The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

Last year, the BBC’s “Panorama” aired a feature-length exposé on corporate “carbon neutral” claims. One of its most-circulated clips featured a secretly recorded conversation in which a consultant explained that after a company measures its carbon footprint, it can reduce its emissions by “one tonne” and then offset the rest to claim carbon neutrality. 

The consultant’s firm later claimed the clip was taken out of context, arguing it was contrasting a minimal neutrality standard with more rigorous net-zero frameworks. But the damage was done. For many viewers, myself included, it felt like the end of carbon neutral as we knew it.

But that moment didn’t kill the term; it simply signaled its decline. In recent years, the voluntary carbon market has evolved, with reforms aimed at making it bigger and better. The focus has shifted from “reduce a little, offset the rest” to higher standards of ambition, integrity and transparency. 

This is a good thing. But the real challenge now is replacing carbon neutral with a new, equally intuitive and widely accepted claim. Without one, we risk losing something important: the ability for companies to communicate their climate progress in terms that most people can easily understand.

How a useful catalyst became a crutch

Carbon neutral started as a catalyst for climate action. Two decades ago, early adopters such as the flooring company Interface helped popularize its usage, and in 2006 the New Oxford American Dictionary crowned it the Word of the Year. The appeal was obvious: measure, reduce, offset, declare neutrality — simple enough for any consumer to grasp. As Trellis recently reported, that simplicity mainstreamed early action and helped unlock real dollars for climate solutions.

But the very simplicity that made neutrality so communicable also made it brittle. It was never intended to be a hall pass for business-as-usual. At the same time, it was challenging to execute, especially the offset aspect. Investigations and lawsuits further eroded trust in the claim. Courts in Europe, including in a recent case involving Apple’s product marketing, have tightened the screws. New EU consumer rules will effectively prohibit offset-based carbon neutral claims for products starting in 2026 unless lifecycle emissions are actually zero. Brands took note and many are phasing out the term pre-emptively.

None of this should surprise us. What counts as robust climate ambition has grown up. We now expect science-based targets, credible transition plans, supplier engagement and transparent disclosures — alongside any use of high-integrity credits for residual emissions or beyond-value-chain mitigation. 

What we’re losing as the label fades

If you care about integrity of corporate climate claims, you should welcome the end of “reduce a little, offset the rest.” But it’s also true that we’re losing something: a claim that was sticky, marketer-friendly and increasingly recognized in the marketplace. Apple has hinted that ditching the language makes communicating climate action harder. The nonprofit Climate Neutral even rebranded, from a neutrality label to the Climate Label, shifting emphasis from offsets to funding emissions-cutting activities relative to a company’s footprint. That’s progress, but it also underscores the communications challenge we’ve created by retiring a term without offering a mass-market replacement.

Like it or not, simplicity sells. If we don’t give companies a short, truthful, testable and tellable way to explain credible climate action, we shouldn’t be taken aback when we hear that this is a significant barrier to action. 

Can ‘net zero’ fill the gap?

Perhaps, but we should be realistic. Net zero is more accurate and ambition-raising, yet it lacks the instant comprehension carbon neutral once enjoyed. It’s also increasingly guarded by gatekeepers such as the Science-Based Targets initiative and International Organization for Standardization, and it’s unclear where those bodies will land on corporate use of carbon credits. 

Meanwhile, claims such as “climate positive” and “carbon negative” carry much of the same baggage as carbon neutral. Organizations such as the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity initiative are doing important work to codify credible corporate claims, but it’s not yet apparent if a single, sticky phrase that works for companies (because it resonates with consumers) will emerge. 

The good news is that businesses want to act. According to recent research convened by VCMI, businesses see a real opportunity to use carbon markets — alongside deep value-chain cuts — to meet their climate commitments and make progress toward goals.