Carbon markets can feel difficult to navigate. The rules are evolving, buyer expectations are changing, and terms like insetting, offsetting, contribution claims, and Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) are often used interchangeably when they should not be.

That was the focus of our recent webinar that I participated in along with the team from Accura: From compliance to competitive advantage: Navigating the new carbon credit reality

The clearest takeaway was simple. Companies often approach climate action backwards. They start with what is easy to buy or easy to explain, then ask later what regulation, reporting, and long-term strategy actually require. The stronger route is the opposite. Start with your business context. Start with the regulatory landscape. Then decide what role carbon credits or carbon removal should play.

Start with your roadmap

One of the strongest points in the session was that companies should not treat carbon markets as a last-minute add-on. They should first assess which regulations apply across their operations and value chain, what they are legally required to do, and what is more strategic or market-driven.

As Kasper Juul Naurgaard from Accura put it: “The reality is actually that you have to do the opposite. You need to plan your own journey and strategy, and therefore you should always start with assessing the regulatory landscape and what type of regulations are actually the ones applying across your activities as well as the value chains.”

Only then does it make sense to decide how to act. That action can take different forms: reducing emissions, avoiding emissions, removing carbon, or compensating. These options do not all do the same thing, and they do not carry the same regulatory or commercial value. A roadmap helps companies understand where each approach fits.

Insetting and offsetting are not the same

The webinar also explored the difference between insetting and offsetting. In simple terms, insetting relates to action within a company’s value chain. Offsetting sits outside it. That matters because regulators are increasingly rewarding action linked to real operational change, while becoming more cautious about broad offset-based claims.

This does not mean offsetting disappears. It does mean companies need to be more careful about how they use it, how they communicate it, and what they expect it to achieve.

The wider shift is clear: climate action is moving away from blurred claims and towards more specific, evidence-based approaches.

Quality is a buyer issue too

Another important theme was quality.

This is not only a project developer question. It is also a buyer question. When a company buys a credit, it is not just buying a climate-related product. It is also taking on reputational exposure.

As Kasper Juul Naurgaard from Accura said: “At the end of the day, the off-takers and the buyers of any credit or any intangible environmental product will also buy a reputational product with it. You really need to know what it is that you are actually getting into, what is the quality of this, and how do I ensure environmental integrity.”

That is why due diligence matters. Companies need to understand what they are purchasing, how quality has been assessed, and whether the claim will stand up to scrutiny. They also need to understand how different project types fit into a broader strategy, how durable the removal is, what risks are attached, and how future-proof the decision may be.

In the webinar discussion, this came through especially clearly in relation to carbon removal. Higher-quality removals may face tighter supply in the future, and that changes how companies should think about timing, portfolio building, and long-term risk.

For some sectors, this is already becoming strategic

The real estate example in the session brought this into focus. The discussion showed how carbon strategy increasingly intersects with finance, asset planning, permitting risk, and the future value of buildings. In that context, carbon is not only a compliance topic. It becomes part of how developers think about future-proofing assets and managing long-term exposure.

That principle extends beyond real estate. As regulation develops, companies in many sectors will need to think less about whether this matters and more about how to act in a way that is commercially sound.

You do not have to start big

The final message of the webinar was one many companies need to hear.

You do not have to remove all emissions at once. You do not need a perfect strategy before taking a first step. You can start small.

That might mean focusing first on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, piloting a project with a meaningful link to your value chain, or testing a smaller portfolio and building internal understanding before scaling further.

What matters is that the first step is deliberate.

Carbon markets are complex. But complexity is not a reason to wait. It is a reason to approach the space with more structure, better questions, and the right support.

The companies that will be best placed are not the ones that waited for the market to become simple. They are the ones that started building a strategy early.

If you want to listen back to the discussion access the webinar recording here.