SAF, Carbon Credits, and Renewables: A Business Fact Pack
Organizations addressing corporate emissions use three tools across different categories: sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) for business travel, carbon credits for residual emissions, and renewables for operational electricity. SAF displaces conventional jet fuel and cuts flight emissions (Scope 3 Category 6). Carbon credits compensate for emissions that remain after reductions. Renewables cut Scope 2 emissions from electricity consumption in offices, facilities, and data centers.
Each operates under different accounting standards. SAF certificates follow book-and-claim systems managed by registries like RSB. Renewables follow the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. Carbon credits follow frameworks like ICVCM Core Carbon Principles and the VCMI Claims Code. This guide covers what each can and can't do, how to procure and account for them, and how to structure claims that satisfy auditors while avoiding greenwashing.
SAF: availability, pathways, and accounting
SAF basics: Drop-in jet fuel meeting ASTM D7566 that blends with conventional jet fuel. Most approved pathways cap at 50%; some limit to 10–30%. Lifecycle reductions range 50–80% lower than fossil jet fuel under ICAO CORSIA rules. Power-to-liquid "eSAF" can exceed 90% reductions but supply is nascent and costs run 3–5× conventional SAF.
Current pathways: HEFA (waste oils/fats) dominates production at 82% of capacity, with 60–80% reductions but feedstock limits. Fischer-Tropsch (waste conversion) varies widely, 30–90% based on process energy. Alcohol-to-Jet depends on feedstock; land-use change can erode benefits. eSAF combines green hydrogen with captured CO₂ for 90%+ potential reductions.
Market status: Global production reached 2 Mt in 2025 (0.7% of jet fuel demand)—double 2024 but far short of mandates. Prices averaged 4.2× conventional jet fuel; EU compliance fees pushed some to 5×. Most organizations purchase SAF certificates via book-and-claim, which separates the physical molecule from the environmental attribute.
Policy drivers: EU ReFuelEU requires 2% SAF from 2025, rising to 6% by 2030, 70% by 2050; synthetic sub-mandate starts 1.2% in 2030. U.S. Section 40B covered 2023–2024 mixtures; Section 45Z applies from 2025 with credits tied to lifecycle intensity.
Accounting: Most organizations record SAF as Scope 3, Category 6 (Business Travel) insets—value-chain reductions, not offsets. SAFc and WEF/SABA guidelines recommend disclosing: pathway, feedstock, blend %, LCA model and reduction %, volume (tCO₂e), registry retirement ID and date, reporting year, and program used.
Carbon credit quality and claims
Credits compensate for residual emissions after value-chain cuts. They don't reduce Scope 3 inventory totals. ICVCM Core Carbon Principles require additionality (the project wouldn't have happened without carbon finance), permanence, robust quantification, no double counting, and sustainable development co-benefits. The market faces credibility challenges: studies show many projects fail to deliver claimed carbon benefits due to weak additionality assessments, permanence risks (particularly for forestry projects vulnerable to wildfires and land-use changes), and auditing conflicts of interest where verifiers are paid by the developers they assess.
Project types: Avoidance credits (renewable energy, cookstove programs, methane capture) prevent emissions that would have occurred. Removal credits (forestry, direct air capture, biochar, enhanced weathering) pull CO₂ from the atmosphere. For net-zero claims, SBTi requires durable removals with long-term storage at the target year.
Durability considerations: Geological storage and mineralization offer permanence measured in millennia. Biochar provides centuries to millennia depending on feedstock and production method. Forestry carries reversal risk from fires, disease, and land-use changes; strong monitoring and buffer pools are essential.
Claims framework: VCMI Claims Code frames credits as contributions sitting above and beyond science-aligned reductions, never as replacements for actual emissions cuts. Credits don't reduce Scope 3 inventory totals; they compensate residual emissions after value-chain cuts.
Accounting: ICVCM and VCMI recommend disclosing: program (Verra, Gold Standard, etc.), methodology, project type, vintage, volume retired (tCO₂e), durability attributes for removals, and registry retirement proof.
Renewables: instruments, additionality, and hourly matching
Instruments available: Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) are tradable certificates representing the environmental attributes of 1 MWh of renewable electricity. In North America these are Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs); in Europe, Guarantees of Origin (GOs). Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are long-term contracts (often 10–20 years) where buyers commit to purchasing electricity or renewable attributes from specific projects.
Additionality and impact: PPAs from new-build projects deliver stronger climate impact than unbundled EACs from existing facilities. New-build PPAs provide revenue certainty that helps developers finance projects that wouldn't have been built without the commitment. Buying surplus certificates from old projects already operating delivers weaker additionality.
