Theoretically, carbon neutrality means that all emissions of carbon dioxide - carbon dioxide or its analogues, which are emitted into the atmosphere by a particular company during the production process - the company compensates through the implementation of carbon-negative projects. Ideally, the company, which takes a course on carbon neutrality, should work in two directions, and compensation of carbon dioxide emissions through third-party projects should be in second place: the priority is to reduce the emissions themselves in the production of the product and transportation.

However, many companies refuse to switch to this regime and give various reasons for doing so. 

Increased attention to ESG issues is a way for many developing companies to retain quality foreign investors and partners from major Western companies. Failure to do so would dramatically increase the risk of turning the country into a field for short-term investors with very high return expectations who do not pay much attention to ESG, and "companies will end up in an investment ghetto."

For countries lagging in this movement, pressure from other governments, regulatory developments, and even independent decisions by individual companies will have a motivating effect that they will have to adjust to. For example, if an American automobile company declares a decrease of CO2 emissions, it will start active production of cars in lighter version and with steel which is produced with low CO2 emissions, natural gas or nuclear energy instead of coal is used for its production. This means that the producers of steel for these cars, which may be in India or some other Asian country, will have to accept these conditions and change their production standards.

The climate shift on our planet will continue: fires and floods will become more frequent, and sea levels will rise even higher. Therefore, for business, global environmental problems will no longer be a question of price. They will become a matter of competition and marketplace.