Naturally both companies are aspiring to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they cause. These are also very admirable and worthy commitments, even more so given the size and influence of both companies.
What this does mean? It exposes that there is a lack of understanding and definition in this area. It is new ground.
Whilst carbon neutral has been around for a while and is well defined, the concept of being carbon negative / positive is not.
Who is correct?
Carbon negative Microsoft or carbon positive Unilever.
We can’t really say who is correct, they both are trying to say the same thing. Whilst they are clearly not on the same page, they are both working towards similar objectives.
All we can say, is that the choice of their terms, carbon negative and carbon positive are giving out contrasting messages. These could quickly become confusing to consumers and businesses.
We can only imagine what an organisation that supplies both companies thinks of this. One minute expecting to be carbon negative, the next carbon positive.
Their respective marketing and sustainability teams should really have a chat.
The sentiments of the carbon negative commitment are profoundly significant and Microsoft should be praised for that. However, when it comes to terminology and messaging, I personally can’t understand why carbon negative would be chosen as a term over carbon positive. Unilever made their carbon positive commitment in 2015.
Given the subliminal feelings around the word negative, it feels as if the word carbon positive would have far more traction and that is my preferred choice of term. But those are just my thoughts.
What do you think? It would be great to hear your thoughts on carbon negative or carbon positive, using the share buttons below…