Net Zero Emissions: A Practical Guide to Climate Leadership

The document is a resource guide for organizations aiming to achieve climate sustainability through established standards and best practices. It features key references such as the GHG Protocol and the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), offering frameworks for measuring, managing, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The guidance spans across corporate emissions standards, value chain assessments (Scope 3), and target-setting strategies to align with net-zero commitments. These resources serve as a critical foundation for businesses to integrate sustainable practices effectively and demonstrate climate leadership. Achieving Net Zero Emissions , A Practical Guide to Effective Climate Leadership.

A big thank you to our Dyme Fellow, Gale Chareancholwanich, for authoring this guide as part of her fellowship.

1. Introduction

• Purpose of the document
• Brief explanation of why emissions tracking and compensation matter

1. Introduction

The purpose of this research is to define rules that provide detailed guidance on tracking, calculating, and reporting GHG emissions. The framework aims to establish the GHG Protocol as the key standard for emissions accounting and the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) as the benchmark for target setting. Additionally, it explores strategies for compensating GHG emissions, with a particular focus on how Dyme supports companies in addressing Scope 3 emissions, ensuring comprehensive climate accountability.

Emissions tracking is crucial for understanding the environmental impact of an organization’s activities. You can’t manage what you can’t measure. It enables companies to identify their carbon footprint, pinpoint major sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and implement strategies to reduce them. Accurate tracking is the foundation for compliance with regulatory requirements, aligning with global sustainability goals, and meeting stakeholder expectations for transparency.

Emissions compensation through mechanisms like carbon offsets or investments in renewable energy helps mitigate unavoidable emissions¹. It allows organizations to take responsibility for their environmental impact while transitioning to low-carbon operations. Compensation is also a critical step in achieving carbon neutrality or net-zero goals, demonstrating commitment to sustainable practices.

2. Emissions Tracking Frameworks

2.1 GHG Protocol

Definition and history of the GHG Protocol

2.2 Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions

• Definitions and examples of each scope
• Visual aids (e.g., diagrams or tables) to illustrate differences

2. Emissions Tracking Frameworks

The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol is the most widely used global framework for measuring, managing, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. It provides organizations with standardized guidelines to quantify and report emissions across three scopes:

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from owned or controlled sources.
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, or steam.
• Scope 3: All other indirect emissions in a company’s value chain (e.g., supply chain and product lifecycle emissions).

Businesses, governments, and institutions worldwide use the protocol to create GHG inventories, track progress toward climate goals, and meet regulatory or voluntary reporting requirements.

2.1 GHG Protocol

The GHG Protocol was initiated in 1998 by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). It was developed to address the growing need for a unified methodology for businesses and organizations to measure and manage their GHG emissions. The first version of the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard was released in 2001, becoming the foundational framework for emissions accounting.

In 2004, the GHG Protocol released the Project Protocol, which provides guidance for quantifying GHG reductions from specific projects (e.g., renewable energy or energy efficiency initiatives). The Scope 3 Standard and the Product Life Cycle Standard were introduced in 2011 to address supply chain and product-related emissions, reflecting the increasing focus on indirect emissions.

The protocol has become the basis for many international and regional reporting frameworks, including: CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project)² reporting, Standards under the ISO 14064 series, National inventories aligned with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Many climate action initiatives, such as the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and carbon pricing mechanisms, build on its principles.

The GHG Protocol continues to evolve, reflecting advancements in climate science and policy. Recent updates include guidance for net-zero targets and improved methods for accounting for emissions in specific sectors (e.g., land use, carbon removals).

2.2 Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions

GHG Protocol is a Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard that categorizes GHG emissions into scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.

Scope 1 emissions (direct emissions) 

“Direct GHG emissions occur from sources that are owned or controlled by the company, for example, emissions from combustion in owned or controlled boilers, furnaces, vehicles, etc.; emissions from chemical production in owned or controlled process equipment.” This includes emissions from:

• Transport from the combustion of fuel in fleet vehicles (owned by the company)
• The combustion of fuels in stationary sources like boilers, furnaces and incinerators
• Manufacturing or processing of materials and chemicals like cement manufacturing, aluminium smelting, and petrochemical processing
• Fugitive emissions, including methane emissions from coal mines
• Production of electricity from burning coal.

