How to calculate company emissions

When aiming to calculate your emissions, the first step is deciding whether you want to do the work in-house, or rely on an external partner.

Using existing frameworks in-house

Calculating emissions requires a lot of time, work and specialist knowledge, but it is possible to carry out in-house. If your company or organisation has someone with the expertise needed, there are tools available to support you in calculating your emissions.

For instance, the GHG Protocol offers a free cross-sector Excel-based calculation tool with detailed instructions for use. There are numerous other tools available—we’ve put together a selection here.

Climate consultants

As almost all companies will need to report on carbon emissions sooner or later, there are a growing number of consultants specialised in doing so, whether you need a carbon footprint analysis or LCA.

Climate consultants tend to prefer an activity-based approach, which you can learn more about below, as this leads to more accurate calculation. Most consultants also offer strategic consulting on ways to reduce your emissions. This comes at a cost, but if you need high fidelity, it might be worth it.

Carbon accounting platforms

In recent years, there has been a flurry of activity in the carbon accounting space, and startups creating software solutions have sprung up around the world.

These platforms offer an impressive amount of automation, allowing them to calculate emissions faster and at lower cost. Many can also integrate directly into services your company uses, like your electricity meter, heating system, flight booking system, etc.

However, these platforms generally use a spend-based approach, which can lack accuracy.

What is the cost of calculating company emissions?

Now that we have a basic understanding of calculating emissions, you might anticipate the answer: It depends. In our experience, costs can range from €1,000 to more than €60,000. Below are some of the key factors that influence the cost of accounting:

‍

‍

Having these numbers handy before seeking help with calculating your emissions will help you get comparable quotes.

In general, you get what you pay for. The more expensive the solution you opt for, the higher the accuracy will be, and the better the calculations will stand up to scrutiny. It is very important to consider what you will use the calculations for, and where you are in your sustainability journey.

If you are a small company looking to get a basic understanding of your emissions and how to start reducing them, it makes sense to go with a cheaper, faster solution and get started. If you are a large company, intending to reach carbon neutrality, you need to have very thorough calculations from a reputable source.

What type of calculation do you need?

In these times of regulatory uncertainty, it makes good business sense for your company to keep updated with the latest developments. Here we outline two of the main approaches for calculating your climate impact: carbon footprint analysis and life cycle assessment (LCA).

Carbon Footprint Analysis: Emissions of your entire company

Nothing in life is free, and similarly, everything has a carbon footprint. A carbon footprint analysis evaluates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by a product, a manufacturing plant or an entire company. A range of GHG emissions are assessed and then converted into carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) to allow for comparisons.

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol provides the most widely used standard (called the Corporate Value Chain Standard and the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard) for measuring and reporting emissions. These are divided into Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, ensuring a true and fair representation of your company’s climate impact. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) also offers a standard (ISO 14064) to quantify, monitor, report, and verify your direct and indirect GHG emissions.

Scope 1

Scope 1 emissions relate to emissions that come directly from your company’s owned or controlled operations, e.g., fuel consumed in company vehicles. These are the emissions you have the most control over, and can quickly target to start your journey to net zero.

Scope 2

Scope 2 emissions represent indirect emissions from sources purchased or acquired for use in your company, e.g., electricity, heating, cooling. Hotspots caused by Scope 2 emissions are most efficiently targeted by switching to renewable energy sources.

Scope 3

Scope 3 emissions are the trickiest. They are all other indirect emissions occurring in the value chain of your company, both upstream and downstream, e.g., employee commuting, waste, business travel, investments, and the list goes on! There are two main methods for calculating Scope 3 emissions: spend-based and activity-based.

Spend vs. Activity-Based Data

Spend-based data is obtained by multiplying the financial value of a purchased good or service by an emission factor. Emission factors are derived from an industry average of emissions levels, and so spend-based data only represents a rough estimate of actual emissions.

A more precise by time, labor, and cost intensive approach is to use activity-based data. This involves collecting detailed data, both internally and externally from all suppliers, and multiplying that data by activity-specific emission factors. A more granular overview of supply chain emissions is provided from this approach which allows for targeted GHG reductions.

