Most law firms have already taken some form of action on carbon. For many, that has meant purchasing carbon credits, often through avoidance projects, and increasingly through early-stage carbon removal. That first step matters. But it also creates a new challenge.

The question is no longer whether to act. It is how to ensure that what has already been done and what comes next is structured, defensible, and aligned with how  law firms want to operate. Because in a market as complex as carbon removal, the real difficulty is not access. It is decision-making.

Projects vary widely in how they work, how long carbon is stored, how risks are managed, and how outcomes are verified. At the same time, decisions often involve multiple stakeholders and need to stand up to scrutiny from clients, peers, and regulators. This is where defining clear decision criteria for carbon removal in law firms becomes essential.

From activity to strategy

Many law firms first entered the carbon market through broad carbon neutral models: buying credits against annual emissions, often across the full footprint, and often with more emphasis on cost and convenience than on long-term climate strategy. That may once have been a pragmatic place to start, but it is becoming harder to defend.

As expectations have evolved, firms are under more pressure to separate reductions from compensation, be clearer about what is genuinely residual, and show more rigour around the quality of any credits used. That is pushing the market away from box-ticking offsetting and towards more considered approaches.

The Oxford Offsetting Principles have helped shape that direction by arguing for a transition towards carbon removals with increasing permanence over time. For law firms, that makes high-quality carbon removal a more credible fit: better suited to a sector where claims need to be precise, strategies need to be defensible, and climate action increasingly needs to stand up to long-term scrutiny.

This is where decision criteria become essential. They provide the structure needed to evaluate projects consistently, compare different approaches on a like-for-like basis, and explain why decisions were made. In that sense, the difference between activity and strategy is not just what a firm buys, but how it decides.

What good decision criteria look like

There is no single “right” carbon removal project. Every option involves trade-offs. Some offer high permanence but come at a higher cost. Others are more accessible but involve greater uncertainty. The role of decision criteria is not to eliminate these trade-offs, but to make them explicit and manageable.

In practice, strong decision criteria for carbon removal in law firms tend to focus on five core areas. The first is climate impact, meaning whether a project genuinely removes CO₂, how long that carbon is stored, and whether the activity is additional. This goes beyond headline claims and focuses on the underlying climate outcome.

The second is delivery and risk. Not all carbon removal is delivered with the same level of certainty. Some projects issue credits only after removal has occurred, while others involve forward delivery. Understanding timing, monitoring, and potential risks is critical.

The third is co-benefits and alignment. Many projects generate additional social or environmental impact, but the more important question is whether they connect to the firm’s broader positioning for example, regions it operates in or sectors it advises.

The fourth is price and trade-offs. Cost should be understood in context. Lower-cost options often come with lower permanence or higher uncertainty. The goal is not to minimise cost, but to understand what is being prioritised and what is being accepted in return.

The fifth is verification and transparency. Carbon removal claims need to be supported by evidence. This includes how removals are measured, verified, and tracked over time. Strong criteria ensure decisions can be supported with clear, auditable information.

If you’re exploring how these elements can come together in practice, you can read more about how we do things here at Klimate when it comes to our due dligence.

From criteria to consistent decisions

Defining criteria is only valuable if they are applied consistently. In practice, this means using the same framework across all projects and maintaining a clear link between criteria and decisions. Instead of asking which project feels most appealing, the question becomes how each option performs against the agreed criteria.

This creates a more objective process and makes it easier to compare fundamentally different approaches. It also acknowledges an important reality: there is no perfect project. The goal is not perfection, but consistency and transparency in how decisions are made.

Aligning stakeholders and reducing friction

One of the biggest challenges for law firms is organisational rather than technical. Carbon removal decisions often involve sustainability teams, finance, operations, and partners, each with different perspectives and levels of expertise. Without a shared framework, discussions can become fragmented and difficult to resolve.

Decision criteria provide a common language. They allow sustainability teams to structure recommendations, finance teams to understand risk, and partners to assess whether decisions align with the firm’s broader direction. Over time, this reduces friction and shifts discussions away from individual project preferences towards shared principles.

Decision-making as part of commercial positioning

Carbon removal is not just a sustainability issue. It is increasingly a commercial one. Clients are placing greater emphasis on climate and ESG, and the legal sector is responding through initiatives such as the Legal Sustainability Alliance, the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance, and collaborations like the Legal Charter 1.5.

In this context, law firms are expected not just to act, but to act in a way that is coherent and credible. Clear decision criteria make it easier to explain what has been done and why. They help ensure that climate activity aligns with the advice firms give to clients, and that decisions can be communicated with confidence. Decision-making, in this sense, becomes part of how a firm positions itself in the market.

Building a strategy that holds up over time

The carbon removal market is still developing, and expectations are evolving quickly. Frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) are shaping how companies approach carbon removal, particularly in the context of net zero.

For law firms, this creates an important consideration. Decisions made today need to remain credible in the future. Approaches that seem reasonable now may not hold up as standards mature and scrutiny increases.

Clear decision criteria help mitigate this risk. By grounding decisions in structured principles, firms are better positioned to adapt without needing to rethink their entire approach. They move from reactive decisions to a more resilient, forward-looking strategy.

FAQ

What decision criteria should law firms use for carbon removal?

Law firms should define decision criteria for carbon removal based on durability, delivery certainty, auditability, and alignment with long-term climate strategy. This ensures that any carbon removal investments are defensible, measurable, and aligned with evolving standards such as the Oxford Offsetting Principles and SBTi guidance.

Why is carbon removal more relevant than traditional offsetting for law firms?

Carbon removal is becoming more relevant for law firms because expectations around climate claims have evolved. Unlike traditional offsetting, high-quality carbon removal focuses on physically removing CO₂ from the atmosphere, making it better suited for firms that need precise, credible, and future-proof climate strategies.

Should law firms build diversified carbon removal portfolios?

Yes, law firms should build diversified carbon removal portfolios rather than relying on a single project or method. Diversification reduces delivery risk, improves resilience to changing assumptions, and makes it easier to explain and justify procurement decisions internally and externally.

How can law firms ensure their carbon removal strategy is defensible?

Law firms can ensure their carbon removal strategy is defensible by clearly documenting decision criteria, understanding trade-offs between project types, and selecting projects that meet high standards for verification, permanence, and transparency. A portfolio-based approach also strengthens credibility by avoiding overreliance on any single supplier.

What are the key risks when procuring carbon removal?

The main risks in carbon removal procurement include delivery delays, overreliance on early-stage technologies, unclear accounting methodologies, and lack of transparency. Law firms can mitigate these risks by using structured procurement frameworks, conducting due diligence, and prioritising ex-post or verified credits where possible.

How does carbon removal fit into a law firm’s wider climate strategy?

Carbon removal should complement emissions reductions by addressing residual emissions that cannot be eliminated. For law firms, this means integrating carbon removal into a broader strategy that separates reductions from compensation, aligns with net zero targets, and evolves over time as standards and expectations change.

Where can I learn more about carbon removal strategies?

You can explore more here on our website or get in touch with us below to learn more about how approach carbon removal for law firms.