Microsoft’s ambition to become carbon negative by 2030 has long positioned it as a leader in corporate climate action. With plans to reduce emissions across all Scopes and scale permanent removals, the technology giant helped set the bar for what bold corporate climate strategy could look like. But the past year has brought that leadership into question – and raised broader doubts about the credibility of net zero pathways based heavily on carbon removal.
In March 2024, Microsoft was one of 239 organizations delisted from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a significant blow to its climate credentials. Despite reaffirming a net zero commitment, just two months later the firm reported a 29.1% rise in total emissions, with Scope 3 emissions from their supply chain and product use increasing up to 30.9%. The rise in emissions triggered a wave of reputational criticism, especially from those tracking whether firms’ emissions trajectories actually align with their stated targets.
Yet, Microsoft has since continued to prove its dedication to its climate commitments. April 2025 has seen the organization make a flurry of announcements – from record-breaking permanent carbon removal purchases, to reforestation projects on former mine land, to sustainable aviation fuel deals – all aimed at addressing Scope 3 emissions and restoring climate credibility.
But here lies the tension: can an organization continue increasing its emissions while leaning on increasingly large carbon removal purchases to offset the difference? Microsoft is effectively asking the market to accept that rising emissions and rising offsets can coexist – a proposition that remains unproven. Ultimately, the question is whether this strategy is a genuine acceleration of climate action to meet the firm’s ambitious targets, or a sophisticated attempt to paper over rising climate risk with high-dollar removals.
Microsoft’s example can offer corporate sustainability leaders two key lessons. Firstly, Scope 3 emissions – which often represent the majority of a firm’s footprint – remain a formidable challenge, and addressing them requires action across both upstream and downstream categories (see Verdantix research on Scope 3 categories 1-4, 11, 12 and 15). Secondly, organizations need to build net zero strategies that don’t just look credible on paper but reflect real-world emissions reductions.
The jury is still out on whether Microsoft’s approach meets that bar – or if instead it is stretching the limit on what it means to reach net zero.
