How is net zero different from carbon neutral?
The terms are often used interchangeably, but they're not identical. Carbon neutral typically refers to balancing carbon dioxide emissions specifically, often using purchased offsets, and can apply to a single product, event or year. Net zero is a broader, more rigorous standard: it covers all greenhouse gases (not just CO2), is generally expected to prioritise direct emissions cuts over offsetting, and is usually set as a long-term, economy-wide or company-wide target rather than a one-off claim. Regulators and standard-setters increasingly treat "net zero" as the higher bar of the two.
How do organisations actually reach net zero?
Credible net zero strategies generally follow a "reduce first, then remove" hierarchy. Organisations first cut emissions across their direct operations (scope 1), purchased energy (scope 2), and their wider value chain (scope 3) — through measures like electrification, energy efficiency and supply chain changes — since deep, direct reductions are the foundation of any credible plan. Only the emissions that remain genuinely hard to eliminate with current technology are then addressed through high-quality carbon removals, which take carbon out of the atmosphere permanently, as opposed to offsets that merely avoid or reduce emissions elsewhere.
How credible are net zero targets in practice?
Target-setting has grown fast, but target quality hasn't kept pace. Just 7% of companies, 6.5% of regions and 4% of cities with net zero targets currently meet all minimum criteria for a credible plan — meaning most published targets still lack the detail, interim milestones or accountability mechanisms needed to be relied upon. Nearly one in three Forbes Global 2000 companies with a net zero target has no accompanying delivery plan at all. That gap between ambition and credibility is exactly why the details behind a net zero claim matter as much as the claim itself, and it's a large part of what regulators, investors and standards bodies like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are now trying to close.
For a business-focused walkthrough of why net zero matters and how organisations approach it, see
Introduction to Net Zero, a video module presented by Oliver Bolton. For a deeper look at the economics behind global net zero pathways, see
Modelling the Path to Net Zero, presented by Amit Kara.
Frequently asked questions
Is net zero the same as zero emissions?
No. Zero emissions means an activity produces no greenhouse gases at all. Net zero allows for some residual emissions — typically from sources that are currently difficult to eliminate entirely, like certain industrial processes or long-haul aviation — provided they're balanced by an equivalent amount of genuine, verified carbon removal. In practice, almost no credible net zero pathway requires literally zero emissions; it requires the balance to reach zero.
What's the difference between net zero and carbon neutral?
Carbon neutral usually covers CO2 only, can apply narrowly (a single product or event), and has historically relied heavily on offsetting. Net zero covers all greenhouse gases, is typically a long-term, whole-organisation or whole-economy target, and expects direct emissions reductions to come first, with removals reserved for genuinely residual emissions. Regulators in several markets, including the EU, are now tightening rules around loose use of "carbon neutral" language specifically because it's seen as the weaker, less rigorous of the two claims.
Why do so many net zero targets lack credible plans?
Setting a target is easier than building the operational, financial and governance plan to deliver it — which is why headline commitments have grown far faster than the detailed roadmaps behind them. According to the Net Zero Tracker's 2025 assessment, nearly one in three Forbes Global 2000 companies with a net zero target has no accompanying delivery plan, and fewer than one in ten companies overall meet all minimum integrity criteria for a credible target. This gap is a key reason frameworks like the SBTi exist: to give targets a verifiable standard to be measured against.
