How to Use Carbon Offsetting for Business Travel Without Greenwashing
Carbon offsetting for business travel calculates emissions from flights, ground transportation, and accommodations, then purchases credits from projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases elsewhere. Some companies integrate travel offsetting into broader climate strategies, while others use it as a low-cost alternative to direct emission reductions. The challenge is distinguishing legitimate offset programs from greenwashing—and understanding when offsetting complements real climate action versus substituting for it.
The carbon offset market has faced significant credibility problems. In October 2024, U.S. federal agencies charged a major offset developer with fraudulently generating approximately 6 million carbon credits by submitting false data to registries, resulting in a $250 million investor fraud case. Studies of international crediting programs found that 60-70% of carbon credits may not represent accurately calculated emission reductions. When companies rely on offsets without reducing their own emissions, they create the appearance of climate action while avoiding operational changes.
Major Controversies in Carbon Offset Markets
Carbon offset scandals have exposed structural weaknesses in verification systems and raised questions about whether voluntary credits deliver promised climate benefits. Three categories of problems dominate recent controversies.
Fraudulent data and overissuance. The Securities and Exchange Commission settled charges in October 2024 against CQC Impact Investors for fraudulently altering data about cookstove projects in Africa, Asia, and Central America. From 2017 to December 2023, the company submitted false information to carbon credit registries and third-party reviewers, leading to the allocation of millions more credits than it was entitled to receive. The manipulated data deceived investors who purchased a $250 million stake based on projected credit generation.
Rainforest credits that failed to deliver reductions. In June 2025, Brazil's Federal Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify a $180 million carbon credit deal involving 12 million credits from Pará state sold to Amazon, Bayer, H&M Group, and Walmart, citing violations of national laws and Indigenous rights. At least 38 communities expressed they did not feel represented in the deal. Meanwhile, Verra rejected nearly 2 million credits from rice-farming projects after finding they failed to deliver claimed reductions.
Permanence and reversal risks. When offset projects are temporary—such as afforestation projects later reversed by deforestation or forest fires—sequestered greenhouse gases return to the atmosphere and the climate benefit is lost. Current carbon offset standards vary significantly across jurisdictions, and many lack robust provisions for ensuring long-term permanence, with weak liability frameworks for reversals.
Four Verified Carbon Offset Standards for Companies
Despite market controversies, several certification standards maintain third-party verification processes designed to ensure projects deliver measurable emission reductions. Four major standards operate in the voluntary carbon market.
Verra Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)
Verra's VCS, launched in 2006, is the most widely applied voluntary carbon offsetting program globally. The standard certifies renewable energy, forestry, land-use, and energy efficiency projects that meet criteria for additionality (emission reductions wouldn't occur without carbon credit revenue), permanence (reductions are long-lasting), and independent third-party verification. VCS projects generate Verified Carbon Units (VCUs), each with a unique serial number tracked from issuance to retirement in the Verra Registry. In 2024, Verra rejected nearly 2 million credits from rice-farming projects after finding they failed to deliver claimed reductions.
Gold Standard
Gold Standard was established in 2003 by WWF and other environmental organizations to address credibility concerns in early carbon offset projects. The certification requires dual verification—projects must demonstrate both emission reductions and contributions to at least two UN Sustainable Development Goals. Gold Standard focuses primarily on renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste management, and community service projects, with higher certification costs due to more stringent requirements including regular audits and ongoing monitoring.
Climate Action Reserve (CAR)
Climate Action Reserve operates as a compliance-grade carbon offset registry primarily serving North American markets. CAR develops standardized protocols for specific project types and conducts verification to ensure offset quality meets regulatory requirements.
American Carbon Registry (ACR)
The American Carbon Registry, founded in 1996, is the first private voluntary carbon offset registry in the United States. ACR certifies projects across forestry, energy efficiency, and methane capture using third-party verification to ensure projects meet quality standards for additionality and permanence.
How Carbon Offsetting Fits into Science-Based Targets
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) sets specific rules for how companies can use carbon offsets within emissions reduction commitments. Under SBTi standards, offsets play a limited role, with strict requirements about when and how companies can claim them toward targets.