Depending on the type of industry, scope 1 emissions might only include fleet vehicles.

Office-based organizations may not have any direct GHG emissions except in cases where they own or operate a vehicle, combustion device, or refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.

Scope 2 emissions (electricity indirect emissions)

“Scope 2 accounts for GHG emissions from the generation of purchased electricity consumed by the company. Purchased electricity refers to electricity that a company buys or brings into its organizational boundary. Emissions categorized under Scope 2 occur at the facility where electricity is generated.”

Scope 3 emissions (other indirect emissions)

“This optional reporting category that allows for the treatment of all other indirect emissions. Scope 3 emissions are a consequence of the activities of the company, but occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company.” Some examples are:

• Employee business travel in transport not owned by the company (flying on a commercial airline)
• Employees commuting to and from work
• The extraction and production of purchased materials
• Transportation of purchased fuels
• Transportation and use of sold products, and 
• Transport and disposal of waste.

Because of their nature, scope 3 emissions can be harder to track, but there are experts and consultants who can help your company measure and report on all three categories.

Unlike direct emissions (Scope 1) and indirect emissions from purchased electricity (Scope 2), Scope 3 emissions encompass all other indirect emissions that occur within an organization’s value chain. Upstream emissions come from the production of your business’s products or services, while downstream emissions come from their use and disposal.

3. The importance of Scope 3 Emissions

3.1 Why Address Scope 3 Emissions?

• Explanation of the significance of Scope 3 emissions
• Challenges in measurement and reporting

3.2 Sector-Specific Scope 3 Emissions Examples

• Table summarizing Scope 3 emissions by industry (from manufacturing to services)

Why Address Scope 3 Emissions?

Scope 3 emissions encompass all indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that occur in an organization’s value chain, excluding those associated with purchased energy (Scope 2). These emissions often constitute the majority of a company’s carbon footprint and are critical for understanding and addressing the full environmental impact of business activities.

According to the CDP Technical Note, Scope 3 emissions represent the majority of emissions for many sectors, so it is crucial that companies are aware of, and are measuring, all relevant sources of Scope 3 emissions in their value chain. 

Financial Times mentioned Scope 3 emissions can at times be tenfold those of Scope 1 and 2 combined, making up the majority of businesses’ carbon footprint. By addressing Scope 3 emissions, companies are taking responsibility for the full extent of their activities.

As categorized by GHG Protocol, Scope 3 covers a wide range of activities across multiple tiers of suppliers, distributors, and customers, making it challenging to gather accurate data. Reliable and consistent data from suppliers and third parties is often lacking, leading to reliance on estimates or generic emission factors. Moreover, measuring Scope 3 emissions requires significant time, expertise, and financial resources, especially for smaller organizations with limited capabilities.

Sector-Specific Scope 3 Emissions Examples

According to the World Bank GDP Data by countries, the four largest industries contributing to GDP are Services, Manufacturing, Agriculture, and Construction.

Here are some examples of upstream and downstream scope 3 categories within different industries such as manufacturing, agriculture, and services industry.

Key Focus for Service Firms of scope 3 emissions

• Business Travel & Employee Commuting: Typically the largest contributors due to the nature of the work that required travelling to clients either on-site or off-site.
• Purchased Goods and Services: Significant due to IT reliance and office supplies.
• Waste: E-waste and paper disposal are notable for firms aiming to reduce Scope 3 emissions.