Hourly matching: Traditional annual matching lets organizations buy 100 MWh of renewable certificates to "cover" 100 MWh of annual consumption, even if generation and consumption don't align in time. Hourly matching using EnergyTag-compliant granular certificates requires that renewable generation and consumption happen in the same hour and grid zone. Organizations operating data-intensive systems (data centers, cloud infrastructure) can pursue 24/7 hourly matching, which better reflects real decarbonization and drives investment in firming technologies like batteries and flexible load.
Accounting requirements: The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance requires dual reporting: location-based (grid average where the organization operates) and market-based (adjusted for renewable purchases). This dual reporting lets stakeholders see both operational footprint and the impact of renewable investments.
Net-zero hierarchy and disclosure sequence
The SBTi Net-Zero Standard treats credits as beyond-value-chain mitigation. At the net-zero target year, organizations must neutralize residual emissions with durable removals—credits from projects that pull CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it long-term. SBTi V2 is in consultation through 2025; final rules may clarify the role of environmental attribute certificates and tighten beyond-value-chain mitigation rules.
Disclosure sequence:
- Gross emissions by scope and category
- Reductions from SAF with pathway, LCA, volume, and retirement proof
- Residuals compensated with credit details and claims framework used
Avoid "carbon neutral" claims unless the claims framework explicitly permits it with required credit types and coverage.
From Emissions to Disclosure: Building a Credible Net-Zero Path
For business travel emissions: avoid and shift trips first (rail where viable, right-size cabin policies), then address unavoidable flight emissions with SAF certificates purchased through credible book-and-claim programs with transparent retirement records. Compensate residual travel emissions with high-integrity credits framed under recognized codes like VCMI, never as replacements for reductions. For operational emissions: decarbonize Scope 2 with PPAs and new-build EACs that drive additional renewable capacity.
Organizations building sustainable business travel policies should prioritize reductions before compensation and maintain transparent disclosure. For more guidance on reducing carbon emissions from business travel, review the full mitigation hierarchy. As policies and standards evolve in 2025—particularly SBTi V2, new ICVCM assessments, and expanding EU and U.S. mandates—keep language precise and tie every claim to a cited method, standard, or registry entry.
Table of Contents
SAF, Carbon Credits, and Renewables: A Business Fact Pack
Organizations addressing corporate emissions use three tools across different categories: sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) for business travel, carbon credits for residual emissions, and renewables for operational electricity. SAF displaces conventional jet fuel and cuts flight emissions (Scope 3 Category 6). Carbon credits compensate for emissions that remain after reductions. Renewables cut Scope 2 emissions from electricity consumption in offices, facilities, and data centers.
Each operates under different accounting standards. SAF certificates follow book-and-claim systems managed by registries like RSB. Renewables follow the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance. Carbon credits follow frameworks like ICVCM Core Carbon Principles and the VCMI Claims Code. This guide covers what each can and can't do, how to procure and account for them, and how to structure claims that satisfy auditors while avoiding greenwashing.
SAF: availability, pathways, and accounting
SAF basics: Drop-in jet fuel meeting ASTM D7566 that blends with conventional jet fuel. Most approved pathways cap at 50%; some limit to 10–30%. Lifecycle reductions range 50–80% lower than fossil jet fuel under ICAO CORSIA rules. Power-to-liquid "eSAF" can exceed 90% reductions but supply is nascent and costs run 3–5× conventional SAF.
Current pathways: HEFA (waste oils/fats) dominates production at 82% of capacity, with 60–80% reductions but feedstock limits. Fischer-Tropsch (waste conversion) varies widely, 30–90% based on process energy. Alcohol-to-Jet depends on feedstock; land-use change can erode benefits. eSAF combines green hydrogen with captured CO₂ for 90%+ potential reductions.
Market status: Global production reached 2 Mt in 2025 (0.7% of jet fuel demand)—double 2024 but far short of mandates. Prices averaged 4.2× conventional jet fuel; EU compliance fees pushed some to 5×. Most organizations purchase SAF certificates via book-and-claim, which separates the physical molecule from the environmental attribute.
Policy drivers: EU ReFuelEU requires 2% SAF from 2025, rising to 6% by 2030, 70% by 2050; synthetic sub-mandate starts 1.2% in 2030. U.S. Section 40B covered 2023–2024 mixtures; Section 45Z applies from 2025 with credits tied to lifecycle intensity.