Life Cycle Analysis: Understanding a specific product or service

Alternatively, a LCA can be carried out on a specific product, process or service within a defined set of boundaries (cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-grave). Notably, it encompasses multiple environmental and economic impacts beyond just GHG emissions, such as:

• Natural resource depletion
• Ecosystem degradation
• Human health
• Social fairness
• Pollution
• Water quality

Obtaining and processing raw materials, manufacturing, dissemination, usage, maintenance, repairs, selling/reusing, and disposal can all be contained within this as well.

Cradle-to-Gate vs. Cradle-to-Grave vs. Cradle-to-Cradle

Cradle-to-gate refers to the environmental and economic impact of a product, process, or service from the point of raw material extraction through the manufacturing process, up until the point of use. Alternatively, the impacts of the entire process (from raw material extraction to disposal) can be accounted for in an LCA. This is often referred to as cradle-to-grave.

Some companies or organisations may opt for a cradle-to-gate approach if they have designed a product or service that is easily reusable. However, a lot of products and services amass most of their carbon footprint after purchase, which is when the cradle-to-grave approach is most insightful.

Another more holistic school of thought is cradle-to-cradle. This design philosophy was inspired by nature, where the waste products of one process serve as the fuel for another process. In short, no materials are simply discarded at the end of their useful life; instead they are reused indefinitely in other products of greater or equal value.

‍

Why we don’t calculate emissions for you

At Klimate, we offer access to portfolios of thoroughly vetted high-quality carbon removal to help companies compensate for their unavoidable emissions.

A lot of companies out there are offering to calculate your emissions as well as help you offset them. However, we are going about this differently.

01

We want to ensure trust and integrity

It seems logical to have one partner to take care of everything when it comes to going carbon neutral. However, there is a good reason why your accountant and auditor are not the same person.

Most companies that sell offsets, including ours, charge a commission for each credit. This means that the larger the emissions, the larger the commission. This creates a conflict of interest when making the calculation.

02

We believe everyone should do one thing and do it well

Sourcing and analysing the best carbon removal solutions is a big undertaking, and we want to focus all our efforts on this.

At the same time, calculating emissions is equally complex, and we see a growing number of companies specialising in industry-specific calculations like real estate, food, e-commerce, and even furniture!

We are under no illusion that we can be as good as them, therefore we choose to collaborate instead.

Need support with calculating your emissions?

We have a strong network of partners specialised in different industries and types of calculations. You can go through our partner directory here

What are SBTi and BVCM?

SBTi: The Science Based Targets initiative is a body that defines and promotes best practice in science-based net-zero target setting followed closely by thousands of companies. It is a convergence of groups including non-for-profit Carbon Disclosure Project, UN Global Compact, World Resources Institute and World Wide Fund for Nature.

BVCM: Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, mitigation action or investments that fall outside a company’s value chain, including activities that avoid or reduce GHG emissions, or remove and store GHGs from the atmosphere. It is a strategy described by SBTi (and others, such as Gold Standard) that calls for more urgent climate action in order to reach our common climate goals.

Why should companies invest in BVCM?

According to the IPCC, there is no longer a realistic pathway to reach our climate goal of limiting warming of 1.5 or even 2 degrees C without carbon removal. But, the current rate of scaling CDR is not yet at the trajectory needed in the coming decades to bridge the gap of emissions.

This is where BVCM comes in, encouraging climate action for short-term, immediate mitigation, to funnel investment to scaling the necessary solutions.

An introduction to the new BVCM guidance

Releasing a report and accompanying research paper titled “Above and Beyond” and “Raising the Bar,” this updated guidance from SBTi includes support on the design and implementation of BVCM, as well as incentives and opportunities for accelerating widespread corporate adoption.

The main goals of these publications are twofold:

1. To catalyse immediate mitigation outcomes
2. To promote the scale-up of emerging climate solutions

What emerging climate solutions should be considered within a BVCM pledge? “Above and Beyond” offers four initial categories, or portfolio principles, that should be followed in the implementation steps below. These include maximising mitigation outcomes, focus on under-financed opportunities, support for sustainable development goals (SDGs), and climate justice.

How to implement BVCM alongside your net zero strategy

Implementing a BVCM strategy alongside your net zero target allows your company to take immediate action to further mitigate the impact on climate change that comes from your ongoing emissions. It involves three specific steps:

• Pledge: determine strategic direction and define a time period, recommended 5 years or greater.
• Act: design a portfolio of activities and investments, ensure you meet minimum standards (Like IVCVM Core Carbon Principles), pay and publicly disclose.
• Report: establish annual cycle, verified by a third party, and comply with local existing standards (such as CSRD).