4. Science-Based Targets

4.1 What is SBTi?

• Overview of the Science-Based Targets initiative
• Importance of aligning corporate goals with climate science
• SBTi vs. Net-Zero Definition

4.2 Setting Science-Based Targets

• The role of absolute and intensity targets
• Sector-specific guidance and methodologies

4. Science-Based Targets

The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a global partnership that provides companies with a framework to set greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets aligned with the latest climate science. Its goal is to ensure that corporate climate actions contribute meaningfully to limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, in line with the Paris Agreement. The initiative is a collaboration between the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project), the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), the World Resources Institute (WRI), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Targets are considered ‘science-based’ if they are in line with what the latest climate science deems necessary to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement – limiting global warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. The SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard is the world’s only framework for corporate net-zero target setting in line with climate science. It includes the guidance, criteria, and recommendations companies need to set science-based net-zero targets consistent with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. 

What is SBTi?

• Defines and promotes best practice in emissions reductions and net-zero targets in line with climate science.
• Develops standards, tools and guidance to enable companies and financial institutions to set science-based targets in line with the latest climate science.
• Through its wholly-owned subsidiary, SBTi Services, assesses and validates companies’ and financial institutions’ targets

The Challenge: Through the 2015 Paris Agreement, governments across the world committed to limiting global temperature rise to well-below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) subsequently warned that global warming must not exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change.

The Goal: To achieve this, GHG emissions must halve by 2030 – and drop to net-zero by 2050. Scientists agree we must reduce GHG emissions significantly to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The Paris Agreement is an international treaty aiming to limit global warming to safe levels, specifically below 2°C, with efforts toward 1.5°C.

The SBTi Solution: The SBTi mobilizes the private sector to take the lead on urgent climate action by enabling companies and financial institutions to understand how much, and how quickly, they must decarbonize to prevent the worst impacts of climate change. Action is needed in key sectors, many of which require tailored approaches to setting emission-reduction targets. The SBTi provides step-by-step clarity and guidance on these journeys, including for the heavy emitting sectors such as buildings, steel, cement, and finance.

Impact: By aligning their goals with science, companies can lead the way toward a low-carbon economy, influencing suppliers, customers, and industries while being transparent about their environmental responsibility.

SBTi vs. Net-Zero Definition

While both the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and net-zero efforts focus on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, they serve different purposes and follow distinct frameworks. 

SBTi provides a science-based framework for companies to set near-term (5–10 years) and long-term targets aligned with the Paris Agreement goals to limit global warming to 1.5°C. SBTi also focuses on prioritizing emission reductions across the value chain (Scope 1, 2, and 3), focusing on absolute reductions in emissions, and encouraging corporate strategies aligned with climate science. This standard requires companies to set science-based targets for GHG reductions, includes sector-specific guidance and methodologies, distinguishes between near-term targets (5–10 years) and long-term net-zero targets (by 2050 or earlier), and offers an optional Net-Zero Standard, which specifies how companies can achieve a net-zero state through deep decarbonization and limited use of offsets. SBTi emission reductions include both near-term and long-term. Near-term is required at least a 4.2% annual reduction for absolute emissions or sector-specific reductions. Long-term is required to achieve a minimum of 90-95% emission reductions before relying on carbon removals for residual emissions.

Net-zero refers to achieving a balance between the GHG emissions a company emits and the emissions it removes from the atmosphere, often through carbon offsetting or carbon removal projects. Net-zero can be either voluntary or part of regulatory frameworks while focusing on achieving a balance of emissions and removals. Net-zero involves reducing emissions as much as possible and offsetting the remaining (unavoidable) emissions. It can rely on nature-based solutions (e.g., afforestation) and technology-based solutions (e.g., direct air capture). However, it does not always require alignment with science or long-term climate goals (e.g., some net-zero claims focus heavily on offsets rather than deep reductions). That’s why net-zero is often associated with greenwashing, where companies prioritize carbon offsets over meaningful reductions because of the lack of standardized definitions or requirements.

SBTi ensures rigorous and science-driven targets to decarbonize globally. Net-zero is broader and often less regulated, allowing for variability in approach and reliance on offsets. Ultimately, companies achieving net-zero through SBTi demonstrate stronger alignment with credible climate action.

​​Why science-based net zero targets?

