report on sustainability issues that are deemed materially relevant. On the other hand, SFDR requires disclosure of specific PAI indicators, regardless of materiality. This creates a potential data gap between what companies report and what financial institutions need.

Companies that are not directly subject to SFDR may still find themselves being asked by investors to provide SFDR-aligned data. Without proper tools, collecting and aligning this data manually can be extremely time-consuming and prone to error.

At Carbmee, we recognize that ESG compliance is not just a reporting exercise but a data challenge. Our CSRD Solution helps organizations streamline their ESG data collection, align metrics across multiple frameworks, and reduce manual effort. By automating data processing and identifying overlaps between CSRD and SFDR requirements, Carbmee’s platform empowers companies to build audit-ready reports while supporting the needs of financial stakeholders.

Whether you are preparing your first CSRD report or looking to provide data to SFDR-compliant investors, Carbmee can help you create a unified, scalable sustainability reporting process.

Reporting Challenges: Why Aligning CSRD and SFDR Is Not So Simple

The EU Taxonomy is the foundation for understanding what qualifies as an environmentally sustainable activity. It provides clear definitions and technical screening criteria for determining whether an economic activity makes a substantial contribution to the EU’s climate and environmental goals.

Both CSRD and SFDR incorporate the EU Taxonomy. Under CSRD, companies must report how much of their revenue, capital expenditures, and operating expenditures are aligned with taxonomy-compliant activities. Under SFDR, financial products that promote environmental characteristics or have sustainability objectives must disclose the share of investments in taxonomy-aligned activities.

By offering a common language for sustainability, the EU Taxonomy enables consistent reporting across both regulatory frameworks. For a deeper dive, we recommend exploring our EU Taxonomy Regulation Guide.

What Role Does the EU Taxonomy Play in All This?

Understanding the compliance timeline is critical for avoiding penalties and ensuring a smooth transition.

SFDR came into force in March 2021. Level 2 disclosures became mandatory in January 2023.

CSRD starts applying in 2025 for companies already subject to NFRD (reporting on 2024 data).

Other large companies must start reporting in 2026 (for FY 2025).

Listed SMEs are required to comply starting in 2027 (for FY 2026).

EU Taxonomy disclosures are already mandatory for some companies and will expand further in parallel with CSRD adoption.

Timeline: When Do You Need to Be Compliant?

CSRD and SFDR are not just isolated compliance obligations. Together, they form the backbone of the EU’s ambition to create a sustainable, transparent, and trustworthy financial system. While they have different scopes and apply to different entities, they are interconnected in purpose and practice.

Understanding their differences and overlaps will allow your organization to build a more coherent ESG reporting strategy. The key is to invest early in aligning your data systems, understanding double materiality, and leveraging tools that reduce complexity.

With platforms like Carbmee, companies can efficiently meet their CSRD obligations while supporting investor demands under SFDR. If you are looking to simplify compliance and turn ESG data into strategic value, our team is here to help.

Building a Future-Proof ESG Reporting Strategy

What is the main difference between CSRD and SFDR?

CSRD applies to companies and focuses on sustainability reporting within their own operations. SFDR applies to financial market participants and focuses on disclosing how their financial products impact sustainability.

Yes. Both regulations are mandatory under EU law. CSRD affects companies based on size and public interest status. SFDR affects financial market participants operating in the EU.

They are connected through shared ESG data. Companies report sustainability data under CSRD, which financial institutions then use to meet SFDR disclosure requirements.

Double materiality means companies must report on how sustainability issues affect their business and how their operations impact people and the planet.

These refer to categories of financial products. Article 6 has no ESG focus, Article 8 promotes ESG characteristics, and Article 9 has a sustainable investment objective.

What if my company doesn’t fall under CSRD yet?

Even if you are not currently subject to CSRD, you may still be asked for sustainability data by investors or customers. Preparing early is highly recommended.

Navigating the European Union’s growing set of ESG regulations can be overwhelming, especially for organizations newly stepping into the world of sustainability reporting. Two acronyms stand out as particularly confusing: CSRD and SFDR. They are central pillars of the EU’s sustainable finance framework, yet they serve different purposes and apply to different types of organizations. As more companies and financial institutions come under regulatory pressure, it becomes crucial to understand what each regulation means, how they differ, and why they are deeply interconnected.

In this article, we explain both regulations in detail and outline the key differences between CSRD and SFDR. We also look at how the two frameworks overlap, share data points, and influence each other. Whether you are a sustainability officer, an investor, or a compliance lead, this guide will help you confidently navigate the evolving ESG landscape. If you’re just getting started with EU regulations, we also recommend our EU Taxonomy Regulation Guide for additional context.

CSRD vs. SFDR Explained: Key Differences, Overlaps & Reporting Challenges | Carbmee

Learn the key differences between CSRD and SFDR, how they connect, and what your company needs to know for EU ESG compliance. Includes a side-by-side comparison, timeline, and reporting guide.