‍

What does SBTi say about carbon dioxide removal?

SBTi’s inclusion of carbon removal investment within the BVCM framework is expansive compared to the previously defined role of CDR–a final stage action to neutralise unavoidable emissions. Now, it could open the door for more companies to get involved in carbon markets today, rather than waiting until all possible reductions have taken place.

SBTi builds the business case for carbon removal:

CDR reduces costs in damages of climate change, reflecting the CSRD approach of double materiality.

It helps companies secure and maintain investment, talent, and brand trust.

To build a future-proof brand, you must get involved in the necessary process to scale and develop the market, specifically of durable solutions, to meet future demands.

The above framing of CDR is critical for the development of carbon markets as it lays out a credible path for companies to invest in carbon removal while they work on their short and long-term net zero target. Beyond this, it reflects the needs and aims of the carbon removal market today–this being the investment to scale and develop removal solutions to meet future demand.

But, this guidance is non-prescriptive, meaning sustainability leaders must to choose their own path for BVCM, depending on what is right for their company, and accomplish strategic goals rather than numeric targets. This puts the onus on companies to develop this in addition to their short-term and long-term net zero targets and general reduction efforts.

By leaving relatively open pathways of adoption and choices for investment, it could lead decision makers away from financing the ‘most necessary solutions’ deemed by the IPCC and SBTi and instead go for lowest-possible price point avoidance or renewables. Or, the lack of decisiveness could cause a sort of choice-paralysis, leading to a further stall in investment. Helping companies define BVCM targets and implementation plans can help avoid these pitfalls.

How do SBTi’s Key Principles line up with Klimate’s Approach?

The guiding principles for BVCM are highly aligned with our own approach, where activities must meet minimum standards of integrity and quality including ensuring additionality, permanence, and avoidance of leakage and be verified by a third party. And, any adverse social and environmental effects must be safeguarded against.

Support for projects through BVCM can help scale carbon removal projects - both nature-based and engineered approaches - and provide much needed support in the early years. This helps increase the likelihood of reaching the necessary capacity needed for near-term and long-term net zero targets. It also detaches the investment from specific accounting exercises, which increases the flexibility for companies to engage in these type of projects. This also opens up for larger and broader types of investments from more companies, while reducing the risks of greenwashing coming from unsubstantiated carbon neutral claims tied to specific scopes.

Simon Bager, Phd and CIO of Klimate

The updated BVCM toolbox will likely accelerate corporate adoption and implementation of this approach, meaning forward-thinking companies will need to update and align this guidance with their current sustainability aims. As this is still voluntary, it means that companies must be able to see the value in going “above and beyond” the required investments. The coming months and years will show whether the new guidance provide enough incentive to encourage this.

Nonetheless, the new BVCM guidance is a huge step in the right direction, as it provides companies with tangible guidelines for how to invest in projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere, while simultaneously working on their reduction efforts. All in all, this should lead to less carbon in the atmosphere, which is the ultimate goal.

What is the CSRD?

This directive aims to enhance transparency and accountability by imposing stricter Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting requirements on large European companies with annual turnovers exceeding €150 million. With a direct impact on 50,000 companies, the CSRD's influence will have knock-on effects through their value chains, emphasising the importance of transparency.

What is double materiality?

Double materiality builds on the corporate finance concept of materiality, that gauges the relevance of information or events for decision-making.

A double materiality assessment recognises the material significance of environmental and social impacts alongside financial considerations.

Viewing climate change through the lens of CSRD compels companies to act for several reasons:

• Companies impact climate change through an environmental means, including their CO2 emissions and activities to mitigate climate change
• Policies and targets that prepare for a societal net zero future, including a carbon tax or other incentivising measures–as suggested by the CSRD–are an important mechanism to driving change.
• Climate change presents a financial and social risk, including material loss and repetitional risk, and these disclosures provide a platform to show that you are being proactive.

What does the CSRD have to do with carbon dioxide removal?

Carbon removals and storage are part of the climate metrics and targets that must be reported within the framework, alongside any financial investment in removals & storage, net zero targets, or neutrality claims.