The Corporate Net-Zero Standard provides a common, robust, science-based understanding of net-zero. It gives business leaders clarity and confidence that their near- and long-term decarbonization plans are aligned with climate science.

Net-zero pledges now cover 92% of GDP and 88% of emissions worldwide. Despite this, the definition of net-zero and the path to get there has been interpreted in different and inconsistent ways.

Without a common definition, targets can differ in terms of the emissions sources included and the depth and speed of emissions reductions. This has fuelled confusion and accusations of greenwashing.

The SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard addresses this problem by providing a clear, consistent and science-based definition of net-zero. By aligning with this Standard, companies can set science-based net-zero targets to demonstrate their climate action leadership and their commitment to ensuring a habitable planet for all.

Key components of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard

1. Near-term targets: Rapid, deep cuts to direct and indirect value-chain emissions must be the overarching priority for companies. Companies must set near-term science-based targets to roughly halve emission before 2030. This is the most effective, scientifically-sound way of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.

2. Long-term targets: Companies must set long-term science-based targets. Companies must cut all possible – usually more than 90% – of emissions before 2050.

3. Neutralize residual emissions: After a company has achieved its long-term target and cut emissions by more than 90%, it must use permanent carbon removal and storage to counterbalance the final 10% or more of residual emissions that cannot be eliminated. A company is only considered to have reached net-zero when it has achieved its long-term science-based target and neutralized any residual emissions.

4. Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM): Businesses should invest now in actions to reduce and remove emissions outside of their value chains in addition to near- and long-term science-based targets.

By aligning with this Standard, companies can set science-based net-zero targets. SBTi developed sector-specific guidance for companies in some heavy emitting industries. Tailored to the needs and context of each industry, these enable companies to develop ambitious and achievable science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C.

The role of absolute and intensity targets

1. Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA) used for calculating Absolute Targets. Targets that specify GHG reductions in metric tons (mtCO2e)

Absolute targets require companies to reduce their total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a specific percentage, regardless of business growth or production levels. For example, a company commits to reducing total emissions by 50% by 2030 from a 2020 baseline.

Absolute targets are directly aligned with Climate Goals based on global decarbonization pathways, such as the IPCC’s 1.5°C scenario, ensuring they contribute to limiting global warming. It is easier to communicate and understand, as they represent actual emissions reductions rather than efficiency improvements. It is also suitable for all sectors, particularly those with high emissions that need to drive significant total reductions. However, they may appear challenging for rapidly growing companies, as emissions reductions must outpace business growth.

2. Sector Decarbonization Approach (SDA) used for calculating intensity-based targets. Targets that specify GHG reductions relative to productivity or economic output (e.g. mtCO2e/$ Revenue or mtCO2e/kg of product)

Intensity targets reduce GHG emissions relative to a unit of output, such as emissions per ton of product, per revenue, or per passenger-kilometer. For example, a transportation company commits to reducing emissions per passenger-kilometer by 40% by 2030.

Intensity targets allow companies to grow production or services while still improving emissions efficiency. They are Particularly suitable for industries where output is closely tied to emissions, such as manufacturing, transportation, or energy. It is particularly suitable for industries where output is closely tied to emissions, such as manufacturing, transportation, or energy. It can drive improvements in operational efficiency and sustainable practices, such as adopting renewable energy or optimizing supply chains. However, reductions in intensity do not guarantee overall emissions reductions if production or output increases significantly. It may also require additional explanation to stakeholders to highlight its contribution to global climate goals.

Comparison and use cases

The key outcome of both target types is to decouple business growth from emissions growth. It is possible to achieve intensity reductions without achieving absolute reductions. It is possible to achieve absolute reductions without achieving intensity reductions.

Generally, absolute targets are preferred by external parties and approval bodies because these targets are standardized and relatively easy to assess in terms of level of ambition and performance. Absolute targets tend to be easier to communicate internally and externally. Often, intensity targets end up getting translated into absolute terms for purposes of communication. SBTi only accept intensity targets that are calculated using SBTi-developed sector-specific guidance (and emissions reduction pathways), which are developed explicitly for hard-to-abate and fast-growing industries.

