Europe’s top publicly traded companies are stepping up in their climate commitments. They are making strong promises to offset a large part of their greenhouse gas emissions. A new study from the Berlin climate platform goodcarbon shows that 29 of the 50 companies in the EURO STOXX 50 index will buy 81.8 million tonnes of carbon offset credits by 2030. This will help them reach their net-zero goals.
This trend shows a change in how companies tackle climate action. They are not just cutting direct emissions. They are also investing in voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) to balance their carbon footprint.
The analysis reviewed the 2023 and 2024 sustainability reports of top firms such as Siemens, Airbus, Unilever, Schneider Electric, and Allianz, among others. Companies see voluntary offset commitments as smart tools. They help address tough emissions and support nature-based climate solutions.
Unlocking Climate Finance Through Early Commitments
Many companies want to buy carbon credits, which is a good sign for a growing market. However, most still rely on spot market purchases. This means they buy credits close to when they need them. This method offers flexibility but misses a major opportunity for climate impact.
Goodcarbon suggests an alternative way: making early, binding financial commitments to specific climate projects.
Companies can promise to buy a set amount of carbon credits ahead of time. They can specify the funding amount, where the project will be, and when they want delivery. The actual payment can happen later.
This early commitment strategy would:
- Enable climate project developers to secure upfront financing, allowing for better long-term planning.
- Help unlock additional environmental and community co-benefits.
- Protect companies from rising prices in the future. Carbon credit prices are likely to increase due to higher demand by 2030.
Jérôme Cochet, Co-Founder and CEO of goodcarbon, emphasized the untapped potential:
“We estimate that these companies have allocated approximately one billion euros for voluntary CO₂ compensation by 2030. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, this isn’t a huge amount. But companies could significantly boost the impact of these funds simply by making them available sooner—without any extra cost.”
This model can help make sure that money for climate action starts working now, not years later.
The Role of goodcarbon in Facilitating Nature-Based Solutions
Founded in 2021, goodcarbon connects companies to top-notch nature-based carbon projects. These projects focus on CO₂ sequestration, protecting biodiversity, and developing communities. It helps businesses buy reliable offsets while also supporting them in adding these offsets to their long-term sustainability plans.
The platform stands out because it helps companies connect with project developers. This boosts transparency and ensures strict scientific checks. Projects are chosen for three main reasons:
- Climate effectiveness,
- Benefits to biodiversity, and
- Fair sharing of advantages with local communities.
In April 2024, goodcarbon secured a €5.25 million seed funding round to scale its services and expand its library of carbon offset projects. The company focuses on “goodcarbon Originals.” These are carefully chosen nature-based projects. They meet high standards for integrity, additionality, and community impact. These include:
- Mangrove restoration efforts in Southeast Asia;
- Agroforestry and regenerative agriculture initiatives in Latin America;
- Peatland protection and rewetting projects in Northern Europe.
Goodcarbon wants to reduce project developers’ financial risk. They encourage early investment with binding contracts, which helps increase access to capital for high-impact solutions.
The Broader Context of Voluntary Carbon Markets
Voluntary carbon markets are seen as important additions to cutting emissions directly. In VCMs, companies buy carbon credits from certified projects. These projects help remove or avoid emissions. Examples include reforestation and renewable energy development.
According to data from the Ecosystem Marketplace SOVCM 2025 Report, the total value of carbon credits traded in the VCM decreased by 29% in 2024, reaching $535 million. This amount is lower compared to previous years.
However, this market value is still nearly twice (1.9 times) as high as it was in 2018, largely because prices have remained relatively stable. More notably, the decline in market value corresponds to a 25% reduction in transaction volume rather than a drop in overall demand.
Buyers have become more selective, prioritizing higher-quality carbon credits. As a result, prices have not fallen significantly. This pattern indicates that although market liquidity has decreased, the fundamental interest in carbon credits—particularly those with strong environmental credibility—continues to be robust.