Scope 3 business travel requires reduction targets, not offsets. If a company's Scope 3 emissions represent 40% or more of total emissions—which applies to the vast majority of companies—a Scope 3 target is required. That target must cover at least 67% of total Scope 3 emissions through direct reduction targets or supplier engagement. For Scope 3 business travel specifically, companies must tighten travel policies, default to virtual meetings where possible, and shift to lower-emission transportation modes. Offsets do not count toward near-term Scope 3 targets.
Neutralization only applies after 90% reduction. Under the SBTi Net-Zero Standard, companies must reduce emissions by more than 90% before using carbon removals to neutralize residual emissions. Even then, neutralization requires permanent carbon removal—not traditional offsets—and the updated Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2 introduced a fixed 41% threshold for long-lived removals. The requirement for ongoing emissions neutralization becomes mandatory only from 2035 onwards and applies to a small share of emissions.
No offset credit toward near-term targets. Companies cannot use carbon offsets to meet near-term science-based targets. SBTi distinguishes between emission reductions (cutting emissions from operations and value chains) and beyond-value-chain mitigation (offsetting), and only the former counts toward target achievement. This policy reflects concerns that companies would focus on low-cost offset opportunities rather than operational emission reductions.
When Carbon Offsetting Becomes Greenwashing
Greenwashing occurs when companies use carbon offsets to create a perception of climate action while failing to reduce their own emissions or investing in low-quality credits that don't deliver promised reductions. Three practices cross the line from legitimate offsetting to misleading claims.
Offsetting without reducing in-house emissions. Companies that purchase carbon credits without prioritizing direct emission reductions mislead stakeholders about their climate commitment. A credible approach follows a hierarchy: reduce emissions first through operational changes, then offset residual emissions that cannot be eliminated. While avoidance of emissions is the most effective option, offsetting is the most cost-effective but also the least effective in terms of actual climate impact.
Using unverified or fraudulent credits. The CQC Impact Investors case demonstrated how data manipulation can generate millions of unearned carbon credits. Without verification from recognized standards like Gold Standard or VCS, offset projects may not deliver promised emission reductions. Even with verification, problems persist—rejected rice-farming credits show that third-party review doesn't guarantee project integrity.
Making carbon neutrality claims based solely on offsets. In October 2024, litigation targeted KLM's carbon offset program, with plaintiffs contending that the airline misled customers to believe offsets could truly compensate for the impact of flying. Companies that claim carbon neutrality based on offsets—without demonstrating meaningful emission reductions—face legal and reputational risks.
Carbon Offset Providers for Business Travel
Several providers offer carbon offset programs specifically for corporate travel, with portfolios of verified projects and integration options for travel management systems.
Sustainable Travel International offers carbon offset solutions including full carbon neutrality programs, online calculators for flights and ground transport, and API integration with corporate travel management software. The organization's Climate Impact Portfolio includes forestry, clean energy, and blue carbon projects independently verified by Gold Standard or VCS. All projects undergo additional due diligence to confirm good standing, press reputation, and evidence of impact.
CNaught provides curated carbon credit portfolios designed to meet standards for climate, health, and wellbeing impacts. Harvard Business School selected CNaught's portfolio after evaluating options for quality and risk management, with offset costs of approximately $13.50 for an economy flight from San Francisco to Boston.
Carbon Footprint Ltd delivers carbon footprint calculations, tree planting, and renewable energy project support across global locations from wind power in China to improved cookstoves in Uganda. All projects meet quality standards for emission reductions.
How to Build a Credible Carbon Offsetting Program
A credible approach to carbon offsetting starts with measuring emissions, setting reduction targets, implementing operational changes, and only then purchasing offsets for remaining emissions.
Follow the reduction hierarchy. Eliminate unnecessary trips through virtual meeting technology, optimize routes and consolidate trips through AI-enabled travel management platforms, shift from air to rail for shorter distances, and select sustainable suppliers including hotels with verified certifications and rental car companies offering electric or hybrid vehicles. Implement carbon tracking tools that provide accurate footprint reporting and identify optimization opportunities. Only after exhausting reduction options should companies purchase offsets.