SBTi Requirements across sector

The SBTi provides tailored guidance for different industries to address their unique challenges and emissions profiles. Examples of sector-specific methodologies include:

• Information and Communication Technology (ICT): emissions reductions through energy efficiency and renewable energy adoption.
• Financial Institutions: emissions reductions through targets financed emissions in loan and investment portfolios.
• Air Transport: emissions reductions through efficiency improvements, fuel switching, and offsets for residual emissions.

Example of Sector-specific guidance

5. Compensation Strategies

• Examples of compensatory measures (e.g., supporting renewable energy, using sustainable aviation fuel)
• Role of collaboration between businesses and partners (e.g., suppliers, customers)
• Recommendations for compensating emissions through verified projects

Compensation Strategies

Compensatory measures are actions organizations take to offset their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly those that cannot be immediately reduced. These measures help mitigate environmental impact while transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Below are examples according to GHG protocol:

1. Energy Efficiency: Support initiatives to improve energy efficiency in buildings, such as upgrading insulation or installing efficient HVAC systems.
2. Renewable Energy: Fund or purchase Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) or Renewable energy credits (RECs) from wind, solar, or hydropower projects or install solar panels or wind turbines at business facilities to offset grid electricity use.
3. Supply chain: Engage suppliers to identify strategies for encouraging Low-Carbon Supply Chains by using materials more efficiently, and reducing waste.
4. Waste Reduction and Diversion Strategies: Promote waste reduction and expand a recycling collection program. Join Leeds building certificate to promote the green facility.
5. Reduce Methane Emissions: Utilize the use of biogas and use of landfill gas as a renewable, green energy source to recover systems to reduce methane emissions from livestock waste.

Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) vs. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

Both Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) represent the environmental benefits of renewable energy generation, but they differ in scope, terminology, and regional application.

An Energy Attribute Certificate (EAC) is a contractual tool that provides information about a unit of energy, such as its source, emissions associated with production, and facility details like location and operation dates. EACs promote transparency in energy transactions and facilitate clean energy growth by offering a credible mechanism to track and validate energy attributes.

EACs is a broad term encompassing instruments for different energy types (e.g., gas, electrical, thermal), with varying names across countries.

• In North America, a common EAC is the Renewable Energy Certificate (REC), which represents one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable electricity. RECs include rights to environmental and social benefits of renewable electricity generation and are essential for tracking and verifying renewable electricity usage on shared grids.
• Another example is Zero-Emissions Credits (ZECs), often associated with nuclear power, which recognizes zero-emission energy generation.

A renewable energy certificate, or REC, is a market-based instrument that represents the property rights to the environmental, social, and other non-power attributes of renewable electricity generation. RECs are issued when one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity is generated and delivered to the electricity grid from a renewable energy resource.

Because the physical electricity we receive through the utility grid says nothing of its origin or how it was generated, RECs play an important role in accounting, tracking, and assigning ownership to renewable electricity generation and use. On a shared grid—whether the electricity comes from on-site or off-site resources. RECs are the instrument that electricity consumers must use to substantiate renewable electricity use claims. 

• Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs):
  • Represent 1 MWh of electricity generated from renewable sources.
  • International equivalents of RECs:
    • Guarantees of Origin (GOs) used in Europe under the EU Renewable Energy Directive
    • International RECs (I-RECs) used in regions without established renewable energy tracking systems, such as Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
  • Example: A multinational company operating in Europe purchases Guarantees of Origin to certify renewable electricity use for Scope 2.
• Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs):
  • Represent 1 MWh of electricity generated from renewable sources.
  • Primarily used in North America to address Scope 2 emissions from electricity consumption.
  • Example: A company in the U.S. purchases RECs from a wind farm to compensate for non-renewable electricity use.

RECs are a subset of EACs, specific to the U.S. and Canada, while EACs are the global framework for tracking renewable energy attributes. Both allow organizations to meet sustainability goals, particularly for Scope 2 GHG emissions, but their usage depends on geography and energy markets.

