Neutralization, offsetting, contribution: the glossary that keeps you out of greenwashing
These words have become regulatory ammunition. Understand the difference between reducing, offsetting, contributing and reaching net zero, before you communicate to the market and before CONAR or the European Commission join the conversation.
Why this matters now
The European Commission, ISO 14068-1 (published in November 2023), the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2 (2024) and Brazil's CONAR have all tightened the rules on climate communication. Using the wrong word on the packaging or in the annual report can turn into:
- An administrative case at CONAR in Brazil (with an order to withdraw the ad and publish a retraction).
- A penalty from the local regulator under the EU Green Claims Directive (from 2026).
- Non-conformity under IFRS S2 / ESRS E1 (affecting the annual report audit).
- Misalignment with SBTi V2, risking revocation of a validated target.
Here is the official glossary, with the regulatory risk attached to each term.
Reduce
Cutting absolute emissions inside your scope (1, 2 and 3). It is the only way to actually fight warming, because every offset ultimately depends on the global sum of emissions falling.
The SBTi and ISO 14068-1 hierarchy: reduction comes first, always. Offsetting without documented reduction is in the regulator's sights.
How to communicate it with low risk: "We cut absolute Scope 1+2 emissions by 28% between 2022 and 2025, verified by DNV (limited assurance)." A number, a scope, a period and a verifier. No ambiguity.
Offset
Paying for a carbon reduction or removal outside your scope, equivalent in volume to your emissions. A neutral term: it describes the action, it does not claim neutrality.
Offsetting is an accounting operation, not a claim. Saying "we offset 1,000 tonnes of CO₂e through REDD+ project Verra ID 1234" does not say the company became neutral; it says what was done, and stops there.
Neutralize (carbon neutral)
A public claim that total emissions have been brought to zero through internal reduction plus offsetting. To use it publicly in 2026 you need:
- A verified inventory (limited assurance at minimum).
- An active reduction plan, with absolute targets and deadlines.
- Offsetting with high-integrity credits (Verra, Gold Standard, ART/TREES, preferably CCP-Eligible).
- ISO 14068-1 or (legacy) PAS 2060 as the documented, audited reference.
- Public disclosure of volumes, scopes covered and methodologies.
High regulatory risk if done without a robust reduction plan. Several CONAR cases in 2024-2025 ruled against companies that used "carbon neutral" without that infrastructure.
Contribute (climate contribution)
The model backed by Gold Standard, WWF and the UN Global Compact: you fund climate projects without claiming neutrality. It holds up better legally, but loses the marketing appeal of "carbon neutral".
How to communicate it: "We invested BRL 2.5 million in high-integrity climate projects in 2025, funding reforestation in the Amazon (ARR ID 5678)." Factual, provable, with no absolute claim.
For many companies early in the climate journey, contribution is the correct term until the inventory and the reduction plan mature.
Net zero
A long-term claim (usually 2050) based on SBTi: a reduction of more than 90% of absolute emissions plus neutralization of the residual with removals (not avoidance). Offsetting through REDD+ does not count towards the net-zero residual under SBTi V2, only removals (ARR, DAC, biochar, BECCS).
Net zero is a journey target, not a claim about current status. A company saying "we are net zero" today, without having cut 90% of its emissions, is using the wrong term and is exposed.
Carbon negative / climate positive
You remove more carbon than you emit. It requires a robust inventory, an active reduction plan, and a portfolio dominated by removals (ARR, biochar, DAC). Hard, and audited for life. Microsoft is the best-known public case, and even there with regular caveats.
For 99% of Brazilian companies this term is premature. Do not use it unless you have consultants engaged to defend the claim.
Regulatory risk table
| Term | Can you use it publicly? | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| "We cut emissions by 30%" | Yes, with verified data | Low |
| "We offset 100% of emissions" | Yes, with quality credits and a public ID | Low-medium |
| "Carbon neutral" | Yes, with ISO 14068 plus a reduction plan plus verification | Medium-high |
| "Net zero by 2050" | Yes, with a validated SBTi target | Medium |
| "Climate positive" | Yes, with verified removals and a published portfolio | High |
| "Green" / "Sustainable" / "Eco" | No, not without specific evidence | High (Green Claims Directive) |
The practical rule
If you do not have a verified inventory and a reduction plan, say "we offset X tonnes" or "we fund climate projects". Avoid "neutral" and "net zero" without the infrastructure behind them. And never use adjectives on their own: "green" and "sustainable" with no quantitative data are, today, an administrative offence in the making.
