Connect with us

Published

on

If a business wants to make a positive impact on the world, addressing its environmental footprint operationally might not be enough. Even with the best intentions, running a business inevitably means consuming some resources that can’t simply be avoided.

For example, a coffee company might engage in regenerative farming to sequester more carbon than it emits and support healthy local ecosystems. But even with careful practices, it can’t avoid certain realities, like the shipping emissions from transporting beans to their customers.

Fortunately, there are several voluntary, market-based solutions that enable businesses to address residual environmental issues that can’t simply be cut. c

The most well-known mechanism is likely carbon credits. Also called carbon offsets, carbon credits direct financing toward environmental projects that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions, thereby helping a buyer balance its carbon footprint. And with high-quality credits, the funding typically supports projects that wouldn’t otherwise be possible without this extra revenue.

But carbon credits are just one of several types of environmental credits that direct financing toward projects that support the environment.

For one, carbon credits are often grouped under the umbrella term environmental attribute certificate (EAC), which includes other types of financing mechanisms, like energy-related certificates. By purchasing an EAC, the buyer generally gains the right to claim the environmental benefits associated with that certificate, like an emission reduction associated with funding renewable electricity.

Still, the same concept can apply to non-emissions areas. Buying plastic credits can fund the recovery or prevention of plastic waste, which a company might then claim helps balance the impact of the virgin plastic used in its products.

Depending on your operations and sustainability goals, different types of credits or certificates could be worth investing in.

Here, we’ll take a closer look at some of the most popular types of environmental credits.

Types of Environmental Credits

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) Environmental attributes of 1 MWh of renewable electricity Claim renewable electricity use and support clean energy generation
Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs) 1,000 gallons of freshwater restored or improved Address water footprint by contributing to water restoration
Plastic Credits ~1 metric ton of plastic collected or recycled (varies) Counter plastic pollution when elimination isn’t yet possible
Biodiversity Credits Conservation of ecosystems (units vary by issuer) Protect biodiversity/conserve natural ecosystems
Sustainable Aviation Fuel certificates (SAFc) Environmental attributes of 1 metric ton of sustainable aviation fuel Claim low-carbon fuel and support sustainable fuel production
Renewable Thermal Certificates (RTCs) Environmental attributes of 1 dekatherm of renewable thermal energy Reduce emissions from hard-to-electrify fuels, e.g., replacing fossil fuel natural gas with renewable natural gas

Carbon Credits

What they represent: One metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions avoided, reduced, or removed from the atmosphere.

Why they matter: Even when companies set ambitious emission reduction goals, they generally can’t cut to zero overnight. Carbon credits can help serve as a bridge to global net-zero, and they can continue to be used to offset residual emissions that are essentially impossible to avoid.

Carbon credits also tend to have a variety of co-benefits beyond emissions, like protecting valuable ecosystems or supporting health and economic opportunities in the local communities where these projects operate.

How they’re generated: Carbon credits can come from many different types of projects that have independent third-party verified emissions impact, such as reforestation, methane capture from landfills, and soil carbon sequestration, to name just a few.

Calculate your carbon footprint to get a better sense of the emissions you want to balance.

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

What they represent: The environmental attributes associated with one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable electricity.

Why they matter: Buying a REC is essentially the same as buying renewable electricity. Power gets mixed from different sources within a grid, so it’s not always possible to know exactly who’s consuming what. But since that renewable electricity is definitively added into the mix, that means someone is now using renewable energy.

The REC simply gives you permission to claim that benefit for yourself, while generally avoiding the risk of double-counting. Meanwhile, by buying RECs, you’re supporting the financial viability of more clean energy projects.

How they’re generated: RECs can be generated when a renewable source of electricity gets verifiably added to a power grid. RECs can either be sold bundled or unbundled. With bundled RECs, the energy and environmental attributes are sold together, like if a solar farm directly sells its energy to a company and agrees not to sell the claim to those environmental attributes elsewhere. Unbundled RECs separate the environmental claims and the energy, making it possible to claim the use of renewable electricity while continuing to purchase from your local utility.

