Behind the Net-Zero Rhetoric: How Agri-Food Companies Legitimize Climate Inaction

A study of agri-food leaders finds that while carbon neutrality is widely supported in principle, many companies, especially SMEs avoid concrete commitments due to cost, measurement challenges, and distrust of carbon offsets. As a result, carbon neutrality often functions more as a symbolic ideal than a practical driver of real emissions reductions.

Carbon neutrality has become the gold standard of corporate climate ambition. Governments promote it, global brands advertise it, and international standards define it. Yet new research from Laval University’s Faculty of Business Administration, Laval University’s Faculty of Nursing, and Quebec’s École nationale d’administration publique (ENAP) shows that behind the confident language lies deep skepticism, especially in the agri-food sector. Based on interviews with 34 agri-food leaders in Quebec, the study reveals why many companies support carbon neutrality in theory but hesitate to commit in practice.

A Sector on the Front Line of Climate Change

The agri-food industry is both highly exposed to climate change and a major contributor to it, responsible for roughly 21–37 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Droughts, floods, heat waves, and supply-chain disruptions already affect producers and processors. Unsurprisingly, most leaders interviewed recognize climate change as a serious threat and agree that businesses have a responsibility to act. Carbon neutrality, as a broad idea, is rarely rejected outright.

But the agreement ends when the conversation turns to concrete action. Few organizations have clear emissions-reduction targets, timelines, or monitoring systems. Carbon neutrality is often framed as a long-term aspiration, something for governments, entire industries, or future generations to figure out, not a near-term obligation for individual firms.

Why Commitment Stops at the Door

The most common explanation for this hesitation is cost. Many leaders, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), describe carbon neutrality as financially unrealistic. Measuring emissions, redesigning production processes, and purchasing carbon offsets require money, time, and expertise that many firms say they simply do not have. Rising food prices, thin margins, and international competition make climate investments feel risky rather than strategic.

Capacity is another barrier. Executives often say they lack the technical knowledge or staff needed to calculate emissions accurately. Responsibility is also pushed along the supply chain, toward farmers, transporters, packaging suppliers, or consumers. In this framing, carbon neutrality is not rejected as a bad idea, it is portrayed as impossible under current conditions.

“We’re Acting, Just Not Calling It Carbon Neutral”

Many leaders defend their position by pointing to smaller, everyday actions they believe are more meaningful than headline targets. They talk about buying local ingredients, improving energy efficiency, reducing waste, or switching to electric vehicles. Carbon neutrality, they argue, oversimplifies climate action and creates a false sense of control.

Some also worry about greenwashing. Highly publicized net-zero claims by large corporations are viewed with suspicion, especially when they rely heavily on carbon offsets. Several interviewees argue that focusing on internal improvements, even if they are not formally measured, is more honest than making bold promises that may not hold up under scrutiny.

However, the study notes a gap between intention and impact. Many of the “good practices” cited are vague, hard to quantify, or disconnected from actual emissions reductions. In some cases, responsibility shifts from the organization to personal behavior, such as how managers travel or shop, blurring the line between corporate and individual action.

Doubts About Offsets and Measurements

Skepticism toward carbon neutrality deepens when it comes to measurement and offsetting. Leaders frequently question the credibility of carbon credits, especially tree-planting projects, which they see as difficult to verify and slow to deliver real climate benefits. High-profile scandals in voluntary carbon markets have reinforced the belief that offsets allow companies to appear climate-friendly without changing how they operate.

Measuring emissions is also seen as complex and uncertain, particularly indirect emissions embedded in supply chains. Many leaders worry that carbon neutrality claims are based on incomplete data and changing standards, exposing firms to criticism or legal risk. In response, some prefer silence to commitment, choosing to act quietly rather than communicate publicly.

What This Means for Climate Action

The study concludes that carbon neutrality has become a powerful but fragile promise. Its simplicity makes it attractive, but that same simplicity hides deep uncertainties about measurement, accountability, and real-world impact. For many agri-food businesses, especially SMEs, carbon neutrality feels less like a practical roadmap and more like a distant ideal shaped by politics and corporate marketing.

Without clearer standards, credible verification, and stronger support for smaller firms, carbon neutrality risks legitimizing delay rather than driving change. The research suggests that if climate commitments are to move beyond slogans, they must be grounded in realistic pathways, transparent measurement, and shared responsibility across entire food systems, not just bold promises aimed at 2050.