Product walkthrough, trial, POCs, enterprise offering, support and more. Speak with one of our specialists.
Climate changes
A striking fact from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that global emissions are still increasing and have not declined consistently, even as more companies announce climate commitments. The IPCC emphasizes that limiting global temperature rise requires rapid, deep, and sustained emission reductions.
Against this backdrop, the term carbon negative companies is often described as the most ambitious goal in corporate climate action. Yet in practice, companies that truly achieve this status remain rare. Why is that the case?
A fundamental question frequently raised is what carbon negative actually means.
Based on definitions widely discussed by climate research institutions such as the World Resources Institute (WRI), a carbon negative company removes more carbon from the atmosphere than the total emissions generated across its entire business activities, including its value chain.
This status goes beyond carbon neutral and net zero, as it delivers a net positive impact on the climate rather than simply balancing emissions.
An ongoing issue in global climate discussions is the limitation of net zero targets when they are not paired with carbon removal.
The IPCC highlights that stabilizing the climate requires not only reducing emissions, but also removing carbon that has already accumulated in the atmosphere. This is why carbon negative is often seen as the ideal target, as it directly contributes to climate recovery instead of merely slowing further damage.
A reasonable question follows. If the benefits are so clear, why are so few companies pursuing carbon negative status today?
The answer lies in a combination of structural, technical, and economic challenges that businesses continue to face.
A data driven reality is that many companies still lack a complete picture of their own emissions.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol remains the primary global standard for emissions accounting, but its implementation requires detailed and consistent operational data. Without accurate measurement, companies cannot confidently assess whether they are truly reducing or removing emissions.
A key finding from CDP shows that Scope 3 emissions can account for more than 70 percent of a company’s total emissions.
These emissions originate from suppliers, logistics, product use, and end of life treatment. This complexity makes comprehensive emissions control difficult, and reaching carbon negative status even more challenging.
Insights from climate transition reports consistently show that achieving negative emissions requires substantial upfront investment.
The World Bank notes that low carbon technologies and carbon removal solutions often involve high initial costs, while financial returns tend to materialize over the long term.
As a result, many companies prioritize efficiency improvements and emission reductions before investing in large scale carbon removal.
Another frequently overlooked issue is the limitation of nature based solutions.
Forest restoration, mangroves, and other natural ecosystems are effective carbon sinks, but their implementation depends on land availability, fire risk, land use change, and the permanence of carbon storage. These constraints make such solutions difficult to scale across all business sectors.
A critical question remains. How credible are corporate claims of being carbon negative?
Without transparent and verified reporting systems, such claims risk being perceived as greenwashing. CDP emphasizes that credible emissions data is the foundation of trust for investors, regulators, and the public.
An important clarification is that companies do not need to become carbon negative immediately.
A more realistic and credible approach is to follow a phased and measurable climate transition pathway.
The most critical first step is to measure emissions comprehensively across Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3. Without a reliable baseline, climate strategies lack a solid foundation.
Once emissions are identified, companies should focus on reducing them through energy efficiency, process optimization, and lower carbon supply chain choices.
This approach aligns with IPCC guidance, which places emissions reduction as the top priority before compensation.
The next step involves carbon removal and compensation through nature based solutions or technology, ensuring project quality, transparency, and long term sustainability.
This phased approach allows companies to build a strong foundation before committing to more ambitious climate targets.
If we agree that the journey toward carbon negative is a long term process, then accurate data and clear strategy are the essential starting points.
Jejakin supports companies in measuring emissions, developing reduction strategies, and managing carbon removal and compensation in a transparent and credible way. With a data driven approach, climate targets move beyond promises and become measurable, real world action. Contact us for more information.
Jejakin’s green programs combine high-tech monitoring, biodiversity restoration, and community-led initiatives to deliver powerful, sustainable change across ecosystems.
