The language of carbon — why words are now the frontline of climate credibility
For years, terms like “carbon neutral” and “offset” were mostly confined to sustainability reports, but they are now in the public spotlight—and increasingly scrutinized. Lawsuits and regulatory actions, such as the UK CMA’s power to fine misleading green claims, show that language once signaling leadership can now trigger legal and reputational risk.
Public understanding of key carbon terms remains limited. Surveys show only about half of the UK public correctly defines net zero, making vague or outdated terminology risky for companies. “Carbon neutral” in particular is losing credibility, with firms like Nestlé abandoning the label in favor of more concrete, verifiable approaches.
Companies are shifting to precise frameworks that clearly reflect actions. For example, Klarna applies an internal carbon fee, investing in high-integrity climate projects rather than claiming offsets. Transparency, proper context for carbon credits, and audience-tested messaging are now essential to build trust and avoid misunderstanding.