Select verified offset portfolios with caution. Choose offset providers that use Gold Standard, VCS, Climate Action Reserve, or American Carbon Registry certification. Verify that projects undergo independent third-party validation, demonstrate additionality, and prioritize permanence. However, recognize that even verified credits carry risk—the rejection of rice-farming credits and the CQC fraud case demonstrate that third-party review doesn't guarantee integrity.
Integrate travel into science-based targets. Companies embedding business travel into SBTi targets must set reduction goals covering at least 67% of Scope 3 emissions. Travel data flows into overall emissions inventories, with travel-specific reduction goals set in collaboration with sustainability and procurement teams. Companies with SBTi-validated targets report progress annually via CDP or directly to SBTi. Offsets do not count toward near-term targets—only direct emission reductions qualify.
Communicate accurately. Avoid claiming carbon neutrality based solely on offsets without demonstrating meaningful emission reductions. Be transparent about what percentage of emissions are reduced versus offset, specify which offset standards and project types receive investment, and acknowledge that offsetting is one component of a broader climate strategy with significant limitations.
Why Dyme's Approach Is Different
At Dyme, we don't rely on carbon offsets. We use our profits to invest directly in clean energy infrastructure—solar installations and renewable energy projects that provide communities with cheaper electricity, create jobs, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels for decades.
This approach addresses core problems with traditional carbon offsetting: permanence, additionality, and verifiability. Solar installations deliver electricity to areas where traditional energy infrastructure is expensive or unavailable, reducing energy costs. Unlike carbon credits that may not represent real emission reductions—as demonstrated by the CQC fraud case and rejected rice-farming credits—renewable energy infrastructure produces measurable, permanent emission reductions. Solar panels installed today continue generating clean electricity for 25-30 years, displacing fossil fuel generation throughout their lifetime.
The infrastructure is physical and verifiable, not dependent on uncertain forest permanence or questionable accounting methodologies. These projects fund essential infrastructure that communities need regardless of carbon markets, helping reduce poverty while addressing climate change. Whether you're booking a hotel for business travel or arranging accommodations for a conference, your stay through Dyme contributes to renewable infrastructure that delivers lasting emission reductions—at no extra cost to you.
Table of Contents
How to Use Carbon Offsetting for Business Travel Without Greenwashing
Carbon offsetting for business travel calculates emissions from flights, ground transportation, and accommodations, then purchases credits from projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases elsewhere. Some companies integrate travel offsetting into broader climate strategies, while others use it as a low-cost alternative to direct emission reductions. The challenge is distinguishing legitimate offset programs from greenwashing—and understanding when offsetting complements real climate action versus substituting for it.
The carbon offset market has faced significant credibility problems. In October 2024, U.S. federal agencies charged a major offset developer with fraudulently generating approximately 6 million carbon credits by submitting false data to registries, resulting in a $250 million investor fraud case. Studies of international crediting programs found that 60-70% of carbon credits may not represent accurately calculated emission reductions. When companies rely on offsets without reducing their own emissions, they create the appearance of climate action while avoiding operational changes.
Major Controversies in Carbon Offset Markets
Carbon offset scandals have exposed structural weaknesses in verification systems and raised questions about whether voluntary credits deliver promised climate benefits. Three categories of problems dominate recent controversies.
Fraudulent data and overissuance. The Securities and Exchange Commission settled charges in October 2024 against CQC Impact Investors for fraudulently altering data about cookstove projects in Africa, Asia, and Central America. From 2017 to December 2023, the company submitted false information to carbon credit registries and third-party reviewers, leading to the allocation of millions more credits than it was entitled to receive. The manipulated data deceived investors who purchased a $250 million stake based on projected credit generation.
Rainforest credits that failed to deliver reductions. In June 2025, Brazil's Federal Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit seeking to nullify a $180 million carbon credit deal involving 12 million credits from Pará state sold to Amazon, Bayer, H&M Group, and Walmart, citing violations of national laws and Indigenous rights. At least 38 communities expressed they did not feel represented in the deal. Meanwhile, Verra rejected nearly 2 million credits from rice-farming projects after finding they failed to deliver claimed reductions.
Permanence and reversal risks. When offset projects are temporary—such as afforestation projects later reversed by deforestation or forest fires—sequestered greenhouse gases return to the atmosphere and the climate benefit is lost. Current carbon offset standards vary significantly across jurisdictions, and many lack robust provisions for ensuring long-term permanence, with weak liability frameworks for reversals.
