As Australia’s largest oil and natural gas producer, Woodside Energy faces growing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while maintaining energy production. The company uses a carbon credit strategy to offset emissions. This supports its goals for decarbonization and reaching net zero.
In 2024, Woodside retired 1.3 million carbon credits. This was nearly double the amount from the year before. They also managed a portfolio of over 20 million credits. These credits came from several programs, like the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme, Gold Standard, and Verra.
Carbon Credits in Emission Reduction: A Shortcut or a Necessity?
Woodside uses carbon credits as a key component of its strategy to address Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
According to its 2024 Annual Report, the company offsets emissions that exceed its net reduction targets. Due to the high costs of big technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or electrifying LNG facilities, carbon credits remain a good choice.
The company stated in the report that:
“The use of carbon credits as offsets remains an important part of Woodside’s approach to Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, due to the high potential cost of large scale abatement options. We both originate (i.e. invest in our own carbon projects) and acquire carbon credits, to maintain a diverse portfolio differentiated by underlying abatement method, geography and vintage.”
Some investors want Woodside to cut back on carbon offsets. However, Woodside believes carbon credits are essential for tackling hard-to-reduce emissions.
The company prioritizes direct emission reductions first, then uses credits for remaining emissions. Executive pay ties to gross Scope 1 and 2 reductions. Offsets don’t count. This approach ensures that abatement measures come first.
Net Zero Roadmap: Cutting Emissions While Powering Australia
Woodside’s net zero strategy focuses on three main areas:
- Decarbonizing assets,
- Improving energy efficiency, and
- Investing in lower-carbon solutions.
The oil company has set the following emission reduction targets:
Scope 1 and 2 Emissions: Reduce net equity emissions through direct abatement and offsets. The Australian oil giant aims to cut net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 15% by 2025 and 30% by 2030, using 2016-2020 as a baseline. Woodside aims to do this by using carbon capture and storage (CCS) at key sites. They will boost efficiency and use more renewable energy in their operations.
Scope 3 Emissions: Invest $5 billion in new energy products and lower-carbon services by 2030. This will help reduce 5 million metric tons per year (Mtpa) of CO2 equivalent. The company is focusing on hydrogen, ammonia, and renewable energy projects. These efforts aim to help customers decarbonize their supply chains.
Operational Efficiency: Launch emissions reduction projects to achieve a 15% efficiency gain in LNG operations by 2030. This involves electrifying some processes, cutting methane leaks, and improving fuel use.
Woodside reported Scope 1 and 2 gross equity emissions of approximately 6.78 million tons of CO2 equivalent (mt CO2e) in 2024, up from 6.19 million tons in 2023. The increase was largely attributed to the start of production at the Sangomar oil and gas field in Senegal.
Yet, its net equity Scope 1 and 2 emissions have fallen from 5.53 to 5.44 mt CO2e as seen below.
The company is working hard to cut emissions. It aims to improve equipment efficiency and optimize processes at its LNG facilities. Additionally, Woodside is evaluating partnerships to develop large-scale CCS projects that could store millions of tons of CO2 annually. It is also working more with renewable energy providers. This will help add clean energy to its supply chain and support its net-zero goals.
Carbon Offset Initiatives and Reforestation Projects
In addition to purchasing credits, Woodside develops its own carbon offset projects. The company has implemented several large-scale reforestation and conservation initiatives.
- Australia: Planted 3.2 million biodiverse seedlings on 4,800 hectares in Western Australia. This brings the total to 8.9 million seedlings across 13,000 hectares.
- Paraguay: Funding the reforestation of 7,400 hectares in the Chaco region. This project aims to generate about 2.4 million carbon credits over 40 years.
- Senegal: They support mangrove restoration on 7,000 hectares in the Sine Saloum and Casamance regions. This project is expected to produce 1.8 million carbon credits over 40 years.
These projects boost biodiversity and store carbon for the long term. They also align with Woodside’s sustainability goals. The company estimates that its existing offset projects will generate around 10 million carbon credits by 2035, helping to balance emissions from fossil fuel production.
Challenges and the Future of Carbon Credits in Oil and Gas
While carbon credits offer a near-term solution for offsetting emissions, the long-term sustainability of this approach is debated. Some corporations have scaled back on offsets, citing concerns over credibility and effectiveness.
Voluntary carbon credit issuance declined by 4% in 2024 due to weaker demand. Woodside is still committed to its offset strategy. This is especially true for emissions that current technologies can’t yet eliminate.
The company sees the risks of offsets. And so, it wants to balance using them with cutting direct emissions. Technologies like post-combustion carbon capture, hydrogen fueling, and electrification are being studied. Their costs range from $200 to $500 per ton of CO2, making it hard to deploy them on a large scale right now.
Woodside has committed $500 million toward research and development of these technologies over the next decade.
Woodside has teamed up with industry and government groups to create a carbon storage hub. The goal is to capture up to 10 million tons of CO2 each year by 2040. This initiative aligns with broader national efforts to transition toward a lower-carbon economy while maintaining Australia’s energy security.
Industry and Investor Reactions to Woodside’s Carbon Strategy
Investor response to Woodside’s climate strategy has been mixed. Some shareholders want less reliance on carbon credits. They also urge a stronger focus on cutting emissions directly.
At Woodside’s 2023 annual meeting, almost 49% of shareholders rejected the company’s climate plan. This shows worries about its heavy reliance on offsets. However, others support the approach, provided it is complemented by clear abatement initiatives and cost-effective offset sourcing.
Regulatory bodies are also increasing scrutiny of carbon credit strategies. The Australian government is creating new rules for carbon credits. These rules will make sure that companies follow strict transparency and additionality standards. This may change how Woodside buys and uses offsets in the future.
Woodside Energy is weaving carbon credits into its sustainability strategy. They use offsets and also invest in emission reduction technologies. With 1.3 million credits retired in 2024 and over 20 million in its portfolio, the company remains committed to managing its carbon footprint.
However, as industry standards evolve and scrutiny on offsets increases, Woodside’s long-term success will depend on its ability to scale direct abatement efforts alongside its reliance on carbon credits.
The post Woodside Almost Double Carbon Credit Use: Can Offsets Deliver Net Zero for Australia’s Energy Giant? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits