Ethics CasesSport

Cases · Formula 1 / FIA · 2019–2026

Racing to Net Zero: Formula 1's 2030 Carbon Pledge

In November 2019, Formula 1 announced a plan to be net zero carbon by 2030, and it later committed to cutting absolute emissions at least 50% from 2018. Its 2026 carbon update reported a 35% reduction including sustainable aviation fuel certificates, or about 21% without them. Its boundary covers F1, the teams, promoters and key suppliers, but not fans' travel, which F1 says it cannot control. In 2026 the FIA required 100% sustainable fuel in F1 cars, which F1 says account for under 1% of its footprint. Campaigners questioned F1's partnership with oil company Aramco. The case asks what makes a sport's climate pledge credible.

By Tanner Simkins, editor

Timeline

  1. Formula 1 announces its plan to be net zero carbon by 2030.
  2. F1's strategy director tells the BBC that fans' emissions, estimated at 1.9 million tonnes, will not be covered.
  3. Aramco becomes a Global Partner of Formula One.
  4. The first batches of 100% sustainable fuel go to power unit manufacturers for testing.
  5. F1 reports a 26% cut in its footprint to the end of 2024 against its 2018 baseline.
  6. A coalition of 10 rights and climate groups writes to F1 and the FIA about the Aramco partnership.
  7. The FIA mandates 100% advanced sustainable fuel in Formula 1.
  8. F1's carbon update reports a 35% reduction, including fuel certificates.

The ethical issues

  • Credibility of net zero claims and the use of offsets.
  • Choosing emissions boundaries that exclude the largest source.
  • Reliance on fuel certificates rather than physical reductions.
  • Fossil fuel sponsorship and greenwashing.
  • Growth in races and attendance versus absolute cuts.

Stakeholders

StakeholderInterests & obligations
Formula 1 and Liberty MediaGrowth and a credible sustainability story.
FIARules and technology leadership.
TeamsPerformance and costs of decarbonizing.
FansAttending races and enjoying the sport.
Sponsors such as AramcoBrand association.
Climate advocates and the publicReal emissions cuts and honest claims.

The case

In November 2019, Formula 1 announced “an ambitious sustainability plan to have a net-zero carbon footprint by 2030,” covering the cars, on-track activity and the rest of the sport’s operations.[1] The sport’s director of strategy told the BBC: “There is no point just throwing out a target and having it as a marketing gimmick. Ultimately you will be held accountable, and so you should.”[6] Seven years later, F1 says it is “firmly on track.”[2] Whether that is true depends on what is counted: which emissions sit inside the boundary, how fuel certificates are treated and what offsets will cover. The case asks what makes a sport’s climate pledge credible.

Background

F1 said its 2019 plan followed a year of work with the FIA, sustainability experts, teams, promoters and partners.[1] Autosport reported F1’s estimate of its footprint at 256,551 tonnes of CO2. Logistics made up 45%, business travel 27.7%, facilities and factories 19.3%, and event operations 7.3%. The cars’ hybrid power units accounted for just 0.7%.[5] The plan promised “ultra-efficient logistics and travel,” 100% renewable power for offices and factories, sustainable events by 2025, and carbon sequestration for what remained.[1][5]

The BBC pointed out a key limit. The target covered only F1 and its teams, about 256,000 tonnes a year. Fans’ travel, which pushed the total to about 1.9 million tonnes, was excluded. “We think it is just too difficult to control what our fans do,” the strategy director said.[6] A Cranfield University professor called the goal highly ambitious, but said “whether it is achievable is another question,” noting that the calendar was growing.[6]

What happened

F1 later defined its commitment as at least a 50% cut in absolute emissions against a 2018 baseline, with remaining emissions offset.[3] In 2025 it reported a 26% cut by the end of 2024, from 228,793 to 168,720 tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This came while the calendar grew from 21 to 24 races and attendance rose from 4 million to 6.5 million.[3] Factory emissions fell 59% through renewable energy, and travel fell 25% through remote broadcasting and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).[3] The 2026 carbon update reported 148,805 tonnes for 2025, a 35% cut. That figure includes SAF certificates (SAFc), which let a buyer claim the emissions benefit of sustainable fuel used elsewhere. Without them, the reported 2025 total was 181,019 tonnes, about 21% below 2018.[2] The 2018 baseline in these reports, 228,793 tonnes, differs from the 256,551 figure published in 2019. F1 says it recalculates base years under Greenhouse Gas Protocol guidance when changes exceed a 5% threshold.[2][5]

