- Carbon neutrality is a balance of emissions and removals that only makes sense at the scale of a State or the planet.
- Net zero is its scientific version for the company: reduce by at least 90%, then neutralize the remainder.
- Offsetting finances a reduction elsewhere; it does not replace reducing your own emissions.
- Calling yourself "carbon neutral" is regulated (Decree 2022-539) and increasingly risky (EU Directive 2024/825): better to communicate dated figures and a pathway.
What is the difference between carbon neutrality, net zero and offsetting?
Three concepts that often get mixed up, even though they do not mean the same thing.
Carbon neutrality is the balance between greenhouse gas emissions and the quantities removed from the atmosphere. It is a goal that makes sense at the scale of the planet or a State (the Paris Agreement, the European Climate Law), much less at the scale of a company or a product.
Net zero is the rigorous, scientific version applied to the company. According to the SBTi, it requires reducing emissions by at least 90% across the entire value chain, then neutralizing only the emissions you cannot eliminate through permanent removals. Reduction comes first; neutralization only concerns the residual share.
Carbon offsetting means financing, outside your boundary, projects that reduce or sequester emissions (reforestation, renewable energy). It does not make your emissions disappear: it finances a reduction elsewhere.
| Concept | What it is | Right scale |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon neutrality | Balance of emissions / removals | Planet, State |
| Net zero | Reduction of at least 90%, then neutralization of the remainder | Company (SBTi pathway) |
| Offsetting | Financing a reduction outside your boundary | Remainder only |
It all starts from the same base: a measured carbon footprint, then a reduction pathway. We detail that pathway in our article on reducing your carbon footprint.
Can a company call itself "carbon neutral"?
It is tightly regulated, and increasingly risky. In France, Decree No. 2022-539 of April 13, 2022, in force since January 1, 2023, prohibits claiming in advertising that a product or service is "carbon neutral" (or any equivalent wording) without publishing, and updating every year: an assessment of the product's emissions over its entire life cycle, a reduction pathway with annual targets over at least ten years, and the terms of the offsetting used. In other words, the bare claim, without evidence, is no longer allowed.
The European framework goes further. Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as "Empowering Consumers", applicable on September 27, 2026, outright prohibits carbon neutrality claims for a product based on offsetting ("climate neutral", "CO2 neutral", "zero carbon"). A company will still be able to communicate about its investments in climate projects, but no longer use them to describe a product as neutral.
These two texts target products and services first. At the level of the company as a whole, there is no equally clear-cut prohibition, but the claim "carbon neutral company" remains risky: neutrality only makes scientific sense at the scale of the planet or a State, not of an organization, and such a statement falls under the general rules against misleading commercial practices. To signal its level of ambition, a company is better off with the notion of net zero and a quantified pathway.
What is the difference between reducing and offsetting?
Reducing means lowering your own emissions. Offsetting means financing a reduction elsewhere. The two are not on the same level: offsetting never replaces reduction, it only comes in for what cannot yet be avoided.
The classic mistake is to buy carbon credits to "cancel out" a footprint without having reduced anything. This is precisely what science (SBTi) and regulation rule out: you reduce as much as possible first, and only neutralize the emissions you cannot eliminate. A credible pathway is built first with a transition plan, not with a check.
When should you use offsetting?
For the remainder, once reduction is underway, and by naming it correctly. Good practice is to speak of a contribution to global neutrality rather than offsetting that would cancel out your emissions: you finance projects useful to the climate, on top of your reduction pathway, without claiming to erase your footprint.
If you resort to it, the quality of the credits matters: favor projects verified by recognized standards, with real, measurable and permanent reductions. A cheap, dubious credit creates more reputational risk than it brings benefit.
What can you say without greenwashing?
Precise, quantified and verifiable things. Rather than a fragile "carbon neutral", communicate about what you actually do: your footprint, your dated reduction target, the actions you have taken and the results obtained. A "we have reduced our emissions by X% since such a year and are aiming for such a target in 2030" is worth more, legally and reputationally, than a promise of neutrality.
The simple rule: only claim what you can prove with up-to-date figures. This is where Ditto comes in, upstream of communication.
Communicate accurately with Ditto
The subject is not just a vocabulary exercise: a poorly framed claim is costly, in legal risk as much as in reputation. Ditto structures the base that makes your communication defensible: an up-to-date footprint, a quantified reduction pathway, a transition plan tracked year after year. A dedicated coach helps you word what you can claim without exposing yourself. These constraints are also taken into account when Ditto helps you write your sustainability reports (VSME, CSRD) intended for your stakeholders and the public: the wording rests on your figures, not on promises. And to get started, a platform like Ditto saves time, but solid figures and a cautious claim already protect you far better than a poorly substantiated neutrality label.
Secure your climate communication
A Ditto expert reviews what you can claim, with evidence to back it, without greenwashing risk.
Carbon neutrality and net zero: key takeaways
| Element | Summary |
|---|---|
| Carbon neutrality | Balance of emissions / removals; relevant at planet or State scale |
| Net zero | Reduction of at least 90%, then neutralization of the remainder (SBTi pathway) |
| Offsetting | Financing a reduction elsewhere; reserved for the remainder, never a substitute |
| French framework | Decree 2022-539: "carbon neutral" claim = assessment + 10-year pathway + offsetting transparency |
| EU framework | Directive 2024/825 (Sept 27, 2026): prohibits product neutrality based on offsetting |
| What to do | Communicate dated figures and a pathway, not a promise of neutrality |
Frequently asked questions
Can a company call itself carbon neutral?
It is strictly regulated for products and services, and risky at company level. In France, Decree 2022-539 prohibits the "carbon neutral" claim in advertising for a product or service without publishing a life-cycle assessment, a reduction pathway over at least ten years and the offsetting terms, updated every year. European Directive 2024/825, applicable on September 27, 2026, prohibits product neutrality claims based on offsetting. At the level of the company itself, these texts mainly target products, but claiming "carbon neutral company" remains exposed: neutrality only makes sense at global scale, and the claim falls under the general rules against misleading commercial practices. The safe route runs through net zero and a quantified pathway, not a neutrality label.
What is the difference between carbon neutrality and net zero?
Carbon neutrality is a balance between emissions and removals, relevant at the scale of a country or the planet. Net zero is its scientific version for the company: reduce emissions by at least 90%, then neutralize only the remainder. Net zero puts reduction first, not the purchase of offsets.
Is carbon offsetting enough?
No. Offsetting finances a reduction outside your boundary, it does not replace the reduction of your own emissions. It only makes sense for the emissions you cannot eliminate, after maximum reduction, and is better framed as a contribution to global neutrality.
How do you communicate on climate without greenwashing?
By only claiming what you can prove with up-to-date figures: your footprint, your dated reduction target, your actions and their results. A measured reduction and a pathway are worth more, legally and reputationally, than a poorly substantiated neutrality claim.
