INTRODUCTION
The aviation industry has long symbolised globalisation, economic integration, and technological progress. However, its environmental footprint has increasingly drawn global scrutiny. Aviation contributes approximately 2–3% of global carbon dioxide emissions[1], a figure expected to rise with increasing air travel demand. In response to mounting pressure from international organisations, governments, and environmentally conscious consumers, the aviation sector has embraced sustainability initiatives, among which carbon offsetting has emerged as a central strategy.
Carbon offsetting allows airlines and passengers to compensate for emissions generated during flights by investing in environmental projects such as reforestation, renewable energy, and methane capture. At first glance, this mechanism appears to offer a pragmatic solution to an otherwise difficult problem. However, it has simultaneously given rise to a controversial practice known as “greenwashing,[2]” where companies exaggerate or misrepresent their environmental efforts to create a misleading impression of sustainability.
Recent developments have intensified scrutiny over such practices. Courts and regulators across jurisdictions have begun questioning the legitimacy of “carbon-neutral” claims made by airlines. For instance, a Dutch court [3]held that an airline’s sustainability advertisements created an overly optimistic and misleading impression of its environmental efforts, marking a significant milestone in aviation-related greenwashing litigation.
This blog critically examines the legal challenges surrounding carbon offsetting practices in aviation, focusing on regulatory frameworks, the phenomenon of greenwashing, accountability mechanisms, and the evolving role of judicial intervention.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING AVIATION EMISSIONS AND CARBON OFFSETTING
International Legal Framework: The regulation of aviation emissions is primarily governed by international instruments. The Chicago Convention of 1944 [4]serves as the foundational treaty for international civil aviation. Although it does not explicitly address environmental concerns, it empowers the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to develop standards and recommended practices.
In response to climate change concerns, ICAO introduced the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) [5]in 2016. CORSIA represents the first global market-based mechanism designed to stabilise emissions from international aviation at 2020 levels[6].
Under CORSIA, airlines are required to offset emissions exceeding baseline levels by purchasing eligible carbon credits. The scheme operates through a system of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), ensuring that emissions are quantified and offset accordingly. It is implemented through ICAO’s Annex 16, Volume IV[7], which provides detailed standards and compliance requirements.
However, CORSIA has faced criticism for its limited scope. It does not cover domestic aviation emissions, which account for a significant portion of total aviation emissions. Moreover, participation during initial phases has been voluntary, reducing its overall effectiveness.
The Paris Agreement 2015 further shapes the global climate framework by requiring states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although aviation emissions are not directly regulated under national commitments, the agreement indirectly influences aviation policy through broader climate obligations.
Indian Legal Framework: In India, environmental regulation is primarily governed by the Environment (Protection) Act 1986, which empowers the central government to take measures to protect and improve environmental quality. This legislation provides the legal basis for regulating emissions and environmental harm.
Aviation-specific regulation is governed by the Aircraft Act 1934 and the Aircraft Rules 1937[8], administered by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA). However, these frameworks largely focus on safety and operational aspects rather than environmental accountability or carbon offsetting.
The Consumer Protection Act 2019[9] plays a crucial role in addressing greenwashing. It prohibits misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices, making it applicable to airlines that exaggerate environmental claims. Additionally, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) [10]has issued guidelines requiring environmental claims to be substantiated and transparent.
Despite these provisions, India lacks a comprehensive legal framework specifically addressing aviation emissions of carbon offsetting, resulting in significant regulatory gaps.
CARBON OFFSETTING AND THE RISE OF GREENWASHING IN AVIATION
Conceptual Framework of Carbon Offsetting: Carbon offsetting operates on the principle of compensating emissions by funding projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases elsewhere. Airlines often provide passengers with the option to offset emissions by paying an additional fee at the time of booking. CORSIA institutionalises this mechanism at a global level by requiring airlines to purchase carbon credits to offset emissions growth.
However, several structural issues undermine the effectiveness of carbon offsetting –
Lack of Additionality: Many projects may not result in genuine emission reductions.
Temporal Mismatch: Emissions occur immediately, while offset benefits may take years.
Verification Challenges: Measuring and validating emission reductions is complex.
Double-counting Risks: Credits may be claimed by multiple entities.
These limitations create significant legal and ethical concerns, particularly when offsetting is presented as a definitive solution.
Greenwashing in Aviation: Greenwashing refers to misleading or exaggerated environmental claims. In aviation, it commonly manifests through:
- Claims of “carbon-neutral” flights
- Marketing campaigns promoting “sustainable flying”
- Over-reliance on offsetting without actual emission reduction
Recent litigation highlights the growing legal risks associated with such claims. Courts have increasingly scrutinised airline advertisements that fail to accurately represent environmental impact. For instance, legal challenges against airlines’ “carbon neutral” claims in jurisdictions like Australia and the Netherlands demonstrate the rising regulatory focus on greenwashing. Critics argue that carbon offsetting allows airlines to “buy their way out” of climate responsibility rather than implementing structural changes. Some experts have even described offsetting schemes as insufficient or misleading in addressing aviation emissions.