Four Verified Carbon Offset Standards for Companies
Despite market controversies, several certification standards maintain third-party verification processes designed to ensure projects deliver measurable emission reductions. Four major standards operate in the voluntary carbon market.
Verra Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)
Verra's VCS, launched in 2006, is the most widely applied voluntary carbon offsetting program globally. The standard certifies renewable energy, forestry, land-use, and energy efficiency projects that meet criteria for additionality (emission reductions wouldn't occur without carbon credit revenue), permanence (reductions are long-lasting), and independent third-party verification. VCS projects generate Verified Carbon Units (VCUs), each with a unique serial number tracked from issuance to retirement in the Verra Registry. In 2024, Verra rejected nearly 2 million credits from rice-farming projects after finding they failed to deliver claimed reductions.
Gold Standard
Gold Standard was established in 2003 by WWF and other environmental organizations to address credibility concerns in early carbon offset projects. The certification requires dual verification—projects must demonstrate both emission reductions and contributions to at least two UN Sustainable Development Goals. Gold Standard focuses primarily on renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste management, and community service projects, with higher certification costs due to more stringent requirements including regular audits and ongoing monitoring.
Climate Action Reserve (CAR)
Climate Action Reserve operates as a compliance-grade carbon offset registry primarily serving North American markets. CAR develops standardized protocols for specific project types and conducts verification to ensure offset quality meets regulatory requirements.
American Carbon Registry (ACR)
The American Carbon Registry, founded in 1996, is the first private voluntary carbon offset registry in the United States. ACR certifies projects across forestry, energy efficiency, and methane capture using third-party verification to ensure projects meet quality standards for additionality and permanence.
How Carbon Offsetting Fits into Science-Based Targets
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) sets specific rules for how companies can use carbon offsets within emissions reduction commitments. Under SBTi standards, offsets play a limited role, with strict requirements about when and how companies can claim them toward targets.
Scope 3 business travel requires reduction targets, not offsets. If a company's Scope 3 emissions represent 40% or more of total emissions—which applies to the vast majority of companies—a Scope 3 target is required. That target must cover at least 67% of total Scope 3 emissions through direct reduction targets or supplier engagement. For Scope 3 business travel specifically, companies must tighten travel policies, default to virtual meetings where possible, and shift to lower-emission transportation modes. Offsets do not count toward near-term Scope 3 targets.
Neutralization only applies after 90% reduction. Under the SBTi Net-Zero Standard, companies must reduce emissions by more than 90% before using carbon removals to neutralize residual emissions. Even then, neutralization requires permanent carbon removal—not traditional offsets—and the updated Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2 introduced a fixed 41% threshold for long-lived removals. The requirement for ongoing emissions neutralization becomes mandatory only from 2035 onwards and applies to a small share of emissions.
No offset credit toward near-term targets. Companies cannot use carbon offsets to meet near-term science-based targets. SBTi distinguishes between emission reductions (cutting emissions from operations and value chains) and beyond-value-chain mitigation (offsetting), and only the former counts toward target achievement. This policy reflects concerns that companies would focus on low-cost offset opportunities rather than operational emission reductions.
When Carbon Offsetting Becomes Greenwashing
Greenwashing occurs when companies use carbon offsets to create a perception of climate action while failing to reduce their own emissions or investing in low-quality credits that don't deliver promised reductions. Three practices cross the line from legitimate offsetting to misleading claims.
Offsetting without reducing in-house emissions. Companies that purchase carbon credits without prioritizing direct emission reductions mislead stakeholders about their climate commitment. A credible approach follows a hierarchy: reduce emissions first through operational changes, then offset residual emissions that cannot be eliminated. While avoidance of emissions is the most effective option, offsetting is the most cost-effective but also the least effective in terms of actual climate impact.
Using unverified or fraudulent credits. The CQC Impact Investors case demonstrated how data manipulation can generate millions of unearned carbon credits. Without verification from recognized standards like Gold Standard or VCS, offset projects may not deliver promised emission reductions. Even with verification, problems persist—rejected rice-farming credits show that third-party review doesn't guarantee project integrity.
