“Carbon Neutral” vs “Net Zero” — Not the Same
The Terms You See Everywhere
You’ve seen them. On packaging, websites, maybe on a tag hanging off a sweater you weren’t even going to buy:
“Carbon Neutral.”
“Net Zero.”
They’re everywhere right now. The problem? Most people have no idea what either one actually means. And to be fair — it’s not their fault. These terms have been used so interchangeably, and in so many different ways, that even people inside the industry get them mixed up. One is a claim, one is a goal. One can be achieved by buying credits, the other can take decades. But that nuance is almost never explained. So we end up in this weird space where everyone’s saying the right words, but the meaning is hollow. Or blurred. Or completely backward.
This post is here to fix that. Not with charts. Not with jargon. Just with clarity. We’re going to break down what “carbon neutral” actually means, how it’s different from “net zero,” and why that difference matters more than most people think. This isn’t about memorizing definitions — it’s about understanding what you’re looking at when a brand says it’s doing the right thing. And what they’re not saying, too.
Image courtesy of Moschino Fall 2025 runway
What “Carbon Neutral” Means — And How It Works
“Carbon neutral” sounds like a finish line.
Like a company did something good for the planet and can now wipe their hands clean. But in reality, carbon neutrality is more of a calculation — and a flexible one at that. At its core, being carbon neutral means a company has measured how much carbon dioxide it emits (sometimes including other greenhouse gases too), and then has offset that amount by funding emissions reductions elsewhere. Usually through things like forest preservation, renewable energy projects, or reforestation programs. That’s the basic math: emissions out, credits in, balance achieved. The problem is that not all carbon neutral claims are built the same. And most of them don’t tell you what’s actually being measured — or what’s being ignored.
In fashion, for example, a brand might claim to be carbon neutral based on:
The energy used at its headquarters
Employee travel
Maybe some warehouse lighting
That’s it. Meanwhile, the vast majority of emissions — from cotton farming, textile dyeing, production, transport, even landfill disposal — are often left out of the calculation entirely. But the label still says “carbon neutral,” and most people assume that means the product is somehow clean. Add to that the fact that many offsets being purchased are cheap and unverified, and the whole system starts to look a little shaky. Forests that were never at risk being “protected” for credit. Projects that would have happened anyway. Credits that get sold more than once.
To be clear — offsetting isn’t inherently bad. There are high-quality removal projects out there doing real work. But when the goal is to slap “carbon neutral” on a product as fast and cheaply as possible, the shortcut becomes the headline. And the deeper work — reducing emissions in the first place — often gets postponed or skipped. So while the term “carbon neutral” might sound promising, it usually tells you how a company is balancing the books, not whether it’s actually doing anything differently.
What “Net Zero” Means — And Why It’s a Bigger Deal
Where carbon neutral is something a brand can claim today, net zero is something they have to work toward. It’s a long game. A structural change. And it’s way harder to fake.
Net zero means a company has committed to cutting its emissions down to almost nothing — and then removing whatever little is left over. The key word there is cutting. Offsets aren’t the starting point. They come in only at the very end, and only for the stuff that can’t realistically be eliminated yet — like emissions from certain raw materials, or from specific industrial processes that don’t have clean alternatives (yet).
The expectation with net zero isn’t just about balancing emissions on paper. It’s about transforming how a company operates — its supply chain, its materials, its energy use, its shipping, its packaging, all of it. That’s why serious net zero plans are built around targets and timelines. Most align with the 1.5°C climate goal and aim for something like 50% emissions reduction by 2030, and close to 90–95% by 2040 or 2050. That’s also why brands can’t just make up their own version of net zero.
There are actual standards now — from groups like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) — that define what’s expected. Those include:
Covering Scopes 1, 2, and 3 emissions (not just the easy ones)
Prioritizing real reductions, not quick offsets
Using only removal-based offsets for the tiny amount of emissions that remain
So when a brand says it’s “on a path to net zero,” what you want to see is proof of that path. Are they disclosing where their emissions come from? Are they publishing targets? Are they investing in materials innovation, supplier engagement, better logistics? Or are they just using the phrase because it sounds good? Because when net zero is done right, it’s not just climate branding — it’s a full rewrite of how the business runs.
Why the Difference Matters (And Where It Gets Messy)
If all you looked at was the marketing, you'd think carbon neutral and net zero were basically the same thing. A brand is trying, it cares about emissions, it's part of the solution — right? But this is where the nuance matters. Because the difference between these two terms isn’t just technical — it’s structural. One is about accounting, the other is about change. Carbon neutral is about balancing the books. Net zero is about reducing the need for the balance sheet in the first place. One can be achieved in a month. The other can take decades. One is often scoped narrowly, the other requires the entire value chain. And most importantly: one is often used to give the impression of the other. That’s where it gets messy. Because when a brand says it’s “carbon neutral,” people often hear: they’ve solved it. They imagine a clean product, low impact, no footprint. But in most cases, that claim has nothing to do with the emissions from the materials used, or the manufacturing process, or even how that product was shipped and disposed of. It’s often just an offset for a fraction of the impact. And when brands use “net zero” without backing it up with targets, scope, or reduction strategies, it ends up being just another line in the press release. This matters because consumers are being told a story — one that blurs ambition and action. And when the language gets soft, the accountability disappears with it. There’s also a regulatory risk. A lot of these vague claims are starting to face legal scrutiny in places like the EU and UK. Greenwashing isn’t just bad optics anymore — it’s becoming a liability.
So if we want to move toward actual progress — in fashion, in business, in climate work overall — the words we use can’t just sound good. They have to mean something. And that starts by not pretending that these two things — carbon neutral and net zero — are interchangeable.
What to Look For — And Why It’s Worth Getting Right
The goal here isn’t to become an expert in carbon accounting. It’s just to know what you’re looking at — and to be able to tell when something’s real versus when it’s just been worded well.
If a brand says it’s carbon neutral, ask:
Neutral based on what?
Did they include their supply chain?
Or just office lighting and delivery trucks?
Are they actually reducing emissions — or just offsetting them?
If a brand says it’s net zero, ask:
Do they have a timeline?
Are they publishing real reduction targets?
Are they using offsets the right way — after reductions, not instead of them?
These aren’t gotcha questions. You’re not trying to catch anyone slipping. You’re just asking for the clarity that should have been there in the first place. Because getting this stuff right isn’t about perfection. It’s about honesty. We don’t need brands to solve the climate crisis overnight. We need them to stop hiding behind the language, and start showing us the work. And for everyone else — whether you're a designer, a founder, or someone just trying to shop better — knowing the difference between carbon neutral and net zero isn’t just helpful. It’s part of building a better baseline for how we talk about sustainability at all.
This is one of those terms that shows up everywhere. So it’s worth knowing what it actually means — and where the real weight lies.