Page 18 - Katten Kattwalk and Kattison Avenue - Winter 2026 - Issue 5
P. 18
Net Zero Claims Under the Gun
By Christopher Cole
hat a difference a few years can Factor 2: Litigation risk
make. Three years ago, American As technologies that can ensure most manufacturing
corporations were eager to claim that processes emit zero carbon do not yet exist,
Wthey would achieve “net zero” carbon aspirational net zero goals are usually premised on
emissions or would be “carbon-neutral” by a certain a combination of reducing Scope 1, Scope 2 and
date — typically 2050. At the time, it was believed (sometimes) Scope 3 emissions, and then applying
that such claims were helpful for marketing.
carbon offsets to cover the “last mile” in order to
Today, such claims are disappearing from the market reach net zero commitments. Katten has previously
due to ongoing questions and a worldwide backlash written about burgeoning concerns regarding the
against all matters stemming from environmental, validity of carbon offsets, but even assuming they are
social and governance (ESG) questions about offsets, totally viable, what message does a claim of “net zero
as well as litigation. by 2050” likely convey to consumers today?
Factor 1: Consumers have pivoted from prevention Scope 1 emissions are those directly emitted from
to mitigation company operations, such as through a smokestack.
Scope 2 emissions are those coming indirectly, such
Many consumers seem to accept that cutting carbon as through purchase energy. For example, a coal-
dioxide emissions will no longer limit global warming
to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is the temperature fired power plant will emit pollutants to the extent its
energy is used to power company operations. Scope 3
target set forth in the Paris Climate Agreement.
Slowing global warming is still perceived by many as a emissions are those indirectly coming from everything
else, such as employee commuting, purchased goods,
good idea, but remaining ESG investors have pivoted
to technological moonshots, such as a carbon capture and product use and disposal. The latter emissions
are much harder to quantify, but tend to grow as a
and even shooting atmospheric particles into the
sky to dim the sun. Communities seem resigned to business grows.
adaptation, rather than mitigation. Moreover, some Stated differently, what would a consumer seeing
of the computer-based technologies that consumers or hearing the statement of “net zero by 2050”
previously perceived as “saving” the environment assume that the advertiser had already done or is
have turned out to consume vast amounts of energy. in the process of doing? The advertiser is informing
Legitimate carbon offsets will remain useful tools, consumers about its aspirations because it believes
but apart from voluntary commitments, there is no that doing so will provide a marketing boost. The
federal law requiring carbon emissions reduction in litmus test of compliance will ultimately be assessed
the United States. Therefore, the voluntary carbon on the due date in 2050, but can the advertiser
market still exists, but is less robust than it was get a free pass and do nothing until 2049? How
predicted to be. much progress towards the net-zero goal might a
18 katten.com/intellectualproperty
