More than 60 global companies, including Apple, Amazon, BYD, Salesforce, Mars, and Schneider Electric, are pushing back against proposed changes to global emissions reporting rules. The group is calling for more flexibility under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), the most widely used framework for measuring corporate carbon footprints.
The companies submitted a joint statement asking that new requirements, especially those affecting Scope 2 emissions, remain optional rather than mandatory. Their letter stated:
“To drive critical climate progress, it’s imperative that we get this revision right. We strongly urge the GHGP to improve upon the existing guidance, but not stymie critical electricity decarbonization investments by mandating a change that fundamentally threatens participation in this voluntary market, which acts as the linchpin in decarbonization across nearly all sectors of the economy. The revised guidance must encourage more clean energy procurement and enable more impactful corporate action, not unintentionally discourage it.”
The debate comes at a critical time. Corporate climate disclosures now influence trillions of dollars in capital flows, while stricter reporting rules are being introduced across major economies.
The Rulebook for Carbon: What the GHG Protocol Is and Why It’s Being Updated
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the world’s most widely used system for measuring corporate emissions. It is used by over 90% of companies that report greenhouse gas data globally, making it the foundation of most climate disclosures.
It divides emissions into three categories:
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from operations
- Scope 2: Emissions from purchased electricity
- Scope 3: Emissions across the value chain
The current Scope 2 rules were introduced in 2015, but energy markets have changed since then. Renewable energy has expanded, and companies now play a major role in funding clean power.
Corporate buyers have already supported more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity globally through voluntary purchases. This shows how influential the current system has been.
The GHG Protocol is now updating its rules to improve accuracy and transparency. The revision process includes input from more than 45 experts across industry, government, and academia, reflecting its global importance.
Scope 2 Shake-Up: The Battle Over Real-Time Carbon Tracking
The proposed update would shift how companies report electricity emissions. Instead of using flexible systems like renewable energy certificates (RECs), companies would need to match their electricity use with clean energy that is:
- Generated at the same time, and
- Located in the same grid region.
This is known as “24/7” or hourly or real-time matching. It aims to reflect the actual impact of electricity use on the grid. Companies, including Apple and Amazon, say this shift could create challenges.
According to industry feedback, stricter rules could raise energy costs and limit access to renewable energy in some regions. It can also slow corporate investment in new clean energy projects.
The concern is that many markets do not yet have enough renewable supply for real-time matching. Infrastructure for tracking hourly emissions is also still developing.
This creates a key tension. The new rules could improve accuracy and reduce greenwashing. But they may also make it harder for companies to scale clean energy quickly.
The outcome will shape how companies measure emissions, invest in renewables, and meet net-zero targets in the years ahead.
Why More Than 60 Companies Oppose the Changes
The companies argue that stricter rules could slow climate progress rather than accelerate it. Their main concern is cost and feasibility. Many regions still lack enough renewable energy to support real-time matching. For global companies, aligning energy use across different grids is complex.
In their joint statement, the group warned that mandatory changes could:
- Increase electricity prices,
- Reduce participation in voluntary clean energy markets, and
- Slow investment in renewable energy projects.
They argue that current market-based systems, such as RECs, have helped scale clean energy quickly over the past decade. Removing flexibility could weaken that momentum.
This reflects a broader tension between accuracy and scalability in climate reporting.
Big Tech Pushback: Apple and Amazon’s Climate Progress
Despite their push for flexibility, both companies have made measurable progress on emissions reduction.
Apple reports that it has reduced its total greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% compared to 2015 levels, even as revenue grew significantly. The company is targeting carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030. It also reported that supplier renewable energy use helped avoid over 26 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025 alone.
In addition, about 30% of materials used in Apple products in 2025 were recycled, showing a shift toward circular manufacturing.
Amazon has also set a net-zero target for 2040 under its Climate Pledge. The company is one of the world’s largest corporate buyers of renewable energy and continues to invest heavily in clean power, logistics electrification, and low-carbon infrastructure.
Both companies argue that flexible accounting frameworks have supported these investments at scale.
The Bigger Challenge: Scope 3 and Digital Emissions
The debate over Scope 2 reporting is only part of a larger issue. For most large companies, Scope 3 emissions account for more than 70% of total emissions. These include supply chains, product use, and outsourced services.
In the technology sector, emissions are rising due to:
- Data centers,
- Cloud computing, and
- Artificial intelligence workloads.
Global data centers already consume about 415–460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global power demand. This figure is expected to increase sharply. The International Energy Agency estimates that data center electricity demand could double by 2030, driven largely by AI.
This creates a major reporting challenge. Even with cleaner electricity, total emissions can rise as digital demand grows.
Climate Reporting Rules Are Tightening Globally
The pushback comes as climate disclosure requirements are expanding and becoming more standardized across major economies. What was once voluntary ESG reporting is steadily shifting toward mandatory, audit-ready climate transparency.
In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is now active. It requires large companies and, later, listed SMEs, to share detailed sustainability data. This data must match the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This includes granular reporting on emissions across Scope 1, 2, and increasingly Scope 3 value chains.
In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aims for mandatory climate-related disclosures for public companies. This includes governance, risk exposure, and emissions reporting. However, some parts of the rule face legal and political scrutiny.
The United Kingdom has included climate disclosure through TCFD requirements. Now, it is moving toward ISSB-based global standards to make comparisons easier. Similarly, Canada is progressing with ISSB-aligned mandatory reporting frameworks for large public issuers.
In Asia, momentum is also accelerating. Japan is introducing the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) rules that match ISSB standards. Meanwhile, China is tightening ESG disclosure rules for listed companies through updates from its securities regulators. Singapore has also mandated climate reporting for listed companies, with phased Scope 3 expansion.
A clear trend is forming across jurisdictions: climate disclosure is aligning with ISSB global standards. There’s a growing focus on assurance, comparability, and transparency in value-chain emissions.
This regulatory tightening raises the bar significantly for corporations. The challenge is clear. Companies must:
- Align with multiple evolving disclosure regimes,
- Ensure emissions data is verifiable and auditable, and
- Expand reporting across complex global supply chains.
Balancing operational growth with compliance is becoming increasingly complex as climate regulation converges and intensifies worldwide.
A Turning Point for Global Carbon Accounting
The outcome of this debate could shape global carbon accounting standards for years.
If stricter rules are adopted, emissions reporting will become more precise. This could improve transparency and reduce greenwashing risks. However, it may also increase compliance costs and limit flexibility.
If the proposed changes remain optional, companies may continue using current accounting methods. This could support faster clean energy investment, but may leave gaps in reporting accuracy.
The new rules could take effect as early as next year, making this a near-term decision for global companies.
The push by Apple, Amazon, and other companies highlights a key tension in climate strategy. On one side is the need for accurate, real-time emissions reporting. On the other is the need for flexible systems that support large-scale clean energy investment.
As digital infrastructure expands and energy demand rises, how emissions are measured will matter as much as how they are reduced. The next phase of climate action will depend not just on targets—but on the systems used to track them.
The post Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
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.
-
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