LEGAL CHALLENGES AND JUDICIAL RESPONSES
Fragmented Regulatory Framework: One of the primary legal challenges lies in the fragmented nature of aviation regulation.[11] While ICAO [12] provides international guidance, enforcement depends on domestic legal systems, which vary significantly across jurisdictions. The absence of standardised criteria for carbon offset projects creates inconsistencies in quality and credibility. This lack of harmonisation undermines consumer trust and complicates regulatory oversight.
Consumer Protection and Misleading Claims: Greenwashing raises significant concerns under consumer protection laws. Misleading environmental claims may constitute unfair trade practices and deceptive advertising.
KEY CASE LAWS
R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020]:[13] The UK Supreme Court emphasised the importance of aligning aviation expansion with climate commitments under the Paris Agreement.
KLM Greenwashing Case (Netherlands, 2024):[14] A Dutch court held that airline advertisements created a misleading impression regarding sustainability efforts, marking a major precedent in aviation-related greenwashing litigation.
Qantas Greenwashing Complaint (Australia):[15] Regulatory authorities are examining claims of “carbon-neutral” flights, highlighting increasing scrutiny of offset-based marketing.
M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987):[16] The Supreme Court of India established the principle of sustainable development, which can be extended to aviation practices.
These cases indicate a growing judicial willingness to intervene in environmental misrepresentation.
Jurisdictional and Enforcement Issues: The global nature of aviation complicates legal enforcement.[17] A claim made in one jurisdiction may affect consumers worldwide, raising questions about applicable law and jurisdiction. Additionally, regulatory authorities often lack the technical expertise required to evaluate complex environmental claims, further weakening enforcement mechanisms.
ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND THE WAY FORWARD
Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Addressing greenwashing requires comprehensive legal reform. Legislatures must explicitly define and prohibit misleading environmental claims, supported by stringent penalties. International coordination is essential to harmonise standards for carbon offset projects, ensuring consistency and credibility.
Enhancing Transparency and Disclosure –
Airlines should be required to provide:
- Detailed information on offset projects
- Verification mechanisms
- Timelines for emission reductions
Mandatory sustainability reporting and independent audits can significantly enhance accountability.
Role of Technology: Emerging technologies such as blockchain can improve the traceability of carbon credits, reducing risks of fraud and double-counting.
Role of Courts and Civil Society: Litigation plays a crucial role in shaping environmental accountability. Public interest litigation and class actions can challenge misleading claims and drive regulatory reform.
Recent legal actions against airlines demonstrate that courts are increasingly willing to scrutinise environmental claims and impose accountability.
CONCLUSION
The aviation industry stands at a critical juncture where environmental responsibility is no longer optional but imperative. While carbon offsetting offers a potential pathway to mitigate emissions, its misuse through greenwashing undermines both consumer trust and genuine sustainability efforts. The legal challenges surrounding aviation carbon offsetting highlight the urgent need for stronger regulatory frameworks, improved transparency, and effective enforcement mechanisms. Fragmented regulations, lack of standardisation, and weak oversight create an environment conducive to misleading claims.
Judicial trends indicate a growing willingness to address environmental misrepresentation, signalling a shift toward greater accountability. However, meaningful progress requires coordinated efforts from international organisations, national governments, regulatory authorities, and the aviation industry itself. Ultimately, the credibility of aviation’s sustainability initiatives depends not merely on adopting mechanisms like carbon offsetting but on ensuring that such measures are implemented with integrity, transparency, and legal accountability.
Author: Sourishree Bakundi (Calcutta University)
References:
[1] ICAO Environmental Report 2022 ( International Civil Aviation Organization 2022)
[2] European Commission Guidance on the interpretation and application of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market [2021] C 526/01
[3] Fossie Vrij NL v Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) [2024] ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512
[4] Convention on International Civil Aviation (adopted 07 December 1944, entered into force 04 April 1947) 15 UNTS 295 (Chicago Convention)
[5] International Civil Aviation Organization, Assembly Resolution A39-3: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO policies and practices related to environmental protection – Global Market-Based Measure (MBM) scheme (adopted 06 October 2016) ICAO Doc 10075
[6] Ibid [4]
[7] Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, Volume IV: Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (1st edn, International Civil Aviation Organization 2018)
[8] Aircraft Act 1934; Aircraft Rules 1937
[9] Consumer Protection Act 2019, ss 2(28), 2(47), and 21
[10] Code for Self-Regulation of Advertising in India (Advertising Standards Council of India 1985)
[11] Joanne Scott and Lavanya Rajamani, ‘EU Climate Change Unilateralism’ (2012) 23(2) European Journal of International Law 469 <https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/23/2/469/487269> accessed 15 March 2026
[12] Convention on International Civil Aviation (n 4) art 37
[13] R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52
[14] Fossie Vrij NL v Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) [2024] ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2024:1512
[15] ‘Complaint about potential greenwashing by Qantas Airways Limited’ (Environmental Defenders Office, 16 October 2024) <https://www.edo.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ACCC-Qantas-complaint-Climate-Integrity-16-October-2023.pdf> accessed 05 March 2026
[16] M C Mehta and v Union of India and Ors (1987) 1 SCC 395
[17] Paul Stephen Dempsey, Public International Air Law (Centre for Research in Air and Space Law, McGill University 2008)