You can easily and affordably purchase Green-e certified RECs through Terrapass online.

PrairieWinds ND1 (PWND1) Emissions Reduction Project

Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs)

What they represent: One WRC corresponds to 1,000 gallons of natural freshwater improved or restored.

Why they matter: Many parts of the world are under significant water stress, which often stems from issues like commercial overuse and climate change. Buying WRCs can help counter this trend by supporting the health and volume of freshwater systems.

A business operating in water-stressed regions in the Western U.S., for example, may need to inevitably use some freshwater to produce its products. In that case, it can ideally fund WRC projects in that same water resource region, like ones that secure water rights to keep more water within rivers, aquifers, etc.

How they’re generated: While similar water-related credits may exist elsewhere, BEF WRCs™ are specifically issued by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF). BEF WRC™ projects can involve restoring flows through securing legal rights, restoring natural systems through physical interventions like removing dams, or improving water use efficiency. All projects are third-party verified, typically by Watercourse Engineering or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and all are tracked on S&P Global’s Markit registry.

Support freshwater systems and their associated recreational and ecological benefits by buying WRCs through Terrapass today.

Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs)

Plastic Credits

What they represent:  Plastic credits aren’t quite as formalized as some of these other market-based instruments, so the details can vary by credit issuer. But one example is Verra’s Plastic Waste Reduction Program, where one plastic credit represents one metric ton of plastic that’s been collected or recycled.

Why they matter: Each year, approximately 19-23 million tons of plastic leak from land-based sources into water systems, according to the UN Environment Programme. Plastic pollution then poses many threats, such as to the health of marine animals, as well as overall human health.

Businesses can buy plastic credits to help counter plastic pollution, especially because plastic has become so ubiquitous that it’s not always possible to immediately remove plastic from your packaging or other parts of your supply chain.

How they’re generated: Generating these credits depends on the issuer. Some businesses, particularly consumer-facing ones, work with third-party organizations to make plastic-neutral claims. For one, ice pop company GoodPop launched a limited edition flavor that’s certified plastic neutral by 4Ocean. For this certification, 4Ocean removes plastic from water systems and coastlines equivalent to each pound of plastic used to produce that product or for the brand as a whole.

For Verra’s plastic credits, projects must meet the specific guidelines of its Plastic Waste Reduction Standard and accounting methodologies that help ensure each credit represents one metric ton of plastic collected or recycled. These projects are also third-party audited, as well as tracked on the Verra Registry, similar to carbon credits.

Plastic Credits

Biodiversity Credits

What they represent: Biodiversity credits are one of the least developed types of environmental credits, so there’s not a general consensus on what they represent. Different credit issuers have different standards.

For example, one of the pioneers in this space, Savimbo, sells biodiversity credits that represent one month of conservation for one hectare in a biodiversity hotspot. In contrast, another leader in this space, Terrasos, sells biodiversity credits that represent 10 m² (0.001 hectares) of protected ecosystems for 30 years.

Why they matter: Climate change and related issues like land use change are causing significant biodiversity loss. From 1970 to 2020, wildlife populations fell by 73%, according to WWF.

At a simple level, interfering with natural cycles of plant and animal life leads to species loss, which then creates more risks for humans, like faster temperature rise due to the loss of natural carbon sinks. There’s also many nuanced arguments for supporting biodiversity, such as the economic and health value of stable plant and animal life.

How they’re generated: Because these are less established, there’s not a standard way to generate biodiversity credits. But in general, these work like carbon credits, in the sense that an issuer works with project developers to ensure a given area of land is conserved in a way that protects biodiversity.

One voluntary group, the Biodiversity Credit Alliance (BCA), backed by organizations such as the UN Development Programme, is working on developing a framework for biodiversity credits that could help this market more closely resemble the voluntary carbon credit market.