Accounting: Most organizations record SAF as Scope 3, Category 6 (Business Travel) insets—value-chain reductions, not offsets. SAFc and WEF/SABA guidelines recommend disclosing: pathway, feedstock, blend %, LCA model and reduction %, volume (tCO₂e), registry retirement ID and date, reporting year, and program used.
Carbon credit quality and claims
Credits compensate for residual emissions after value-chain cuts. They don't reduce Scope 3 inventory totals. ICVCM Core Carbon Principles require additionality (the project wouldn't have happened without carbon finance), permanence, robust quantification, no double counting, and sustainable development co-benefits. The market faces credibility challenges: studies show many projects fail to deliver claimed carbon benefits due to weak additionality assessments, permanence risks (particularly for forestry projects vulnerable to wildfires and land-use changes), and auditing conflicts of interest where verifiers are paid by the developers they assess.
Project types: Avoidance credits (renewable energy, cookstove programs, methane capture) prevent emissions that would have occurred. Removal credits (forestry, direct air capture, biochar, enhanced weathering) pull CO₂ from the atmosphere. For net-zero claims, SBTi requires durable removals with long-term storage at the target year.
Durability considerations: Geological storage and mineralization offer permanence measured in millennia. Biochar provides centuries to millennia depending on feedstock and production method. Forestry carries reversal risk from fires, disease, and land-use changes; strong monitoring and buffer pools are essential.
Claims framework: VCMI Claims Code frames credits as contributions sitting above and beyond science-aligned reductions, never as replacements for actual emissions cuts. Credits don't reduce Scope 3 inventory totals; they compensate residual emissions after value-chain cuts.
Accounting: ICVCM and VCMI recommend disclosing: program (Verra, Gold Standard, etc.), methodology, project type, vintage, volume retired (tCO₂e), durability attributes for removals, and registry retirement proof.
Renewables: instruments, additionality, and hourly matching
Instruments available: Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) are tradable certificates representing the environmental attributes of 1 MWh of renewable electricity. In North America these are Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs); in Europe, Guarantees of Origin (GOs). Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) are long-term contracts (often 10–20 years) where buyers commit to purchasing electricity or renewable attributes from specific projects.
Additionality and impact: PPAs from new-build projects deliver stronger climate impact than unbundled EACs from existing facilities. New-build PPAs provide revenue certainty that helps developers finance projects that wouldn't have been built without the commitment. Buying surplus certificates from old projects already operating delivers weaker additionality.
Hourly matching: Traditional annual matching lets organizations buy 100 MWh of renewable certificates to "cover" 100 MWh of annual consumption, even if generation and consumption don't align in time. Hourly matching using EnergyTag-compliant granular certificates requires that renewable generation and consumption happen in the same hour and grid zone. Organizations operating data-intensive systems (data centers, cloud infrastructure) can pursue 24/7 hourly matching, which better reflects real decarbonization and drives investment in firming technologies like batteries and flexible load.
Accounting requirements: The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance requires dual reporting: location-based (grid average where the organization operates) and market-based (adjusted for renewable purchases). This dual reporting lets stakeholders see both operational footprint and the impact of renewable investments.
Net-zero hierarchy and disclosure sequence
The SBTi Net-Zero Standard treats credits as beyond-value-chain mitigation. At the net-zero target year, organizations must neutralize residual emissions with durable removals—credits from projects that pull CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it long-term. SBTi V2 is in consultation through 2025; final rules may clarify the role of environmental attribute certificates and tighten beyond-value-chain mitigation rules.
Disclosure sequence:
- Gross emissions by scope and category
- Reductions from SAF with pathway, LCA, volume, and retirement proof
- Residuals compensated with credit details and claims framework used
Avoid "carbon neutral" claims unless the claims framework explicitly permits it with required credit types and coverage.
From Emissions to Disclosure: Building a Credible Net-Zero Path
For business travel emissions: avoid and shift trips first (rail where viable, right-size cabin policies), then address unavoidable flight emissions with SAF certificates purchased through credible book-and-claim programs with transparent retirement records. Compensate residual travel emissions with high-integrity credits framed under recognized codes like VCMI, never as replacements for reductions. For operational emissions: decarbonize Scope 2 with PPAs and new-build EACs that drive additional renewable capacity.
Organizations building sustainable business travel policies should prioritize reductions before compensation and maintain transparent disclosure. For more guidance on reducing carbon emissions from business travel, review the full mitigation hierarchy. As policies and standards evolve in 2025—particularly SBTi V2, new ICVCM assessments, and expanding EU and U.S. mandates—keep language precise and tie every claim to a cited method, standard, or registry entry.
%201.svg){kind=small}