The heightened focus on CDR also means that close attention must be paid to the type, storage, and transportation of greenhouse gasses. This also includes managing non-permanence risks, including monitoring for leakage reversal events–a potentially difficult undertaking for companies that are new actors in the carbon market.

Companies pursuing net-zero goals or Science-Based Targets must invest in carbon removal to address their emissions. Consequently, it's crucial for all such companies to report their investments in the CSRD framework, making it critical.

An Opportunity to Future-Proof Your Business

Beyond setting regulatory standards for disclosures, the CSRD framework enhances transparency and presents an opportunity to stay ahead of regulatory requirements. Becoming more future-proof in the eyes of regulators and stakeholders is essential in this sustainability-driven era. Highlighting your climate strategy and carbon removal efforts not only boosts your brand reputation but also positions you attractively as an employer and strengthens relationships with suppliers and clients.

Three Key Benefits of the CSRD

Getting started on double materiality analyses and CSRD may seem challenging. However, this process can also kick-start necessary planning, cross-collaboration, and change-making within an organisation.

To fully capitalise on the benefits of the CSRD's transparency era, it's more than just publishing a report.

1. Asks companies to continually align their goals and actions with that of the Paris Agreement.
2. Heightens quality and accountability in climate action–especially offsetting as it accounts for removals, but not avoidance.
3. Transparency and clarity are two key values in CSRD. These translate into effective sustainability communication to stakeholders and boosts reputation.

Make a real climate impact

The CSRD is a transformative force driving transparency and accountability in the European corporate landscape. It mandates stringent ESG reporting, with a focus on climate-related metrics and targets. Embracing the CSRD is not only a regulatory obligation but also an opportunity to future-proof your business, enhance your reputation, and contribute to a sustainable future.

Join us and learn more about how you can employ a sound carbon removal strategy–that takes into account the double materiality assessments of CSRD–to minimise risk and make a real climate impact.

What is the difference between short-term and long-term carbon storage?

The concept of permanence, or durability, is central to effective carbon removal. Durability denotes the longevity of carbon sequestration within a carbon sink. Yet, this is influenced by the risk of reversal—the potential for disruption and subsequent release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

For instance, carbon stored in mineral form within rock is durable with minimal risk of reversal, unlike carbon dioxide pumped into rock as a gas that could be disturbed. Trees are fairly durable, storing carbon for decades to hundreds of years, but are at a higher risk of reversal in the event of something like a forest fire.

Different carbon removal methods have different levels of durability (how long the carbon is expected to be stored for) and different levels of reversal risk (how likely is the carbon to slowly or abruptly leak back to the atmosphere).

‍

‍

Combining methods is necessary to combat climate change

Engineered CDR solutions hold enormous potential to reach our global climate targets by amplifying long-term geological reservoirs. However, these solutions require a long-term outlook. The technologies behind them are still nascent and require significant research and investment to reach gigaton scale, which will take decades.

Nature-based carbon storage acts as a very effective buffer in the meantime. Forests already store vast amounts of CO2 and forestation has the capacity to be scaled massively, although land is a finite resource, so it is important to consider where and how to reforest. In addition, forestry is a well-established carbon removal method with proven results and a high degree of knowledge about risk factors and limitations. But, it requires large amounts of land, a major constraint to scale–especially in the face of climate change.

The case for scaling nature-based carbon removals

It is possible to link nature-based solutions and tech-driven CDR solutions in sequence to maximise overall climate impact and socio-environmental benefits. This mix-methods approach can also diversify risk and balance cost.

This strategy, termed 'horizontal stacking', helps account for the delay in permanent carbon credit availability, while making sure investment still reaches tech-driven carbon removal projects.

By the time carbon stored in less permanent sinks like forests is about to be re-released, the more energy-intensive engineered solutions will be sufficiently scaled to be able to absorb this CO2 once again.

There is evidence to show that nature-based removals has the potential to reduce peak warming in the shorter term, as long as they are employed alongside strong emissions reduction efforts [1].

Taking the long view: Investing in carbon removals for maximum climate impact

It’s important to strike the right balance between climate impact and important co-benefits in every portfolio. After all, sequestering carbon is important but carbon tunnel vision—i.e., ignoring all other factors—is not feasible, as carbon removal does not occur in a closed system. You can simultaneously invest in long-term removal, supporting the development of the future market, while deploying methods that are readily available at present.

