Airbnb and Booking Holdings are two of the biggest online travel companies in the world. They help millions of people find places to stay and things to do when they travel. In 2025, both companies showed strong business results and made progress on their climate and sustainability goals.
This article looks at how each company performed in the first quarter of 2025 and compares their efforts to cut carbon emissions and reach net-zero targets.
Airbnb: Navigating Economic Headwinds
In Q1 2025, Airbnb reported revenue of $2.3 billion, marking a 6% year-over-year increase. This growth was primarily driven by an 8% rise in nights and experiences booked, totaling 143.1 million.
However, the company faced some challenges. There was a small drop in the Average Daily Rate (ADR) and economic uncertainty in the U.S. As a result, net income fell to $154 million, down from $264 million in Q1 2024.
Adjusted earnings stood at $417 million, representing an 18% margin. Despite challenges, Airbnb still generated $1.8 billion in free cash flow. This kept their cash strong at $11.5 billion in cash and equivalents. The company also repurchased $807 million of its Class A common stock during the quarter.
Booking Holdings: Leveraging International Demand
Booking Holdings posted strong Q1 2025 results, with revenue reaching $4.8 billion, an 8% increase year-over-year. Gross bookings totaled $46.7 billion, up 7%, driven by 319 million room nights booked.
The company’s adjusted earnings rose 21% to $1.1 billion, with a margin of 22.9%. Adjusted earnings per share (EPS) came in at $24.81, surpassing analyst expectations. Free cash flow was robust at $3.2 billion, and the company returned $2.1 billion to shareholders through share repurchases and dividends.
Both companies show strong financial performance. However, Booking Holdings leads in revenue and profit. It benefits from a diverse portfolio and a global presence. Airbnb, however, showcases resilience and strong cash flow generation, even amid economic uncertainties.
Now, let’s see how they perform in terms of the ESG and sustainability front, particularly on their emission reductions and net-zero efforts.
Airbnb: Advancing Toward Net-Zero by 2030
Airbnb aims to reach net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in its global operations by 2030. This goal includes Scopes 1, 2, and some Scope 3 categories. This commitment relies on science-based targets approved by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi).
Carbon Emission Reductions
Airbnb aims to reduce its absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 78.4% from a 2019 baseline by 2030. By the end of 2023, Airbnb had reduced about 82% of these emissions compared to the 2019 baseline. This drop came from using energy more efficiently and buying renewable energy to match 100% of its office needs.
In 2023, Airbnb kept its San Francisco headquarters on CleanPowerSF’s SuperGreen program. This means they continue using 100% renewable electricity from California wind and solar. This accounts for about 16% of their global office electricity use.
Scope 3 Emissions
About 92% of Airbnb’s total emissions come from Scope 3 sources, mostly from suppliers. Airbnb plans to cut Scope 3 emissions intensity by 55% per million dollars of gross profit by 2030, using 2019 as the baseline.
By the end of 2023, Airbnb reduced its Scope 3 emissions intensity by nearly 55% compared to 2019. This improvement happened even as business grew, thanks to better operations and more renewable energy use by key suppliers.
Supplier Engagement
In 2023, Airbnb continued its Supplier Sustainability Program, which launched in 2022. By the end of 2023, over 80 suppliers took part. These suppliers made up about 47% of Airbnb’s supplier-related emissions. The program asks suppliers to measure, report, and cut their greenhouse gas emissions, supporting Airbnb’s larger climate goals.
Carbon Offsetting and Nature-Based Solutions
Since 2021, Airbnb has invested in high-quality nature-based carbon credits. In 2023, the company kept up its investments, supporting projects that protect forests, restore ecosystems, and reduce powerful greenhouse gases. It bought 25% more credits in 2023 than the previous year.
Airbnb also stayed active in the LEAF Coalition, a group working to stop tropical deforestation. The company also launched a climate contribution tool in Germany, allowing guests to support sustainability projects when booking stays.
Beneficiaries include Pina Earth (protecting forests), MoorFutures® (restoring peatlands), and Tradewater (destroying polluting gas tanks in emerging markets), alongside other environmental initiatives.
Booking Holdings: Comprehensive Climate Action Plan
Booking Holdings aims for net-zero GHG emissions by 2040, ten years later than Airbnb. They set interim goals to cut absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 95% and Scope 3 emissions by 50% by 2030, using 2019 as a baseline. These targets have been validated by the SBTi.
Carbon Emission Reductions
By the end of 2024, Booking Holdings had reduced its absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 85% compared to 2019. This big cut came from switching to 100% renewable electricity in its offices. Also, 98% of energy attribute certificates were bought in the same country where the electricity is used.
Scope 3 Emissions:
Scope 3 emissions, accounting for 99% of the company’s total GHG emissions, were reduced significantly by the end of 2024 compared to 2019.
Booking Holdings worked with key vendors covering about 50% of its 2023 emissions. They encouraged these vendors to measure, report, and cut their GHG emissions. This effort also aimed to enhance data quality in this area.
Sustainable Travel Initiatives:
Booking Holdings aims for over 50% of its bookings to be made on more sustainable offerings across its platforms by 2027. As of 2023, over 40% of bookings were made on such offerings.
Over 1.4 million accommodations have shared their sustainability practices. Also, more than 16,000 partners have received third-party sustainability certifications.
Industry Collaboration and Advocacy:
In 2023, Booking.com teamed up with the United Nations Tourism Organization and launched an online training series. This series helps travel providers improve the sustainability of their accommodations.
The company also worked with BeCause, an enterprise software provider. This partnership allows real-time updates on accommodations with third-party sustainability certifications. With it, travelers can make informed choices.
Who’s Leading the Green Getaway? A Side-by-Side Look
Airbnb and Booking Holdings both aim for net zero, but their approaches differ. Airbnb aims for net zero in Scopes 1 and 2 by 2030. They have reduced operational emissions by 25% since 2019 and now use 100% renewable energy. Its supplier engagement is growing, though Scope 3 data is limited.
On the other hand, Booking Holdings targets full-scope net zero by 2040, validated by SBTi. It has cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 41% and Scope 3 by 25%, while expanding its Sustainable Travel Badge program and engaging over 400 suppliers. Booking shows broader Scope 3 action, while Airbnb excels in direct operations.
Both Airbnb and Booking Holdings have made significant strides in their sustainability and net-zero efforts. They set ambitious targets and implemented comprehensive strategies to reduce their carbon footprints. Their initiatives not only show corporate responsibility but also contribute to the broader goal of combating climate change within the travel industry.
- INTERESTING READ: Amazon Unveils Carbon Credit Investment Service: A Game Changer for Corporate Sustainability
The post Airbnb vs. Booking Holdings: Who’s Winning the Battle for Financial Growth and Green Goals? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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