Verra is moving closer to launching its long-awaited Scope 3 Standard (S3S) Program, with version 1.0 phase 1 now scheduled for Q3 2026. This first release will allow companies to list project pipelines using an initial set of S3S-adapted methodologies. Although the timeline is slightly later than expected, the delay reflects a deeper push to build a stronger, more reliable system.
This move shows a clear focus on quality and long-term impact. Verra is not rushing the launch. Instead, it is taking time to improve the system. The team is refining technical frameworks, learning from pilot projects, and aligning with global standards. As a result, the final program will be stronger and easier to use. It is also likely to attract more companies and drive real climate action across supply chains.
Verra Aligns the Program With Global Climate Standards
The extra time helps improve how the system connects with existing carbon markets. It also allows Verra to upgrade its digital tools and infrastructure. At the same time, lessons from pilot projects are shaping the final design. These pilots tested how existing Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methods can work for Scope 3 projects in real conditions.
Training is another key focus. Verra is creating clear guidelines and support tools for project developers. This will help users understand the system quickly and scale their projects without delays.
Finally, the new timeline helps align the program with major global frameworks. These include updated climate standards and carbon accounting rules. This alignment will make the program more relevant and widely accepted.
How the Scope 3 Standard Will Transform Supply Chain Emissions
Scope 3 emissions are the biggest part of a company’s carbon footprint. In many sectors, they make up more than 75% of total emissions. These emissions do not come from a company’s own operations. Instead, they come from its supply chain—both before and after production.
Verra’s S3S Program aims to fix this problem in the following ways:
- It brings a clear and trusted system to measure and manage these emissions.
- Companies will be able to track real emission cuts and carbon removals in their value chains.
Explaining further, the program uses a strong measurement system. Companies will follow simple and consistent methods to calculate emissions. Then, independent auditors will check the data. This step builds trust and ensures the results are real.
New Carbon Units for Clear Tracking
Verra also introduces a new unit system. Project developers will receive Intervention Units (IUs). Companies will receive Scope 3 Intervention Units (S3IUs). These units will be recorded in a public registry. This makes tracking easy and avoids double-counting.
Co-Investment Drives Supply Chain Action
Another key feature is co-investment. Companies can invest in projects within their supply chains. In return, they can claim verified climate benefits. This system encourages suppliers, buyers, and investors to work together.
- LATEST: The Power of Plastic Credits: How Verra’s Waste Reduction Program Can End Global Plastic Pollution
Understanding the Scale of Scope 3 Emissions
Unlike Scope 1 and 2, Scope 3 emissions cover the full value chain. They include both upstream and downstream activities.
Upstream emissions come from things a company buys. This includes raw materials, equipment, and transport. Downstream emissions happen after a product is sold. These include product use, delivery, and disposal.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol lists more than 15 categories under Scope 3. These include goods, travel, waste, and investments. However, not every category applies to every business.
For example, a service company may have fewer downstream emissions. In contrast, a manufacturing company may see large emissions from product use and supply chains.
Closing the Gap in Carbon Markets
Many companies want to cut Scope 3 emissions. But they face a big challenge. There are no simple and clear rules to follow. Because of this, companies often feel unsure. They do not know how to measure emissions or report results correctly. This slows down investment in supply chain projects.
As explained before, Verra’s S3S Program offers clear rules and a strong system, and also uses third-party checks and transparent tracking. As a result, companies can now invest in projects and trust the results. Finally, the outcome will be more money inflow into supply chain climate solutions.
The program also improves carbon markets. Until now, most systems have focused on standalone projects. But S3S connects emission cuts directly to company supply chains. This creates a more complete and practical approach.
Aligned With Global Climate Standards
Another strong point of the S3S Program is its global alignment. Verra designed it to match major climate frameworks.
- It works alongside the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s new standards. It also aligns with the updated net-zero rules from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).
- In addition, it connects with new frameworks from the AIM Platform and the Taskforce for Corporate Action Transparency (TCAT).
- Most importantly, it aligns with Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) version 5, released in December 2025.
This version improves the quality and trust in carbon credits. By linking with VCS 5, the S3S Program builds on a strong and proven system.
From Pilot Phase to Real-World Action
In 2025, Verra moved the program from planning to testing. It launched pilot projects and asked for public feedback.
These pilots were very useful. They showed what works and what needs improvement. They also helped adapt existing methods for real-world use. At the same time, it built the program’s structure. It set up rules, governance, and funding systems.
Verra is working with partners like the Value Change Initiative and SustainCERT. These groups help improve the program and keep it aligned with global best practices.
A Turning Point for Corporate Climate Action
Companies today face strong pressure to cut emissions. Scope 3 is the hardest part to manage, but also the most important.
Verra’s S3S Program offers a clear solution. It gives companies a simple and trusted way to act on supply chain emissions. By standardizing how emissions are measured and reported, the program makes climate action easier. It also opens new doors for investment and collaboration.
In the bigger picture, this program can support global climate goals. It helps reduce emissions at scale and strengthens trust in carbon markets.
With its 2026 launch coming soon, Verra’s Scope 3 Standard could become a key tool for companies worldwide—turning climate goals into real, measurable results.
The post Verra to Launch Scope 3 Standard in 2026: A New Era for Value Chain Carbon Tracking appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