Scaling and diversifying the market through increased investment and commitment from governments and companies are crucial steps toward achieving global net zero, but they aren’t the whole picture. Upholding our common climate goals of the Paris Agreement demands a comprehensive approach that extends beyond carbon removal to tackle the underlying causes of climate change.

What are the Oxford Offsetting Principles?

The Oxford Offsetting Principles are four principles created to provide a resource for designing and delivering rigorous voluntary net zero commitments by governments, cities, and companies and help to align work on credible offsetting around the world.

First released in 2024, they were revised at the start of 2024 to address critical changes in the market in the last several years: evidence that avoidance schemes are over-crediting, and that the market is far away from the scaling needs especially of durable solutions.

With this reframing in mind, the core principles help companies pursue a net zero future without fears of greenwashing. Companies that align with the principles can genuinely communicate their impact with minimal reputational risk, reaping the benefits of their actions. The 4 Principles are as follows:

1. Urgently reduce emissions, ensure integrity, and regularly revise as best practice evolves.
2. Shift to removal approaches for any residual emissions.
3. Shift to more durable removals with a low risk of reversals.
4. Support the development of innovative and integrated approaches to achieving net zero.

In the following, we cover the principles and explain how you can align your business with them to ensure the credibility of your efforts is not questioned.

Why should companies follow the Oxford Offsetting Principles?

Carbon avoidance offsetting has gotten a bad reputation over the last decade–and for good reason. Companies have relied on cheap, low-quality offsets that don't actually remove CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. In combination with over-communication on the impact of offsets, many companies' efforts can be classified as greenwashing. On the other hand, companies fear greenwashing accusations, leading to green-hushing and stagnancy in climate action

However, the science is quite clear: We will only be able to stay within the goals of the Paris Agreement with significant carbon removal. Private companies are a crucial driver of this, and if they cannot compensate for their emissions in a trustworthy manner, we will not be able to scale the technologies needed.

‍

‍

The principles and how to align.

Principle 1

Cut emissions as a priority, ensure the environmental integrity of credits, and regularly revise as best practice evolves.

Principle one is all about ambitiously reducing your own value chain and, where you can't, adapting to the highest possible quality of credits as the market develops.

‍

Key point 1.1

Prioritise reducing your own emissions - Minimise the need for offsets in the first place. Ambitious reductions in tandem with removals–a concept called dual targets–are the most robust approach a company can take.

Key point 1.2

Ensure environmental integrity - Use credits that are verifiable and correctly accounted for and have a low risk of non-additionality, reversal, and creating negative unintended consequences for people and the environment.

Key point 1.3

Maintain transparency—Disclose current emissions, accounting practices, targets to reach net zero, and the type of offsets you employ. Clarity and transparency are essential to effective climate communication, which is why they remain a major focus of our public ledger, certificates, and communications support.

‍

Principle 2

Transition to carbon removal offsetting for any residual emissions (away from emissions avoidance or reduction) by the global net zero target date.

This is a big one, but luckily, it's also easy to achieve if you are willing to go the extra mile. This principle is about moving from projects that avoid emissions entering the atmosphere (such as windmills) to projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere.

‍

Key point 2.1

Today, reduction or avoided emissions projects make up most of the market. Net zero requires scaling removals to multiple giga-tonne capacity. Quality reduction projects are necessary but insufficient to achieve net zero in the long run, whereas carbon removals scrub carbon directly from the atmosphere.

‍

Principle 3

Shift to removals with durable storage and low risk of reversal.

All carbon dioxide needs to be stored, and different methods vary in their length or susceptibility to releasing GHGs back into the atmosphere, i.e., the risk of reversal. Methods of storage vary in durability and reversal risk, leading to a spectrum of nature-based, engineered, or hybrid solutions. All these play a key role in accelerating and reaching net zero.

‍

Key point 3.1

Some short-lived storage methods have a higher risk of being reversed over decades. Other long-lived storage methods can carbon with a low risk of reversal over centuries to millennia, such as storing CO₂ in geological reservoirs or mineralising carbon into stable forms.

Short- and medium-storage solutions with moderate reversal risks still remain critical as they help buy time to reduce emissions and support biodiversity and ecosystem resilience.

