Some have already ploughed cash into planting trees or providing stoves in a bid to pitch some of their brands as ‘carbon neutral’ .
No surprise, then, that a number of companies have eschewed the idea , tightened up their internal policies and say they are focused on schemes to reduce rather than offset their emissions.
Their ‘corporate climate responsibility monitor’, published earlier this month, offers corporates an early warning to prepare for intense scrutiny of their net-zero plans and, in particular, the balance they strike between reductions and offsets.
What isn’t in doubt is more money than ever is being thrown at offsets.
Figures Maguire and colleagues compiled in November showed voluntary carbon markets were due to hit a record US$1bn in 2021 based on almost 300MtCO2e of carbon credit trades.
This surge has made campaign groups worried.
Nestlé and Unilever were both fighting fires in the week NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch published their new monitor, which encompasses the climate commitments made by 25 major companies .
In response, Nestlé told Just Food: “Nestlé’s net-zero climate roadmap has been validated by the Science Based Targets initiative .
“We welcome scrutiny of our actions and commitments on climate change.
The headline pledges cannot be taken at face value, the authors of the NewClimate Institute / Carbon Market Watch report warned.
Businesses argue they are taking action to account for emissions they can’t yet reduce.
Smit and her co-authors are happy with what they call “climate contributions” but businesses shouldn’t be claiming ownership of the emission reduction outcomes or subtracting associated reductions from their own greenhouse gas inventory or net-zero target.
Unilever says where carbon credits are generated from projects supported by the fund they are not counted towards the company’s emission reduction targets.
KitKat has targeted 2025 while Nespresso claims it will be carbon neutral by the end of this year, for example.
Nestlé has “internal rules” for what percentage of emissions its brands must reduce and then compensate in order to claim carbon-neutral status but doesn’t divulge what these are.
Greenpeace is delighted.
Climate claims made by UK brands are now being scrutinised by the country’s Competition and Markets Authority, which has published a new green claims code.
“Twenty years ago when we were founded and we co-founded Icroa it was all about that process to ensure there was that chain of custody, the transparency for credible claims,” he explains.
The new framework, known as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, offers a centralised system open to the public and private sectors, as well as another that allows countries to trade credits.
Much is also expected of the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets , which plans to create more certainty over the value of the credits as well as improve transparency and liquidity in the voluntary carbon market.
The average price per tonne for credits from forestry and land-use projects to reduce emissions or remove carbon increased from $4.33 per credit in 2019 to $4.73 last year, according to Ecosystem Marketplace.
Currently, food manufacturers are honing in on nature-based solutions, like forests and soils, for the removal and storage of carbon dioxide.
Nestlé is keen on the idea and, at a company level, has committed to inset rather than offset any residual emissions that it can’t reduce.
Many big manufacturers have started talking about ‘regenerative farming’ and the benefits this has for soil health and, critically, carbon sequestration .
Danone is another of those investing heavily in – and relying on – such production systems. “We have placed regenerative agriculture at the centre of our net-zero strategy,” says a spokesperson.
How far food manufacturers can shrink their footprints before their reduction options run out is currently impossible to say.
That’s because a large share of milk’s carbon footprint is methane from the cows and nitrous oxide from, primarily, the soil.” Mars’ current plan targets a 67% reduction in emissions by 2050, leaving a fair chunk of emissions.
Under the new Science-Based Targets initiative net-zero standard, emissions from agriculture must be reduced by 80%.
Popple at Natural Capital Partners says offsetting is not used in place of actual reductions: climate leaders use offsetting to go beyond reductions today, to address the climate crisis immediately by financing action whilst they reduce over time, he explains.
Indeed, carbon offsets can vacillate between a quick fix , according to Watt at the University of Manchester.