CSRD vs. SFDR: What’s the Difference and How They Work Together for ESG Reporting

The term greenwashing was first coined in 1986 by environmentalist Jay Westerveld. He noticed a hotel asking guests to reuse towels “to save the planet” while simultaneously expanding its operations into sensitive ecosystems revealing a mismatch between marketing and reality.

Today, greenwashing refers to when companies present themselves as more environmentally friendly than they actually are, often using vague, exaggerated, or misleading claims in marketing, branding, or investor communications.

At a time when climate goals are urgent and global emissions need to be halved by 2030, greenwashing erodes trust, misleads well-intentioned consumers, and gives companies a free pass to delay real action. It also creates unfair market conditions, companies investing in real decarbonization must compete with those simply marketing sustainability.

Why greenwashing is harmful to climate action

At first glance, greenwashing and genuine sustainability can look very similar. Both often use the language of climate action, net-zero goals, and responsibility. The key difference lies in substance versus storytelling.

Greenwashing focuses on perception. It prioritizes how a company appears to stakeholders, often relying on carefully crafted messaging, selective data, or vague promises that sound positive but lack measurable impact. Real sustainability, on the other hand, is rooted in action, evidence, and accountability. It requires companies to measure their environmental impact honestly, disclose it transparently, and take concrete steps to reduce emissions over time.

Here’s how they differ:

Greenwashing: Vague marketing claims
Real sustainability: Verified environmental data

Greenwashing: Focused on brand image
Real sustainability: Focused on emissions reduction

Greenwashing: Uses buzzwords without proof
Real sustainability: Uses frameworks like the GHG Protocol, CSRD, and SBTi

Greenwashing: Exaggerates small improvements
Real sustainability: Transparently reports real progress

Understanding this distinction is crucial. While greenwashing may deliver short-term reputational benefits, real sustainability builds long-term trust, regulatory resilience, and meaningful climate impact.

1986 – “Greenwashing” coined by environmentalist Jay Westerveld

2000s – Rise in eco-marketing as ESG enters the mainstream

2015 – Paris Agreement sparks global wave of climate pledges

2021 – Volkswagen’s Dieselgate scandal challenges sustainability claims

2022 – UN releases “Integrity Matters” report with guidelines for credible climate action

2023 – EU proposes legislation to crack down on greenwashing

2025 – EU expected to finalize and implement anti-greenwashing regulations

Greenwashing isn’t always obvious. In fact, it’s often designed to look and feel like genuine sustainability. As climate concerns grow and regulations tighten, some companies try to appear more responsible than they actually are hoping that good marketing can cover up a lack of meaningful climate action.

Below are ten of the most common greenwashing tactics used today in packaging, ESG reporting, corporate branding, and even investor communications. Understanding these red flags can help you ask better questions, spot inconsistencies, and demand more accountability.

1. Vague terms like “eco-friendly” or “green”

Words like “eco,” “green,” or “planet-safe” sound good but without definitions, evidence, or standards, they’re often just fluff. If there’s no context or data behind the claim, it’s likely meant to persuade, not inform.

2. Misleading imagery (trees, rivers, etc.)

Marketing that features lush forests, clean rivers, or animals often implies environmental responsibility even if the company’s product or service has little to do with sustainability. Imagery alone is not proof of action.

A company might highlight one small improvement like switching to recycled paper in their office while ignoring more significant emissions from their manufacturing or supply chain. Selective storytelling is a hallmark of greenwashing.

4. Highlighting one good while hiding the bad

Some brands focus on carbon-neutral packaging or water-saving initiatives while staying silent about fossil fuel investments, unsustainable sourcing, or factory pollution. Transparency means telling the full story not just the good parts.

Unverified labels or self-issued certifications can make a product look official without actually meeting any external sustainability standard. Always check whether a claim is backed by an independent, recognized body.

Carbon offsets can play a role in climate strategies, but relying on them without first reducing emissions is problematic. Offsets must be high-quality, verifiable, and used as a complement to - not a replacement for - emissions reduction.

7. Using “net zero” with no credible plan

Net-zero commitments without interim targets, milestones, or transparency around how emissions will actually be reduced are often hollow. A pledge without a plan is just another PR move.

8. “Natural” or “clean” without definitions

These feel-good terms are often used in consumer products, especially cosmetics, food, and cleaning supplies. But without explaining what makes something “natural” or “clean,” they mean very little and are open to broad interpretation.

9. Comparing unrelated products or processes

Claims like “50% more sustainable” or “greener than before” are often misleading if you don’t know what’s being compared. Going from 2% to 3% recycled content is technically a 50% improvement, but it’s still 97% unsustainable.

Greenwashing Explained: What It Is and Why It’s a Problem | Carbmee

Greenwashing misleads the public with false sustainability claims. Learn how to spot it, avoid it, and why it undermines real climate progress.

MODULE

Danke für Ihr Interesse!

Erleben Sie carbmee EIS™ in Aktion

carbmee EIS™ in Aktion

Weitere Artikel