We’re rowing back on net zero and here’s why

We’re not rowing back from our commitment to running a sustainable business, of course.

But we’re increasingly questioning whether terms like net zero help or hinder the cause.

What prompted this was a panel discussion at Blue Earth earlier this month which went as far as to ask whether “net zero” had become toxic. That’s kind of ironic I suppose.

It’s prompted me to revisit that constant challenge facing small businesses: how do we simplify the language and messages we use?

Are we encouraging a broad range of business leaders to think about sustainability or are we just preaching to the choir?

What is net zero?

The fact that this still needs an explanation tells an important story.

It was June 2019 when the UK government adopted its net zero target. Or should we say “our” net zero target?

What does that mean? This target committed the country to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.

The “net” part of this recognises that in some circumstances it’s not possible to avoid generating carbon emissions. If that’s the case then you reach zero by investing in carbon removal projects.

The same principle applies to businesses. If you want to run “net zero” then you should reduce your emissions as far as possible before balancing the remainder through carbon removal.

Why does net zero get bad press?

Ask most UK citizens whether they were consulted on net zero and they’ll say no. And here’s the first problem: the public is right. When the government introduced the legally binding net-zero target in 2019, there had been no formal public consultation.

The second problem is the one we mention above: Seven years on and net zero still needs an explanation. To most people it feels abstract, technical and definitely not top of their priority list.

To paraphrase a famous rapper: most households have 99 problems and net zero isn’t one of them.

Third, and this is a fundamental flaw: at the time of enshrining net zero into law the UK government didn’t have a comprehensive delivery plan to make it happen.

That’s why policies on electric cars and installation of heat pumps in new homes have flip-flopped from one year to the next.

This whole approach has left people confused, alienated and unconvinced.

Is it right to aim for net zero?

Here’s the conundrum. Of course it is.

People might not grasp the meaning of net zero, but they can see the effects of climate change on their homes and gardens with every passing season.

What’s even more obvious is the impact that reliance on fossil fuels is having on prices of everything from utilities through to food.

Ask Martin Lewis whether managing your carbon emissions directly affects your household finances and the answer is clear.

There’s a critical point in all of this though: people don’t like being told to follow net zero rules, especially when the case hasn’t been properly made. They need the right motivation.

What’s gone wrong with net zero communication?

There’s a whole industry of communication professionals who have more expertise in this than us. But put very simply, too much communication around sustainability hasn’t motivated people.

It’s been technical, preachy and negative.

The principle of net zero is a good one, but we have to take people with us if we’re going to make progress.

Take the example of electric vehicles. Over its lifetime a Tesla will generate fewer emissions than a petrol car of similar size. That’s good for the environment. Specifically, it generates fewer exhaust emissions, contributing to cleaner air on our high streets.

Prices have nudged downwards in recent years but for many years you couldn’t buy a Tesla for much less than £50,000. That’s out of the reach of most people.

It’s not hard to see why making it mandatory to drive an EV might be unpopular.
We’ve been reducing our emissions since 2019. It all started with a relatively simple evaluation of our emissions. What doesn’t get measured won’t get changed.
The approach we then took was exactly what we described above: reduce core emissions where possible and then offset the remainder. In practice that meant:

Why Sales Untangled is still committed to reducing emissions

We’ve been reducing our emissions since 2019. It all started with a relatively simple evaluation of our emissions. What doesn’t get measured won’t get changed.

The approach we then took was exactly what we described above: reduce core emissions where possible and then offset the remainder. In practice that meant:

– One of our founders switching to an EV

– Changing the electric supply to our home office to a green tariff

– Purchasing offsets annually through Gold Standard

This action plan has reduced our core emissions by over 60% since 2019. We’re fully committed to that approach because actually it hasn’t cost us more and it’s important to our B Corp certification.

So for us it’s a choice. Nobody is mandating it.

But increasingly we’re asking what this message really means to people.

Taking that a step further, it’s another B Corp requirement that we publish an Impact Report each year. You expect those in the climate industry to know what an Impact Report is, but how many casual readers really know the answer?

We too might have fallen into the trap of making sustainability communication too complicated.

Is it right to row back on net zero?

We’ve uncovered something really interesting while researching this article.

Back in 2021 we claimed to be running net zero, having reduced core emissions and bought offsets for the remainder.

But in 2026 this approach wouldn’t stand scrutiny. It’s not enough to purchase offsets to achieve net zero. After you’ve cut core emissions you need to fund projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere. That’s more scientifically robust and a much more demanding standard.

So in fact we’ve reached two conclusions:

Firstly, we welcome increased scientific understanding and measurement of what it takes to truly make our economy self-sustaining. We’ll continue to play our part.

Secondly, when it comes to terminology the answer isn’t to abandon terms like net zero or Impact Report. They serve a purpose, especially for those who need to measure progress and hold businesses accountable.

But if we’re serious about making business more sustainable, we need to engage people who don’t spend their days thinking about carbon emissions.

That means talking less about technical targets and more about practical actions, benefits and the difference they make.

We’ll continue to measure our emissions, reduce them wherever possible and take responsibility for what remains.

But we’re going to think harder about how we communicate what we’re doing.

Because sustainability shouldn’t be a conversation reserved for people who already understand it.