Biodiversity Credits

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Certificates (SAFc)

What they represent: The environmental attributes associated with one metric ton of unblended sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Why they matter: Flying is a carbon-intensive activity, yet these can be some of the hardest emissions to avoid. A growing business, for example, may be able to address its direct energy use, but total emissions could still rise if employees fly to meet with customers and suppliers. Finding efficiencies like batching travel into longer trips or using online meetings when possible can help, but the reality is that many still value flying.

So, sustainable aviation fuel certificates (SAFc) provide buyers with a way to claim the use of this low-carbon fuel, rather than accounting for the normal emissions associated with traditional jet fuel. If you’re flying on a commercial airline, you don’t have direct control over their fuel usage, but by buying SAFc, you’re supporting the transition to lower-emission fuel sources.

How they’re generated: Unlike traditional jet fuel made from petroleum, SAF comes from alternative feedstocks like used cooking oils or agricultural waste. SAF then gets blended with traditional jet fuel, with commercial planes currently able to accommodate about 10-50% of the total volume from SAF, though testing of higher limits is underway.

Because of this blending, you can’t exactly say that your flight from New York to LA runs on SAF while a flight from New York to San Francisco runs on traditional jet fuel. But like with RECs, SAF certificates give you the ability to claim the environmental attributes of SAF. If you purchase enough certificates that correspond with your flight’s fuel usage, you could claim your portion of the flight fully used SAF from an emissions accounting perspective.

Buyers often use the book-and-claim approach for SAF certificates and other low-carbon fuel purchases. That means instead of taking physical possession of this fuel, you’re buying the certificates that represent a certain amount, and you then claim the corresponding environmental attributes.

Renewable Thermal Certificates (RTCs)

What they represent: The environmental attributes of 1 dekatherm (Dth) of renewable thermal energy, such as renewable natural gas or green hydrogen.

Why they matter: Not everything can be electrified to then run on renewable electricity, at least in the short term. Businesses often still have large scope 1 footprints from burning natural gas or using similar fuel sources.

So, using renewable thermal certificates (RTCs) provides buyers with a way to claim the environmental benefits of renewable thermal energy, like using renewable natural gas (RNG) to generate heat from a furnace, or using green hydrogen to power an industrial boiler. Like with RECs, RTCs enable buyers to make these claims without having to always physically procure the renewable energy, especially in cases where renewable and non-renewable fuels get mixed.

How they’re generated: RTCs are generated from projects that produce renewable thermal energy, like municipal waste facilities that capture methane from landfills and convert it into RNG. This works essentially the same as it does with RECs, where the RTCs can be either bundled with the underlying energy or sold unbundled on a book-and-claim basis.

Finding the Right Environmental Credits

Environmental issues are often deeply interconnected. Rising greenhouse gas emissions, for example, can increase global temperatures, which then can increase droughts and trigger biodiversity loss. So, while carbon credits are generally the most established option, purchasing a broader mix of environmental credits can help organizations reach sustainability goals faster and drive more meaningful impact.

Still, not all environmental credits are created equally. Quality can vary significantly, so make sure you’re buying credits from a reputable source. Consider factors such as third-party verification, registry tracking to avoid double-counting, and additionality, where the money from purchasing credits supports environmental action that wouldn’t otherwise take place.

Environmental product providers like Terrapass make it easy for buyers to fund a mix of high-quality carbon credit projects, as well as other types of credits like RECs and WRCs.

Businesses can also build a custom portfolio of environmental credits through Terrapass to align with your environmental footprint and corporate sustainability goals. Reach out today to see how you can make a more positive impact by funding different environmental projects.

frameworks, and support transparent, defensible climate claims as part of a long-term sustainability strategy.

The post Beyond Carbon Credits: A Guide to the Expanding World of Environmental Credits appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Insetting vs Offsetting: Which Actually Counts Toward Your Scope 3 Targets

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com