As various political initiatives have set goals to reach net-zero emissions by the mid-21st century, forests will play an important role as a carbon sink for sequestering unavoidable emissions. Forest management can take two approaches by either decreasing harvest and enlarging the forest carbon stock or increasing harvest to increase carbon uptake and create harvested wood products (HWPs). Currently, these two management options seem at odds with seemingly conflicting policy directives being written. We used the BEKLIFUH model to assess six management scenarios based on carbon offset potential taking into consideration forest carbon, HWPs and the material and energetic substitution effects. The results show that while conservation leads to a higher above-ground carbon pool, including HWPs, material and energetic substitution leads to more overall carbon offsets for management scenarios with more timber harvesting. With compromise being possible by selectively conserving old growth forests with a high biodiversity value. In conclusion, if the forest sector decouples GHG reporting from forest management and includes all the secondary effects of timber harvest, this new approach can lead to a different cost–benefit analysis for the choice between harvest vs. conservation. This could result in a paradigm shift to a future where biodiversity and carbon neutrality can coexist.