Dozens endorse statement on alternative approach to climate action outside corporate value chains

Dozens of stakeholders have signed a joint statement urging companies and organisations to ditch outdated ‘carbon neutrality’ models and replace them with robust alternative approaches to climate action outside corporate value chains that provide much-needed finance without making unsubstantiated claims.

As the climate crisis continues to escalate, companies and organisations must urgently prioritise internal decarbonisation that is ambitious enough to help keep global warming within the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Agreement. To demonstrate their sense of responsibility, they should also simultaneously fund high-quality climate action beyond their value chains. When done properly, this approach can provide essential funding for activities that offer benefits for both the climate and sustainable development. 

For too long, however, companies have relied on outdated “carbon neutrality” models, despite their inadequacy and inaccuracy. For this reason, Carbon Market Watch invited stakeholders from the private sector, academia and civil society to sign up to a joint public statement that emphasises the importance of financing climate action outside an organisation’s value chain using credible and effective alternatives to ‘carbon neutrality’.  

Rather than being delineated by a single name (“contribution model”, “Beyond Vale Chain Mitigation”, etc.), these alternatives are, instead, defined by key steps which include calculating and disclosing greenhouse gas footprints, determining a budget for climate action outside a company’s value chain, undertaking due diligence on climate initiatives, and  financing said initiatives. Companies should also accurately communicate about the prior steps, clearly separating funding for action outside their value chain from their own internal decarbonisation efforts. 

Sign of the times

Nearly 50 signatories have, so far, endorsed the CMW statement, which is still open for endorsement. This shows that a wide range of stakeholders – from NGOs and academia, to companies and carbon market actors – agree with this alternative model and reveals that there is an emerging consensus of organisations which wish to see it implemented. 

Two signatories, Gold Standard and Compensate Foundation, both important players in the voluntary carbon market, have also come to the same conclusion in recent publications: it is now time for a different strategy to fund climate action outside the value chain.  

With the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos and the trilogue negotiations on the EU Green Claims Directive on the horizon, where corporate climate action will be on the agenda, Carbon Market Watch encourages companies, governments and all relevant stakeholders to ditch false and misleading ‘carbon neutrality’ models  which can hamper and delay the green transition, and embrace credible alternative approaches. 

We continue to welcome any company, organisation or individual who backs this alternative strategy to express their support by signing this statement. The sign-on form can be found here.

Author

  • Lindsay is Carbon Market Watch's expert on global carbon markets, with a special focus on corporate climate responsibility.

    View all posts

Related posts

EU’s 2040 credit line risks bankrupting the climate

The inclusion of flawed carbon credits in any compliance or voluntary market – particularly within the EU’s 2040 climate architecture – would pose a serious risk to environmental integrity. If the EU allows these credits to count towards its legally binding climate targets, it will effectively undermine real domestic mitigation by replacing it with credits that exist only on paper.

First wave of Article 6 carbon credits misfire spectacularly

A new Carbon Market Watch analysis, based on currently available project data, has uncovered that the first project transitioning from the CDM to the Article 6.4 market is poised to issue an astonishing 27.4 times more credits than it should as compared to the values from peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Join our mailing list

Stay in touch and receive our monthly newsletter, campaign updates, event invites and more.