If you’ve done any online shopping in recent years, you’ve probably noticed the growth of “Sustainability” tabs on company and brand websites. As the climate crisis continues to become a more urgent issue, businesses are striving to showcase their dedication to reducing the harm (ironically, that has largely been caused by the capitalist system). 

This has resulted in the emergence of a lot of jargon that can be difficult to wrap your head around but is important to understand. Today, we’ll be focusing on the differences between the terms carbon neutrality vs net zero. 

The point of getting acquainted with both of these terms is to keep you safe from any dishonest tactics used by companies for appearance's sake. You can steer clear of some of the deception by sticking to slow fashion and shopping from brands that are GOTS-certified (meaning that the fabrics used are organic, colored using low impact dyes, and come from an ethical and sustainable supply chain). 

Of course, the ideas of carbon neutrality vs net zero don’t just apply to the fashion industry. The call to be more sustainable spans across all industries, so your ability to deduce whether a company is genuine in its claims of sustainability is critical. 

The terms carbon neutral vs net zero are important to understand in depth because they are often used interchangeably. While their meanings are similar, there are some important distinctions. These distinctions can often signify the divide between a genuine feeling of responsibility and the self-serving act of greenwashing. 

The fact of the matter is ignoring the climate crisis is simply not acceptable anymore. It’s becoming industry standard for companies to draft out plans for how to reduce carbon emissions during all stages of production. While many companies (large and small) understand the critical role they play in undoing the damage to our ozone layer, others are less concerned with changing their business practices and instead use vague outlines to suggest sustainability. 

Unfortunately, this means we, as individuals, need to fuel our brains with extra information to avoid getting duped! 

Individual responsibility is essential in the fight against climate change. Small ways to reduce your own carbon footprint include traveling more by foot or bicycle, swearing off polyester underwear, and making the switch to hemp underwear. 

Individual responsibility also involves using your power as a consumer to support businesses that match your own ethics and values. That’s why knowing all the lingo companies use is super important!

Before breaking down the differences between carbon neutrality vs net zero, we should probably familiarize ourselves with the standard meanings of both terms. Since this is such a meaty topic, I’ve whipped up a little glossary to address the definitions of our main subjects and a few related words that may pop up.

• Carbon Neutral: For any CO2 released by a company’s production process, an equal amount is removed
• Net Zero: Zero (or as close to zero as possible) carbon emissions released during the production process
• Climate Positive: The company aims to be net zero and continue to invest in removing carbon emissions beyond the ones they create
• Carbon Negative: Same as climate positive
• Carbon Offsetting: Funding projects that remove an equal amount of carbon a company’s production process creates
• Carbon Sinks: Oceans and forests are known as carbon sinks because they absorb a large amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
• Carbon Footprint: An individual or group’s calculated carbon emissions based on personal activity

In the carbon neutrality vs net zero debate, the term “carbon neutral” is the most likely to be used by companies with questionable intentions. The concept itself is not a negative one. For a company to be carbon neutral simply means that they invest money in projects that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Specifically, they remove as much carbon emission as they create in their production process. 

Again, this is a necessary practice. Every company should be involved in some form of carbon offsetting if they are truly dedicated to helping our planet. The tricky part is that the term carbon neutrality is often used when companies are greenwashing the public. In most of these cases, the company is not dedicated to actually reducing the amount of carbon they release into the atmosphere. This reduces the significance of any carbon offsetting they may be doing. Often, the efforts of funding carbon offset projects are temporary and quickly render the idea of “carbon neutrality”  false because the company is still creating more carbon emissions than they’re removing. 

If a company is truly dedicated to offsetting its carbon emissions, you’ll likely find a clear plan or outline somewhere on its website. Green flags to look for include registration in offset registries, clearly defined protocols, and other verifiable certifications. The rule of thumb is to avoid any company that uses vague terms to define its goals. With the resources we have today, it’s entirely possible for companies to draft up and provide proof of a quantifiable plan to reduce (and offset) carbon emissions, hopefully with a goal of becoming net zero by 2050 (or even sooner!). 

Net zero suggests a company’s effort to lower its amount of carbon emissions as close to zero as possible (with any remaining emissions being offset). This term has been more widely used in recent years with many companies declaring that they aim to be “Net Zero by 2050.”

It was scientifically recorded that in order to prevent global warming from reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius (it is currently at 1.1), net zero must become the industry standard by 2050. This calls for an entire reinvention of how things are produced and distributed. 

Many businesses, companies, and organizations have already dedicated themselves to reducing their carbon emissions. However, since this is a cause that requires a complete change of production practices and often a change in which materials are used, it is not a profitable shift to engage in. 

There is a global effort to make net zero carbon emissions an industry standard. Over 70 countries are on board with the goal to become net zero. However, globally, we are not on track to reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, based on the commitments currently made. 

As you can see, the carbon neutrality vs net zero debate is easy to settle once you’ve got all the context clues. Carbon neutrality is an important concept but it should be used as a transitional or supplemental tool with the main goal being achieving net zero carbon emissions. 

A company citing only carbon neutrality, without any concrete plan or resources linked on its website, should be approached with some hesitancy. That said, a company claiming to be working toward net zero carbon emissions should also be verified. There are tools available for tracking whether a company’s net zero plan is viable within its desired time frame. 

The Science Based Targets Initiative has launched a system for companies to draw up a plan for reducing emissions based on current climate science data. This system is a resource for companies to understand how exactly to lower their carbon emissions to fall in line with the global goals of net zero by 2050. It can also serve as a green flag for consumers. If a company is registered with the SBTI, they are most likely very serious about their commitment to lowering carbon emissions. It also means that they have a clear, calculated plan for how to do it.  

Trust your best judgment but don’t be afraid to raise an eyebrow if the information you’re seeing doesn’t line up!

Now that you know what it means for a company to be net zero vs carbon neutral, you can more accurately judge a brand’s mission before supporting it financially. Dedication to offsetting carbon emissions and halting the continued overheating of our planet is not a subject with room for nuance or vagueness. In an ideal world, all the responsibility would rest on the shoulders of the real perpetrators (i.e. big business), but, as it stands, most of it comes down to us, the little guys. 

Despite what you may think, your actions do matter and the fact that you’ve gotten to the end of this post means that you’re dedicated to the cause. From one individual trying her best, I want to offer you some gratitude for being here and trying your best. It really counts! 

Do you have any other insights on how to navigate the confusing world of corporate sustainability promises? Share your thoughts in the comments! We’re all here to build up one another’s efforts and to stand together in the mission to protect our planet!