International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Business consequences of tax driving net zero ambitions

Sponsored by


KPMG experts consider what the consequences might be if tax is used as a lever to drive decarbonisation.

Tackling climate change is a key issue. This has become more pressing than ever with the fuel price increases and growing uncertainty caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

There are many questions to address:

  • How fast will changes be made?

  • To what extent will tax be used as a stick or a carrot?

  • What impact will taxes or regulation have on business? How will these interact with each other?

This article looks at some of the measures that governments might introduce – in particular, tax-related ones – and the potential impact on business.

Key insights

Carbon pricing

Carbon pricing (whether by a tax or an emissions trading system) is likely to be one of the key instruments used by many governments to address climate change.

Tax incentives

Governments will likely also use other instruments – including incentives, regulations, and targets – and different countries may rely, to very differing degrees, on each of these levers.


The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the energy crisis may initially slightly slow decarbonisation and alter the pathway to net zero but is creating an even greater sense of urgency and, in the medium to long term, is likely to accelerate progress.


A significant increase in a country’s carbon price will likely drive concerns about carbon leakage and increase calls for carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs).

Carbon club

CBAMs raise many issues of complexity, WTO compliance, and trade distortion. Hence the suggestion by some for a ‘carbon club’, which could take account of the differing policy options and pathways chosen by individual countries.

What leaders in the space are saying

Carrot versus sticks; tax versus regulation

Governments have many levers at their disposal to influence how businesses and citizens respond to climate change. Each lever brings its own implications and knock-on effects for behaviours, the economy, and society more broadly. More information can be found by downloading the report on which this article is based.

With direct subsidies, governments may be quite specific about what they incentivise, like installing solar panels or hydrogen boilers, but there’s also a lot of heavy lifting involved in terms of administration. Governments may adopt measures to provide for a behavioural shift as individuals and companies work out cheaper alternatives.
Tim Sarson, partner, KPMG in the UK

Putting a price on carbon

The ability of tax costs to drive behaviour is one reason why carbon pricing has been used as a key way to promote businesses’ transition to green energy alternatives. By putting an economic cost on the carbon emissions embedded in a product or service, businesses and consumers are incentivised to shift from fossil fuels (where, historically, the total cost of environmental externalities has not been borne) toward low-carbon alternatives. More information is available here.

Businesses should prepare for a multifaceted approach. It may look different across jurisdictions, as governments pull multiple levers. We expect that many will consider carbon pricing the most effective, whether through ETS [Emissions Trading System] programmes, carbon taxes, or both in combination. Still, other jurisdictions are going to favour an incentive model for driving the change needed.
Grant Wardell-Johnson, head of the Global Tax Policy Group, KPMG International

The circular economy

The clean energy transition is critical, but some jurisdictions might also take measures to support the move to a circular economy more broadly. In these jurisdictions, businesses may have to develop more circular business models based on repair, resale, and retaining value; processes that can be knowledge-intensive and take time, energy, and innovative thinking to develop. More information is available here.

In addition to introducing incentives, industry is, first and foremost, looking for a removal of barriers to facilitate the move from linear to circular business models.
Loek Helderman, head of KPMG IMPACT Tax and Legal, KPMG International

Read the full article on KPMG’s website

Click here to download the report on which this article is based

Follow this link to access KPMG Future of Tax content

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The General Court reverses its position taken four years ago, while the UN discusses tax policy in New York.
Discussion on amount B under the first part of the OECD's two-pronged approach to international tax reform is far from over, if the latest consultation is anything go by.
Pillar two might be top of mind for many multinational companies, but the huge variations between countries’ readiness means getting ahead of the game now, argues Russell Gammon, chief solutions officer at Tax Systems.
ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the looming battle between the UN and the OECD for dominance in global tax policy.
Company tax changes are central to the German government’s plan to revive the economy, but sources say they miss the mark. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The winners of the ITR Americas Tax Awards have been announced for 2023!
There is a ‘huge demand’ for tax services in the Middle East, says new Clyde & Co partner Rachel Fox in an interview with ITR.
The ECB warns the tax could leave banks with weaker capital levels, while the UAE publishes guidance on its new corporate tax regime.
Caroline Setliffe and Ben Shem-Tov of Eversheds Sutherland give an overview of the US transfer pricing penalty regime and UK diverted profits tax considerations for multinational companies.
The result follows what EY said was one of the most successful years in the firm’s history.