Making carbon neutrality claims based solely on offsets. In October 2024, litigation targeted KLM's carbon offset program, with plaintiffs contending that the airline misled customers to believe offsets could truly compensate for the impact of flying. Companies that claim carbon neutrality based on offsets—without demonstrating meaningful emission reductions—face legal and reputational risks.
Carbon Offset Providers for Business Travel
Several providers offer carbon offset programs specifically for corporate travel, with portfolios of verified projects and integration options for travel management systems.
Sustainable Travel International offers carbon offset solutions including full carbon neutrality programs, online calculators for flights and ground transport, and API integration with corporate travel management software. The organization's Climate Impact Portfolio includes forestry, clean energy, and blue carbon projects independently verified by Gold Standard or VCS. All projects undergo additional due diligence to confirm good standing, press reputation, and evidence of impact.
CNaught provides curated carbon credit portfolios designed to meet standards for climate, health, and wellbeing impacts. Harvard Business School selected CNaught's portfolio after evaluating options for quality and risk management, with offset costs of approximately $13.50 for an economy flight from San Francisco to Boston.
Carbon Footprint Ltd delivers carbon footprint calculations, tree planting, and renewable energy project support across global locations from wind power in China to improved cookstoves in Uganda. All projects meet quality standards for emission reductions.
How to Build a Credible Carbon Offsetting Program
A credible approach to carbon offsetting starts with measuring emissions, setting reduction targets, implementing operational changes, and only then purchasing offsets for remaining emissions.
Follow the reduction hierarchy. Eliminate unnecessary trips through virtual meeting technology, optimize routes and consolidate trips through AI-enabled travel management platforms, shift from air to rail for shorter distances, and select sustainable suppliers including hotels with verified certifications and rental car companies offering electric or hybrid vehicles. Implement carbon tracking tools that provide accurate footprint reporting and identify optimization opportunities. Only after exhausting reduction options should companies purchase offsets.
Select verified offset portfolios with caution. Choose offset providers that use Gold Standard, VCS, Climate Action Reserve, or American Carbon Registry certification. Verify that projects undergo independent third-party validation, demonstrate additionality, and prioritize permanence. However, recognize that even verified credits carry risk—the rejection of rice-farming credits and the CQC fraud case demonstrate that third-party review doesn't guarantee integrity.
Integrate travel into science-based targets. Companies embedding business travel into SBTi targets must set reduction goals covering at least 67% of Scope 3 emissions. Travel data flows into overall emissions inventories, with travel-specific reduction goals set in collaboration with sustainability and procurement teams. Companies with SBTi-validated targets report progress annually via CDP or directly to SBTi. Offsets do not count toward near-term targets—only direct emission reductions qualify.
Communicate accurately. Avoid claiming carbon neutrality based solely on offsets without demonstrating meaningful emission reductions. Be transparent about what percentage of emissions are reduced versus offset, specify which offset standards and project types receive investment, and acknowledge that offsetting is one component of a broader climate strategy with significant limitations.
Why Dyme's Approach Is Different
At Dyme, we don't rely on carbon offsets. We use our profits to invest directly in clean energy infrastructure—solar installations and renewable energy projects that provide communities with cheaper electricity, create jobs, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels for decades.
This approach addresses core problems with traditional carbon offsetting: permanence, additionality, and verifiability. Solar installations deliver electricity to areas where traditional energy infrastructure is expensive or unavailable, reducing energy costs. Unlike carbon credits that may not represent real emission reductions—as demonstrated by the CQC fraud case and rejected rice-farming credits—renewable energy infrastructure produces measurable, permanent emission reductions. Solar panels installed today continue generating clean electricity for 25-30 years, displacing fossil fuel generation throughout their lifetime.
The infrastructure is physical and verifiable, not dependent on uncertain forest permanence or questionable accounting methodologies. These projects fund essential infrastructure that communities need regardless of carbon markets, helping reduce poverty while addressing climate change. Whether you're booking a hotel for business travel or arranging accommodations for a conference, your stay through Dyme contributes to renewable infrastructure that delivers lasting emission reductions—at no extra cost to you.
%201.svg){kind=small}