Experts Argue That Corporate Net-Zero Goals Can’t Lead to a Net-Zero Planet
Over 5,200 companies have made commitments to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, including some of the largest corporations in the world, such as Apple, Zurich Insurance, P&G, and General Motors. These pledges aim to neutralise emissions through carbon offset projects like forestry. However, critics argue that these corporate goals are flawed and may actually hinder the global effort to tackle climate change.
The only net-zero goal that truly matters, they say, is one that applies on a planetary scale. While companies can contribute to carbon reduction, they cannot independently achieve net-zero, as their pledges are more focused on arithmetic than the physical processes involved in reducing atmospheric carbon. Carbone 4, a French consultancy, argues that the idea of a carbon-neutral company is “fundamentally dubious.”
The French government and environmental watchdogs have also raised concerns about corporate net-zero claims. The Agency for Ecological Transition (ADEME) has cautioned that no company should claim to be “carbon neutral,” while a UN group of experts is examining the credibility of non-national net-zero pledges.
Carbone 4 provides several reasons for its scepticism about the effectiveness of corporate net-zero goals. Central to their criticism is the practice of using carbon offsets—credits purchased from carbon removal projects. While these offsets may make companies appear more climate-friendly, Carbone 4 advises that such credits should not be counted towards a company’s emissions reduction efforts. Instead, they suggest that companies track their climate actions in three separate categories: emissions reductions, avoided emissions, and financing for carbon removal.
The firm’s approach highlights a critical flaw in corporate net-zero strategies: these offset credits obscure the true emissions levels of companies, which are what ultimately matter for global climate progress. Moreover, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a framework for companies to set emissions reduction targets, mandates that firms must reduce their emissions by at least 90% before relying on “high-quality removals” to address the remaining 10%.
The key distinction, according to Carbone 4, is that only on a global or regional level can CO2 drawdown actually neutralise past emissions and lead to true “net zero.” Companies that fail to consider this distinction, or worse, ignore it in their strategies, are misleading the public and potentially undermining collective efforts.
This misalignment is further evident in international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement, which sets out emissions reduction targets for countries, not corporations. The agreement aims for “global net zero,” and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consistently refers to this as a global goal, not one that individual entities can claim to have achieved.
Critics argue that if corporations shifted their focus from meeting individual emissions targets to contributing meaningfully to a collective global goal, the impact could be significant. However, the current model allows companies to undermine the broader climate effort by lobbying against science-based climate policy or supporting political candidates who block climate legislation. These activities, which are not reflected in emissions accounting, directly counter the progress needed to achieve global net-zero emissions.
Derik Broekhoff, senior scientist at the Stockholm Environment Institute, emphasised that no company can tackle the climate crisis alone. He stated that companies truly committed to net-zero should advocate for climate policies at all levels of government to ensure a fair and coordinated global transition.
In conclusion, corporate net-zero pledges may seem like progress, but their real impact on global emissions is limited. Companies must go beyond offsetting emissions and actively support global climate initiatives to make a meaningful difference in addressing the climate crisis.
