During the 2010s, one organization after another ceremoniously set carbon neutrality targets. Now many are walking those targets back. However, stepping away from these goals does not necessarily mean greenwashing or a loss of ambition; it may instead reflect adaptation to changes in the operating environment and legislation.
Recently, a growing number of organizations have been updating their climate targets and simultaneously considering how to communicate these changes. The City of Helsinki’s decision is a concrete example: the city updated its climate targets, and Helsingin Sanomat noted the move by reporting that the city abandoned its target “quietly.”
However, the substance of the decision appears more nuanced than the headline suggests. According to the city, the carbon neutrality target was abandoned because it relied on offsetting that cannot be implemented effectively or credibly. At the same time, other emissions reduction targets have actually been tightened.
As the carbon offset market has changed significantly in recent years, many other organizations will face a similar situation. When sustainability targets are updated, communications should therefore be planned carefully. Otherwise, consumers or other stakeholders may form misleading impressions about the changes.
Why are climate targets being updated now?
The updating of carbon neutrality targets is driven by changes in the regulation of climate-related claims and developments in the offset market. The phenomenon is not entirely new. Larger actors have already refined their targets earlier. For example, Ikea updated its carbon neutrality target already in 2024. Two major developments are driving this trend:
1. Regulation is tightening
The new Green Transition Consumer Protection Directive tightens the criteria for communicating environmental targets. In the future, a product or service cannot be described as carbon neutral if that neutrality is based on offsetting. In addition, environmental claims must be supported by a realistic implementation plan. In other words, organizations can no longer set a vague target year without explaining how they plan to get there.
2. High-quality offsetting is limited
Real and measurable carbon offsetting is available only in limited supply, and verifying its climate impact is challenging. As a result, many organizations are prioritizing emissions reductions within their own operations and value chains rather than relying on offsetting. This shift is also reflected in the growing popularity of initiatives such as Science Based Targets. This does not mean that offsetting cannot be done at all, but it should not be communicated as reducing the organization’s own carbon footprint.
Abandoning targets can represent ambitious sustainability work
As climate targets are now expected to be more concrete than before, the focus is shifting toward tangible emissions reductions. This forces organizations to make genuinely difficult decisions in order to reduce their climate impacts. Focusing on emissions reductions encourages organizations to seek practical actions within their own operations and value chains, rather than outsourcing responsibility through offsetting.
At the same time, communication becomes clearer, more transparent, and more credible. Carbon neutrality as a concept is vague and can easily mislead consumers. For instance, consumers may find it difficult to understand that such targets often cover only an organization’s own operations and not the entire value chain, where the largest impacts typically occur. The impression may arise that no negative environmental impacts are generated at all. Clear communication about what is actually being done to reduce emissions builds trust. Other stakeholders also increasingly demand evidence of real emissions reductions. Clarifying targets may therefore even signal increased ambition: organizations take responsibility for the impacts they can truly influence and measure.
How to communicate a refined target clearly
The Helsinki case illustrates what happens when change communication is not handled proactively. When the interpretation of changes is left to the media or the public, the reasons behind the decision may not be fully understood. This is a typical challenge in sustainability communication: a complex issue is condensed into headlines that fail to tell the whole story.
1. Be proactive
Communicate openly and honestly about updates to targets. Do not wait for someone else to explain them on your behalf.
2. Frame the change honestly
Explain why the targets are being refined, on what basis, and what this means for future sustainability work. Be transparent about the factors influencing the decision.
3. Clearly explain how the new targets will be achieved
For example, emissions reduction measures and their timelines are things stakeholders understand and value. Offsetting does not have to be abandoned entirely, but it should clearly be communicated as separate from reducing the organization’s own emissions.
4. Acknowledge the difficult points
Sustainability communication is not only about listing good news; it also requires openness about where challenges exist and how they will be addressed.
How, then, should organizations communicate that targets are being updated without creating the impression of “giving up”?
Finally: realism, not retreat
So is abandoning carbon neutrality targets always a good thing? Not necessarily. What matters is what replaces them. By setting ambitious, science-based emissions reduction and net-zero targets, a company can ensure the credibility of its climate work and build a sustainable business for the future.
Revising carbon neutrality targets is therefore not necessarily a step backward, but a shift toward sustainability that can withstand both legal scrutiny and public debate. When new targets are defined realistically, actions are made concrete, and communication is clear, an organization can lead its own sustainability narrative credibly rather than merely reacting to headlines.
Elina Palkama, Senior Sustainability Communications Specialist
Would you like to review your carbon neutrality targets? Our expertise is at your disposal—feel free to get in touch!