taking climate action and 2217 companies with approved science-based targets. [1,2] Corporate climate commitments are usually followed by a public announcement that the company intends to become "net-zero", that is, reduce and eventually eliminate its negative climate impact by a certain date, often around mid-century. [3] Many companies that are currently marketing "carbon-neutral" products and services also claim to have already fully "neutralized" the greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of such products. [4] Most of today's corporate climate claims-not only carbon neutral and net zero, but also carbon negative, carbon free, climate neutral and climate positive-rely to a greater or lesser extent on the use of carbon credits generated from voluntary carbon markets to offset corporate emissions. [3][4][5] This large and ever-increasing number of claims inevitably raises the question: are such corporate climate claims accurately reflecting the efforts undertaken by companies to mitigate climate change? Few companies release details on whether offsetting is used to complement or substitute investments into abatement of GHG emissions generated by a company's operations or within its value chain. [3,4,[6][7][8] The lack of transparency around climate-related claims casts a shadow over companies' climate Worldwide, companies are increasingly making claims about their current climate efforts and their future mitigation commitments. These claims tend to be underpinned by carbon credits issued in voluntary carbon markets to offset emissions. Corporate climate claims are largely unregulated which means that they are often (perceived to be) misleading and deceptive. As such, corporate climate claims risk undermining, rather than contributing to, global climate mitigation. This paper takes as its point of departure the proposition that a better understanding of corporate climate claims is needed to govern such claims in a manner that adequately addresses potential greenwashing risks. To that end, the paper reviews the nascent literature on corporate climate claims relying on the use of voluntary carbon credits. Drawing on the reviewed literature, three key dimensions of corporate climate claims as related to carbon credits are discussed: 1) the intended use of carbon credits: offsetting versus non-offsetting claims; 2) the framing and meaning of headline terms: net-zero versus carbon neutral claims; and 3) the status of the claim: future aspirational commitments versus stated achievements. The paper thereby offers a preliminary categorization of corporate climate claims and discusses risks associated with and governance implications for each of these categories.