Put 10 CEOs in a room and ask them to define net zero.
You’ll get 10 different answers.
Some will talk about carbon neutrality. Some will mean offsetting everything. Some will describe a 2050 target with no plan behind it. A few will conflate it with renewable energy. One or two genuinely won’t know but won’t say so.
This isn’t a criticism. It’s a consequence of a term that has been used so loosely, for so long, by so many people with so many different agendas, that it has lost any shared or real meaning in the boardroom.
The problem is that net zero commitments are now being scrutinised — by regulators, investors, customers and increasingly by lawyers. Vagueness that was tolerable in 2021 is now a liability.
If your organisation has made a net zero commitment, the most important question your board should be asking right now is a simple one: do we all mean the same thing?