Rest in peace, carbon neutrality: it’s time for credible action

The concept of net zero is establishing itself as a new standard of integrity, where carbon neutrality has been undermined by accusations of greenwashing. Beyond the wording, the challenge lies in achieving and demonstrating real emissions reductions within one’s own value chain.

As a climate action strategist, I have been observing for several years the inevitable demise of a concept undermined by greenwashing: carbon neutrality. It is gradually giving way to a more rigorous approach: net-zero. This change is not merely symbolic. It draws a clear line between promises and real action. A recent article by the Trellis Group sums up this turning point very well: “RIP, carbon neutral.”

The old rules of the game: deceptive simplicity

For a long time, being carbon neutral was based on a simple promise: a company could, in theory, erase its pollution. In my work, I have seen how reassuring this promise of carbon neutrality could be to organizations, even if they left their actual emissions virtually unchanged. The mechanism they used was offsetting. For every ton of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted, the company purchased a carbon credit.

This credit was a certificate attesting that an equivalent amount of GHG had been reduced or removed from the atmosphere elsewhere.

The main appeal of this system was its accounting simplicity: one ton emitted minus one ton offset resulted, on paper, in zero impact. It was easy to explain and report. But this simplicity hid a twofold problem.

First, offsetting diverted attention from the real issue: reducing emissions at the source.

Second, several independent investigations and scientific analyses have shown that a significant portion of carbon credits were of dubious quality, with little or no real effect on the climate, as documented by organizations such as Carbon Market Watch.

It was this combination—minimizing the importance of one’s own emissions while relying on often ineffective offsets—that made the claim of carbon neutrality so problematic. Legislators began to respond.

In Canada, for example, Bill C-59, passed in 2024, amended the Competition Act. From now on, environmental claims must be backed up by rigorous evidence.

In the European Union, “carbon neutral” claims are prohibited when they are based solely on offsets. The message to companies is clear: buying credits is no longer enough; you have to reduce your own emissions.

The new rule: direct and controlled action

This is why a new rule, which is more demanding and more credible in the eyes of both regulators and the public, is becoming the norm: net-zero. The term “net-zero” is clearly distinct from “carbon neutral” in that it requires deep reductions at the source, before any use of offsets.

The net-zero approach is based on a simple principle: first reduce emissions at the source, ambitiously, in line with the requirements of climate science. This “reduction first” principle is now the golden rule promoted in particular by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a global benchmark for corporate climate targets.

For the agri-food sector, this translates into a key strategy: implementing an integrated carbon market (insetting) within its value chain. Instead of purchasing external credits, the company invests in reducing emissions generated by its own activities and those of its suppliers, for example, in the context of their agricultural practices. This approach anchors responsibility at the heart of the company and gives it direct control over the quality of the projects implemented.

The challenge of proof: measuring internal reductions

Such an approach, which aims to reduce emissions at the source rather than simply purchasing external credits, raises a central issue in the agri-food sector: achieving and credibly demonstrating internal and operational reductions. The question then becomes: how can we prove that changes in practices on farms, within our own value chain, have a real and quantifiable effect?

It is precisely to move from reflection to action that solutions such as the Dedicated Dairy Farms program are essential. This program provides a rigorous measurement and validation framework, designed specifically to document changes in farm practices and demonstrate, with supporting figures, their impact on emissions, as required by the industry.

In concrete terms, it does more than just support actions on the farm: it measures their effects on emissions, translates them into quantified GHG reductions, and has them verified by an independent body. In short, it generates the concrete and continuous data that companies need to steer their climate strategy and report on their progress.

Conclusion: credible action is within our reach

The era of climate commitments based solely on offsetting is coming to an end. A more responsible path is possible: a net-zero trajectory anchored in real reductions within the value chain. From my point of view, the question now is who will choose to take this path right now.