How Mangue helps
We deliver the whole package in one journey: an auditable GHG inventory (Scopes 1, 2 and 3), a reduction plan with SBTi pathway modelling, REDD+ offsetting from Carbonext, and ISO 14068-1 documentation ready for independent verification.
All defensible, all traceable, all ready for the regulator.
- Without an inventory verified by a third party (limited assurance at minimum), you cannot use any absolute term: not "neutral", not "net zero", not "positive".
- An active reduction plan is a prerequisite for any neutrality claim; without it, it is pure offsetting, not neutrality.
- Under SBTi V2: net zero requires an absolute reduction of at least 90% and neutralization of the residual with removals only, not avoidance such as REDD+.
- ISO 14068-1 and PAS 2060 are the auditable references for "carbon neutral"; pick one and document it.
- In public communication, prefer concrete numbers ("we cut emissions 28% in 24 months") over labels ("we are green").
Perguntas frequentes
Can I say my company is "carbon neutral" if I offset 100% of emissions?+
Technically yes, under ISO 14068-1, but with several conditions: a verified GHG inventory, an active reduction plan, high-integrity credits, and public disclosure of the volumes and methodologies. Without those, the term is misuse and attracts regulatory risk.
What is "climate contribution" and why is it becoming the standard?+
It is the model backed by Gold Standard, WWF and the UN Global Compact: you fund climate projects without claiming neutrality. It holds up better legally because it makes no absolute claim. It loses marketing appeal and gains regulatory resilience.
Is net zero the same as carbon neutral?+
No. Net zero is a long-term target (usually 2050) with an absolute reduction of at least 90% before neutralizing the residual. Carbon neutral is generally an annual claim based on offsetting emissions that already exist. Net zero demands far more internal effort.
Can I use REDD+ to claim net zero?+
Not for the net-zero residual under SBTi V2 (2024). REDD+ is avoidance; the net-zero residual requires removals (ARR, biochar, DAC). You can use REDD+ in BVCM (Beyond Value Chain Mitigation) or for a carbon neutral claim under ISO 14068.
What changes with the EU Green Claims Directive?+
In force from 2026, it requires any environmental claim ("green", "sustainable", "neutral", "eco") to carry published evidence reviewed by an accredited third party, with a transparent methodology. Generic terms with no specific data become an administrative offence across all 27 EU countries.
- Reduce
- Cutting absolute emissions inside your own inventory (Scopes 1, 2 and 3). The only way to actually fight warming.
- Offset
- Paying for a reduction or removal outside your own scope, equivalent in volume to your own emissions. A neutral term that describes the action.
- Neutralize (carbon neutral)
- A public claim that total emissions have been brought to zero through internal reduction plus offsetting. Requires ISO 14068-1 or PAS 2060.
- Contribute (climate contribution)
- Funding climate projects without claiming neutrality. Backed by Gold Standard and WWF as a legally safer alternative.
- Net zero
- A long-term target (typically 2050). Absolute reduction of at least 90% plus neutralization of the residual with verified removals.
- Carbon negative / climate positive
- Removing more carbon than you emit. Requires an inventory, a reduction plan, and a portfolio dominated by removals. Hard, and audited for life.
- BVCM
- Beyond Value Chain Mitigation. Climate investment beyond the company's own emissions, with no neutralization claim. The SBTi V2 standard.
- ISO 14068-1
- The international standard (2023) that replaces PAS 2060. It sets the requirements for a verifiable "carbon neutral" claim.
- Corporate Net-Zero Standard · Science Based Targets initiative
- Core Carbon Principles · ICVCM
- GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard · GHG Protocol
Frameworks mencionados neste artigo
IFRS S1 & S2 Roadmap
The 12 decisions your CFO has to make before 2027. Free.