Investment and scaling today must recognise the need for improving and accelerating durable technologies. This must begin now, and incorporating these alongside nature-based solutions sends an important market signal. Maximising impact through a portfolio achieves a great balance of these priorities.

‍

Principle 4

Support the development of innovative and integrated approaches to achieving net zero.

Today's market is still in its early stages, and early adopters are necessary to support its growth. This means companies like yours can impact a developing quality market and reap the benefits of being a first-mover.

‍

Key point 4.1

Use long-term agreements that are bankable and investable – so that project developers can have the certainty required to create credits for net zero goals. One element is signing long-term agreements facilitated by Klimate.

Key point 4.2

Form sector-specific alliances—work collaboratively with peers to develop the net zero-aligned offsets market. One key element of this is shifting demand by advocating for stronger industry bodies and standards supported by policy. The other side involves guiding buyers to send demand signals through investments that follow principles 2 and 3.

Key point 4.3

De-risk project finance. Similar to points 4.1-.2, signing long-term agreements, often called advanced market commitments, improves project developers' security and, therefore, scalability. Facilitating and contracting these agreements can be difficult, which is why Klimate has created a single digital contract and platform for tracking and streamlining the procurement process over multiple methods and timelines.

Key point 4.4

Support the restoration and protection of a wide range of natural and semi-natural ecosystems in their own right – not only will this secure the ecosystem goods and services on which humans depend, including resilience to the impacts of climate change, but it will also contribute to carbon storage over the long term. This highlights the portfolio approach and the importance of synergies through co-benefits.

Key point 4.5

Adopting and publicising these Principles and incorporating them into regulation and standard-setting for approaches to offsetting and Net Zero. This key point is self-explanatory: transparent and clearly stating the strategy of your offsetting activity is key to effective climate communication.

Key point 4.6

Invest in additional mitigation beyond the value chain. We've got a long way to go to develop the market for net zero and limit warming to 1.5. This goal isn't possible without investment today in preparation for a net zero future.

‍

Manage future risk with carbon removal.

We didn't come up with the Oxford Principles, but they help inform our science-backed approach to carbon removal. A robust scientific strategy is required to future-proof your business, manage future compliance, avoid regulatory risks, and even boost brand reputation.

In the past, offsetting markets allowed companies to make claims on the back of low quality offsets–which is wasteful at best and greenwashing at worst. We want to empower companies to do better when they do good. By aligning with the Oxford Principles and building a solution with our team of experts, you can invest confidently and accelerate your company climate journey.

‍

Taxonomy of Carbon Offsets

The first thing to understand about carbon offsets is whether a greenhouse gas is removed from the atmosphere, or if it is an avoided emission, which we cover in detail here.

The second thing to understand is whether emissions that have been removed from the atmosphere are out of the atmosphere in the short term or in the long term. We will cover this further in the “permanence” section in this article, but for now, just know that we are grouping carbon removal methods in these two buckets.

The chart below presents a simplified version of the carbon credit categories outlined in the Oxford Offsetting Principles. This allows us to very roughly put all types of compensation into three buckets:

• Avoidance
• Short-term removal
• Long-term removal

Generally, there is a significant increase in cost when moving down the scale: CO₂ credits from renewable energy projects can be bought for as little as a few euros per ton, forest-based solutions vary from €5 to €30, while permanent removal like Direct Air Capture can cost as much as €900 per ton.

‍

Why we need to shift towards permanent carbon removal solutions

“An immediate transition to 100% carbon removals is not necessary, nor is it currently feasible, but organisations must commit to gradually increase the percentage of carbon removal offsets they procure with a view to exclusively sourcing [Permanent] carbon removals by mid-century.”
‍
- Oxford Offsetting Principles

‍

One of the main take-aways from the Oxford Offsetting Principles is that we need to make two transitions simultaneously:

1. Moving from avoidance towards removal
2. Moving from short-term to long-term removal

This transition is not easy, and it’s not feasible to achieve a complete switch immediately. Carbon disclosure regulations are gradually coming into force around the globe to incentivise corporate climate action. At the same time, carbon removal solutions must be rapidly scaled to ensure that there is sufficient capacity for permanent carbon removal in the next few decades. Reaching Net Zero by 2050 - in line with the targets set out in the Paris Agreement - relies on building integrity and reliable supply in the voluntary carbon market.

‍