The rules and governance

F1 sets its own commitment and reports on it. Its boundary includes the F1 group, the teams, race promoters, logistics providers and key suppliers. F1 says data are calculated using a third-party platform and that it is a signatory of the UN Sports for Climate Action framework.[2] The FIA governs the technical rules. It mandated 100% sustainable fuel from “Advanced Sustainable Components” for the 2026 season, with third-party verification.[4]

Aftermath

In September 2025, a coalition of 10 rights and climate organizations wrote to F1’s chief executive and the FIA president about Aramco, a Global Partner of F1 since 2020. They warned that F1 “risks condoning Aramco’s alleged ‘greenwashing’,” citing UN human rights experts.[7] F1’s 2026 update said it would move more than half of its broadcast and related freight from air to sea or regional hubs.[2] With four seasons to go, F1 needs to cut roughly another 15 percentage points with certificates counted, and about 29 without them, to reach its 50% minimum.[2][3]

The core dilemma

Should a sport’s net zero pledge be judged by its own boundary and accounting, or by its total climate impact, including fans and sponsors?

Competing values

Honesty and transparency stand against positive messaging. Growth stands against absolute reduction. Technological leadership stands against addressing the biggest sources.

Strongest arguments

For F1’s approach: It has real, measured reductions during growth, along with renewable factories and remote broadcasting.[2][3] Fan travel is genuinely outside its direct control.[6] Its fuel work could benefit the more than 1 billion combustion engines on the road.[1][4]

For the critics: The boundary leaves out most of the footprint.[6] A significant part of the reported progress relies on certificates.[2] The Aramco partnership sends a contrary message.[7]

Applying the frameworks

Utilitarian

A consequentialist cares about total emissions and wider effects. Fuel technology transfer could matter more than F1’s own footprint, but only if it is adopted.[1][4]

Virtue

Virtue ethics asks whether F1 is honest about what it claims. Publishing figures with and without certificates is a sign of candor. Headline claims that use the larger figure are less so.[2]

Justice

Climate justice asks who bears the costs of emissions and who benefits from the spectacle. It questions sponsorship by a company the coalition describes as responsible for an estimated 4.38% of global CO2 emissions in 2023.[7]

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

  1. What are the facts? The 2019 pledge, the boundary, the reported cuts with and without certificates, the fuel mandate and the Aramco partnership.[1][2][3][4][7]
  2. Who are the stakeholders? F1, the FIA, teams, fans, sponsors and the public.
  3. What are the options? Keep the current boundary; widen it to fan travel; or limit certificate use and fossil fuel sponsorship.
  4. Which values are in conflict? Transparency against messaging; growth against cuts.
  5. What do the frameworks suggest? All three favor clearer claims, while differing on what F1 must change.
  6. What would you decide and why? Decide as F1’s head of sustainability writing the 2027 report.

What’s settled and what’s contested

Settled: F1’s targets, its reported figures, the fuel mandate and the coalition’s letter.[1][2][3][4][7]

Contested: Whether the boundary and certificates make the claim credible, and whether sustainable fuel matters beyond the sport.[2][6]

Why this case matters

Compare with Olympic carbon-neutral claims and the Bahrain Grand Prix protests, where reputation and partnerships also shape what F1 says it stands for.

Key terms

Sportswashing
Using sport, through events, teams or sponsorship, to improve the reputation of a state or company and distract from wrongdoing.
Integrity
A commitment to honesty and ethical principle in competition and administration, including when nobody is watching.
Trust
The public’s belief that what they are watching is real. Integrity failures are ultimately failures of trust.
Stakeholders
Everyone with something at stake in a decision: athletes, coaches, parents, officials, fans, employees, sponsors, media, communities and regulators, including the less visible ones.
Commercialization
The process of turning sport into a product and a business enterprise, with profit pressures that can compete with principle.
Codes and guardrails
Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

  1. Is it fair for F1 to exclude fan travel from its boundary?
  2. Should certificate-based reductions count toward a net zero target?
  3. Does an oil company sponsorship undermine F1's climate pledge?
  4. Is sustainable fuel in the cars meaningful or mainly symbolic?
  5. Can a sport that keeps expanding its calendar credibly cut emissions?

Sources

  1. Formula 1 announces plan to be Net Zero Carbon by 2030 — Formula1.com
  2. Sustainability Report: Carbon Update 2026 — Formula One Group
  3. EXPLAINED: How Formula 1 has cut its carbon footprint by 26% — Formula1.com
  4. A New Era of Sustainable Fuel: FIA introduces major step to provide certified 100% sustainable fuel for all — FIA
  5. F1 announces plan to offset 256,551-tonne carbon footprint — Autosport
  6. Davos 2020: Can Formula 1 really go 'carbon neutral' by 2030? — BBC News
  7. Letter to Formula One and the FIA regarding Aramco — FairSquare and coalition