Toute l'actualitéThe voluntary contribution system, commonly referred to as "carbon offsetting", serves as a crucial tool in achieving global carbon neutrality by 2050. However, this mechanism, utilized by many companies, has been strongly challenged in recent years. Too often associated with greenwashing, it tends to lose credibility in the public eye. There are several reasons behind this unpopularity, primarily the prioritization of carbon contribution over continuous and significant emissions reduction efforts, but also, and not least, the extensive communication campaigns surrounding the topic. By over-communicating, using inappropriate terms and expressions, and forgetting the essential components of responsible communication, companies are exposing themselves to greenwashing, a phenomenon that can have negative effects on their image.
In this regards, Katia Prassoloff, CSR & Customer Communication Manager at Reforest'Action, offers her expertise in five questions. She provides insights for companies seeking to effectively showcase their carbon approach, particularly when it is grounded on solid foundations.
Carbon contribution: 5 questions to
The spotlight on communication regarding climate actions is particularly intense. What are the pitfalls to be aware of before sharing a company's carbon initiative with its stakeholders?
“More and more companies are openly communicating their commitment to the climate, yet inadvertently falling into the trap of greenwashing. The firepower of companies in the fight against climate change is essential, a viewpoint upheld at Reforest'Action, but we mustn't underestimate their social responsibility either, particularly through the messages they convey. The voluntary carbon contribution is intended for companies wishing to take action on a voluntary basis. Although it is not yet regulated, it is subject to best practices that should be respected by companies wishing to be identified as responsible players aware of the issues at stake.
For any organization keen on communicating its climate commitment with its stakeholders, my first piece of advice is to establish a robust knowledge base. Furthermore, the main pitfalls lie in the complexity of the subject: the issue of carbon contribution involves mechanisms that cannot be oversimplified. Understanding them will empower companies to adopt the right communication approach: before communicating on a carbon contribution action, it is necessary to explain the overall strategy it aligns with, specifying in particular the company's emissions reduction trajectory, the scope of activity concerned and the associated carbon footprint measurement. The right understanding of climate processes will also help communicators use the right terms to promote their action: don't talk about reducing the company's emissions when this is actually about a carbon contribution, don't imply that buying carbon credits will erase the company's emissions, etc.”
Given the complexity of the subject, using the right semantics seems essential. Why is the term " offsetting " so decried?
“At Reforest'Action, we avoid using the expression "carbon offsetting" as much as possible. In recent years, the term has suffered from an increasingly tarnished reputation, due to its excessive and/or inappropriate use. But in addition to being misused, the word "offset" is by definition confusing. It suggests that companies can immediately neutralize their negative impact by purchasing carbon credits. The fact that they can "offset the emissions linked to their activities" encourages certain companies to evade their responsibility and bypass essential reduction efforts. Like all greenwashing practices (in this case, it's also called "carbonwashing"), this unrealistic vision of climate issues slows down the process of raising consciousness and hinders the change of trajectory that is absolutely necessary if we are to achieve global carbon neutrality.
We therefore encourage companies to move from an "offseting" mindset to a "contribution" mindset. Primarily, the concept of making a contribution to the climate is more collective. At Reforest'Action we firmly believe in the collective power to address environmental challenges. But it's also much more precise: financing a certified project doesn't make a company's emissions disappear, but allows it to contribute to increasing carbon sinks, for example. The notion of "contribution" is also more accurate, because when a company buys carbon credits, it effectively allocates its financing to a project that serves the climate’s benefit. Lastly, the term "carbon contribution" highlights the value of positive actions for the climate, whereas "carbon offsetting" suggests an attempt to counterbalance negative actions.
This approach is promoted by many other recognized players in the sector, such as Carbone 4, the ADEME (the French Ecological Transition Agency) and the Net Zero Initiative. At Reforest'Action, we advise our contributors wishing to communicate on their contribution initiative to be extremely vigilant, as the use of the wrong semantics can undermine the legitimacy of their action with us. As an example, here's how we'd suggest they describe their action: "We're doing our part for the climate by reducing our own carbon footprint, and by financing projects designed to preserve forest carbon sinks with Reforest'Action".”