Each credit represents one tonne of CO₂ equivalent avoided or removed from the atmosphere. However, VCMs are also under scrutiny. Critics have pointed to issues with:
- Additionality (ensuring that projects wouldn’t happen without credit sales),
- Permanence (guaranteeing long-term CO₂ storage),
- Leakage (preventing emissions from shifting to other areas), and
- Double-counting.
In response, new integrity frameworks are emerging. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) recently launched its Core Carbon Principles. Meanwhile, the EU’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) will standardize project quality across the bloc.
Despite their imperfections, VCMs are gaining traction. In early 2025, BloombergNEF reported that voluntary carbon markets are more “connected and coordinated.” This shows they are becoming more mature and scalable.
The market could grow from $2 billion in 2022 to over $50 billion by 2030, fueled by net-zero pledges and regulatory shifts.
Corporate Leadership and Climate Accountability
For Europe’s top firms, the decision to engage in long-term carbon offsetting is both a strategic and reputational move. Stakeholders are watching how companies act on their climate promises.
Here are some EURO STOXX 50 companies with clear carbon offsetting strategies as part of their net-zero commitments. They lead in the VCM as supported by their sustainability or ESG reports.
1. Siemens (Germany)
Siemens has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030. Their sustainability reports highlight investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and purchasing high-quality carbon credits to offset residual emissions. Siemens actively participates in voluntary carbon markets and supports nature-based solutions as part of their climate strategy.
2. Airbus (France)
Airbus has set ambitious targets to reduce CO₂ emissions with a focus on sustainable aviation fuels and carbon offsetting. Their ESG disclosures include commitments to invest in carbon credits and nature-based projects to compensate for emissions that cannot yet be eliminated. The airline is part of industry collaborations promoting carbon neutrality by 2050.
3. Unilever (Netherlands/UK)
Unilever’s net-zero plan includes reducing emissions across its value chain and offsetting residual emissions via verified carbon credits. Their sustainability reports emphasize nature-based solutions such as reforestation and regenerative agriculture projects. The company has multi-year agreements to purchase carbon offsets and integrates these into its broader climate action framework.
4. Allianz (Germany)
Allianz commits to net zero by 2050 and uses carbon offsetting to address residual emissions. Their ESG disclosures mention investments in high-integrity carbon credits, especially nature-based projects that also provide biodiversity and community benefits. The company supports early carbon finance commitments to scale climate projects.
5. Schneider Electric (France)
Schneider Electric integrates carbon offsetting as part of its comprehensive sustainability strategy. Their multi-year AI-native ecosystem initiative supports better carbon tracking and reduction, including offsets for residual emissions. The company discloses clear targets and investments in voluntary carbon markets and nature-based solutions.
Firms like Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Unilever have already entered multi-year agreements for nature-based offsets. The Euro Stoxx 50 analysis shows that many European giants are following suit in their carbon offset strategies.
Still, more action is needed as :
- Of the 50 companies reviewed, only 29 have disclosed voluntary offset targets.
- Many offset commitments remain vague, lacking detail on volume, project type, or timeline.
- Some companies are trying insetting. This means they invest in cutting emissions in their own value chains, which might become more popular along with offsets.
There is also a growing push for third-party verification and independent auditing of carbon credits. Platforms like goodcarbon play a role here by curating verified projects and enhancing market trust.
Time to Activate Dormant Climate Capital
The goodcarbon analysis shows that about €1 billion in potential climate finance is unused in corporate climate strategies. If committed early through agreements, these funds could back many impactful projects worldwide. They would provide long-term benefits for the climate, ecosystems, and local communities.
As carbon prices increase and climate deadlines near, companies can gain an advantage. Smart carbon offsetting strategies help STOXX 50 companies secure quality credits and show climate leadership.
The message is clear: offsetting isn’t a last-minute task. It’s a climate finance opportunity that, if acted on now, could reshape how businesses contribute to a net-zero future.
- READ MORE: Amazon Unveils Carbon Credit Investment Service: A Game Changer for Corporate Sustainability
The post Europe’s Corporate Giants, STOXX 50, Commit to Offset Over 80 Million Tonnes of CO₂ by 2030 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