The carbon offsetting industry has a language problem. The kind where two of the most important terms in the field — "carbon negative" and "climate positive" — mean exactly the same thing, but sound like they should be opposites.
This has been going on for years now, and nobody has fixed it. Probably nobody will. So here's a guide for anyone trying to make sense of it — and, more usefully, for anyone trying to make a credible environmental claim without accidentally wandering into greenwashing territory.
Three terms, one concept
Let's get this out of the way.
"Carbon negative" means a business removes more CO₂ from the atmosphere than it produces. "Climate positive" also means a business removes more CO₂ from the atmosphere than it produces. "Climate negative" — you can see where this is going — means the same thing again.
The differences are purely aesthetic. Some people prefer "negative" because it implies less carbon. Others prefer "positive" because it sounds, well, positive. A few organisations have tried to standardise the language. It hasn't worked.
To add a final layer of confusion, "carbon positive" is occasionally used to describe a business that simply has a carbon footprint — that is, every business on earth. The word "positive" here means "more than zero emissions," which is the precise opposite of what most people assume when they hear it.
The practical version: your business emits 10 tonnes of CO₂ a year. You offset 20. You've gone beyond neutral. What you call it is a matter of taste and, increasingly, of legal caution. More on that shortly.
Why bother going beyond 100%?
The mechanics are uncomplicated. Instead of matching your emissions tonne-for-tonne with offset credits, you buy more — 150%, 200%, whatever multiple feels right. Microsoft has been carbon neutral since 2012 and is targeting carbon negative by 2030. They're doing it through a combination of aggressive internal reductions and enormous investments in carbon removal technology.
Most businesses reading this are not Microsoft. But the principle scales down perfectly well. An SME offsetting 15 tonnes a year can offset 30 instead. The cost roughly doubles. The signal it sends — to customers, to procurement teams, to anyone evaluating your sustainability credentials — is disproportionately stronger.
A few reasons this is gaining traction among UK businesses specifically.
Procurement is getting pickier. PPN 06/21 already demands a Carbon Reduction Plan for government contracts above £5 million. Demonstrating that you offset beyond the minimum is one of the few ways to genuinely differentiate in a competitive tender, rather than just ticking the same box as everyone else.
The uncertainty hedge. Carbon footprint calculations are full of estimates. Transport emissions get rounded. Supply chain data has gaps. Scope 3 is, for most businesses, an educated guess. Offsetting at 200% means your "fully offset" claim still holds up if the real number turns out to be higher than calculated. It's not a perfect solution. It is a pragmatic one.
It's a surprisingly effective signal. Consumers have heard "carbon neutral" enough times that it's starting to blur into background noise. "We offset twice our footprint" is concrete, specific, and unusual enough to actually register.
The words matter more than you think
Here's where the conversation shifts from carbon accounting to regulatory risk.
The Competition and Markets Authority's Green Claims Code — six principles, not especially long, worth reading — requires that environmental claims are truthful, clear, and substantiated. The EU went further in 2024, effectively banning the term "carbon neutral" on products unless backed by specific, verified evidence. The UK hasn't matched that yet. The direction, though, is fairly obvious.
The problem with "climate negative" as a claim is that it's a status. Statuses invite questions. What methodology? What scope? What verification? Who checked? A regulator looking at "We are a climate negative business" on someone's homepage has a lot of threads to pull.
Compare that with: "We offset 200% of our calculated Scope 1 and 2 CO₂ emissions through VCS-verified projects."
One is a badge. The other is a statement of fact. Under the Green Claims Code, facts are considerably safer ground.
This is the reasoning behind CarbonCert's own shift away from "carbon neutral" on certification marks. Our marks now read "CO₂ Offset" — which describes an action, not a state of being. It's less exciting. It's also accurate, defensible, and unlikely to attract a letter from the CMA.
The process, without the padding
Going beyond 100% offset isn't a separate process. It's the same process, turned up.
Measure. Calculate your CO₂ emissions across Scope 1 (direct — fuel, gas), Scope 2 (electricity), and where possible Scope 3 (supply chain, commuting, business travel). An unsubstantiated offset claim is worse than no claim at all. The measurement is the foundation.
Reduce first. This part is non-negotiable if you want credibility. Offsetting without reducing is exactly what regulators mean by greenwashing. Switch to a renewable electricity tariff. Cut unnecessary travel. Improve heating efficiency. The boring stuff. Then offset what's left.
Offset at a higher multiple. The additional credits go into the same pool — verified tree planting, renewable energy, peatland restoration, whatever your chosen projects are. You're simply funding more of it. A 15-tonne footprint offset at 200% means 30 tonnes of credits purchased.
Show your working. Publish the footprint figure, the reduction plan, the offset purchases, and the verification standard. Link to the project registries. The businesses that get into trouble with green claims are almost always the ones who kept things vague. Specificity is free, and it's the single best defence against greenwashing accusations.
What this looks like in practice
CarbonCert runs carbon auditing, offsetting, and verification for UK businesses — sole traders through to large organisations.
Business plans start at £4.99 per employee per month. That covers a carbon audit, verified credits, tree planting, and a public verification page at carboncert.com/verify where anyone — a customer, a procurement officer, a journalist — can confirm exactly what you've offset.
For businesses that want to go beyond the standard 100%, it works the way you'd expect: if the audit puts your footprint at 20 tonnes and you want 200% offset, the credit allocation doubles to 40 tonnes. The dashboard, verification page, and embeddable trust badge all reflect the real total. No asterisks.
Every credit is verified under internationally recognised standards. Every business gets a public verification page. And our downloadable CO₂ Offset certification marks are designed to sit on packaging, proposals, and tenders alongside credentials like B Corp and FSC — the kind of places where a claim needs to be defensible, not just decorative.
The short version
"Climate negative" describes something real and worthwhile. The term itself, though, is a mess — inconsistent across the industry, confusing to consumers, and increasingly risky under the Green Claims Code.
The more useful framing: offset more than you emit, reduce what you can, and describe what you've done in plain factual language. "200% CO₂ offset, verified by CarbonCert" communicates everything that "climate negative" tries to — without the ambiguity or the regulatory exposure.
If you're already offsetting and considering scaling up, or starting from scratch and wondering where the line between credible and performative actually sits, the footprint calculator on our site is free and takes about ten minutes. The maths, at least, is the easy part.