Greenwashing accusations are often aimed at those claiming to be "carbon neutral". But isn't it a scientifically recognized terminology?
“Some companies that opt for voluntary carbon contribution do indeed aim to become "carbon neutral", but this expression is the source of many misunderstandings. In fact, everything is a question of scale, but to grasp it fully, we must revisit some fundamentals. The only scientifically defined carbon neutrality involves achieving a balance between CO2 emissions caused by human activities (fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc.) and their absorption by carbon sinks, including forests. Restoring this balance requires simultaneous action on both sides of the scale by massively reducing anthropogenic emissions while dramatically increasing carbon sequestration. Yet this mechanism is only scientifically valid at the global level, based on the idea of a collective contribution to a global objective. We always come back to the notion of "contributing".
A company (or its product/service) therefore cannot claim to be "carbon neutral" on its own scale, and even less so by buying carbon credits to match its emissions without making any real efforts to reduce them. However, any company can "contribute to global carbon neutrality" by opting for a virtuous approach inside and outside its value chain. This involves simultaneously activating the following key levers:
A) Significantly reducing its direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and, if and where possible, increase carbon sequestration, for example through agroforestry projects within its value chain.
B) Contributing to emission reduction or emission avoidance projects, as well as to projects enabling the development of carbon sinks, outside its value chain. This approach is also approved by the ADEME.
I receive a lot of communication material from our contributors, and neutrality claims are still a very common mistake. While the alternative messages I propose may be less impactful from a marketing perspective, they are far more accurate. We strongly believe that delivering the right messages is a crucial part of the solution.”
Some companies use other wordings, such as "Net Zero". Is this also a no-go?
“There are many ways of talking about carbon neutrality. For Reforest'Action, the only relevant concept on a corporate scale is that defined by the SBTi (Science-based Targets Initiative), an initiative created in 2015 by several recognized players, including the UN Global Compact, to encourage companies to set carbon footprint reduction targets aligned with the Paris Agreement. As part of its "Net-Zero Standard", the SBTi invites organizations to follow a sequenced trajectory in four stages, involving a reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions of 90-95% by 2050 at the latest. Only then, with simultaneous, permanent funding of carbon sequestration projects to cover their residual emissions (the remaining 5 to 10%), will they reach their "net zero" point and be able to claim it. This is an exception, as companies that adopt a neutrality approach validated by the SBTi adhere to a rigorously defined framework.
Reforest'Action supports this initiative by offering Nature-based solutions that enable companies to meet the SBTi requirements.”
Numerous initiatives, laws and regulations are beginning to frame communications around the carbon topic. Is there another element to take into consideration before communicating?
“Yes, even more reason to start communicating effectively on the subject. In France, legislation is starting to evolve. As part of the Climate and Resilience Law, a decree on carbon contribution and neutrality claims for advertising came into force in January 2023. This requires companies to meet certain obligations before they can claim their products or services are carbon-neutral, such as publishing a detailed assessment of their emissions, the avoidance and reduction trajectory implemented or envisaged, and the modalities of their contribution to certified projects. At European level, the directive against Green Claims, effective from 2026, insists on the notion of "detailed evidence" that will have to be attached to all environmental claims, including those on carbon neutrality, which will no longer be able to rely solely on contribution actions. Internationally, in addition to initiatives such as the SBTi and the VCMi (Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative), the ISO 14068 standard aims to define methodologies for corporate declarations of neutrality and should be published during the summer of 2024. As we can see, regulations are gradually emphasizing the scientific merits of the climate strategy adopted by companies, which must stop relying on flawed science to communicate. However, these frameworks take time to implement, and their ambitions are often lowered once they come into force. As explained earlier, at Reforest'Action we simply prefer to discourage our contributors from proclaiming themselves "carbon neutral". This is also the recommendation of the ADEME, which published a notice on the use of the carbon neutrality argument in communications, a document in which we participated. I believe this to be the next step, the upper level of responsible communication: stop thinking and acting on our own and promote a common approach that aims to achieve the overall objectives of the Paris Agreement.”