As the concept of "Net Zero" increasingly finds its way into green leases, development agreements and beyond, this article is a useful reminder as to the importance of the actual definition: Just what does it mean? Does it, for example, disregard carbon offsetting? On any given transaction, the definition requires careful thought to ensure it actually accords to expectations.  

That said, as I've touched on here, documents may say one thing, but surely the true test is what is happening on the ground? Parties may deliberate extensively over the "badge" of having "Net Zero" referred to in a document (particularly whether it includes the concept of offsetting or not), but as debated at the recent BPF Annual Conference, should the real focus be on reducing actual emissions, even if that doesn't necessarily achieve "Net Zero"?

To echo the sentiments referred to in my previous blog: if you want to improve performance, measure performance. Perhaps there should be less focus around the concept of "Net Zero" in legal documents and more focus on parties contractually committing to actual, measurable outputs?      

For further reading, I recommend this article from PlaceTech.