Role of collaboration between businesses and partners (e.g., suppliers, customers)

Collaboration across the value chain is vital for reducing GHG emissions and scaling compensatory efforts, requiring engagement among suppliers, customers, industry partnerships, and governments.

• Collaborate with suppliers by sharing data, reporting, and co-investing in sustainable projects such as energy-efficient manufacturing and renewable energy to reduce Scope 3 emissions and enhance transparency.
• Engage customers by offering sustainable products or services, enabling participation in offset programs like carbon credits, and co-creating eco-friendly innovations like recyclable packaging and shared logistics systems.
• Promote industry partnerships by joining coalitions such as the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) or Carbon Neutrality Pacts, and standardizing reporting and offset methods to ensure credibility and shared action.
• Partner with governments and NGOs through policy advocacy and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to advance renewable energy, carbon pricing, and large-scale initiatives like carbon sequestration and clean energy projects.

Recommendations for Compensating Emissions Through Verified Projects

After implementing an internal emissions reduction pathway, companies can compensate for their unavoidable emissions by participating in carbon offset markets or renewable energy certificate systems. Below are strategies and approaches categorized by the type of market, project nature, and offset examples tailored to specific scopes.

Carbon markets facilitate the trading of certificates that represent one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent reduced or removed from the atmosphere.

Why do carbon markets exist?

• To lower the cost of mitigation by enabling entities that can reduce emissions at a lower cost to be paid by higher-cost emitters
• To direct finance to projects that reduce or remove emissions but don’t otherwise have a source of revenue
• To accelerate the progress of companies, countries, and other entities in meeting their climate targets

What’s being traded?

• Credits represent a ton of CO2e reduced or removed from the atmosphere from a project that would not have occurred if not for the financing received through the carbon credit
• Allowances (also referred to as permits) represent the right to emit one ton of CO₂, and are distributed either via auction or free allocation to entities covered under emissions trading schemes

Who’s governing?

• Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM): Unregulated marketplaces where carbon credits are traded on a voluntary basis based on industry-created standards
  • Companies voluntarily purchase carbon offsets to meet self-imposed climate targets or for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) purposes.
  • Examples: Nature-based solutions like reforestation or renewable energy projects in developing countries.
• Compliance: Regulated Carbon Market (most often emissions trading schemes) where permits or allowances are traded to meet regulatory targets. Some compliance markets allow for the use of carbon credits.
  • Companies are mandated by law to purchase offsets to comply with emission reduction requirements (e.g., EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)).
  • Examples: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects under the Kyoto Protocol, cap-and-trade systems.
• Companies with voluntary commitments can use VCM to demonstrate leadership, while those operating in jurisdictions with compliance requirements must participate in regulated markets.

Types of Carbon Market

A combination of nature-based and technology-based offsets ensures both immediate and long-term benefits, but companies should focus on removal offsets for net-zero goals, while avoidance offsets are useful for near-term progress.

Specific Compensation examples of verified projects

However, when considering buying carbon markets, companies should be aware of the supply quality by rechecking if the carbon offset follows Convergence on supply-side integrity, the criteria for selecting Verified Offsets, or the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) by The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM).

The Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) are ten fundamental, science-based principles for identifying high-quality carbon credits that create real, verifiable climate impact. Developed with input from hundreds of organizations, they set a global benchmark for high integrity in the voluntary carbon market to raise it to a consistent level of quality and ensure it accelerates progress towards the 1.5°C target. The Core Carbon Principles examples are:

• Certification Standards: Ensure offsets are verified by reputable standards, such as:
  • Verified Carbon Standard (VCS).
  • Gold Standard.
  • Climate Action Reserve (CAR).
  • American Carbon Registry (ACR).
• Permanence: Ensure that the carbon storage is long-lasting (e.g., forest preservation vs. replanting after deforestation).
• Additionality: Confirm the project would not have occurred without the offset investment.
• Co-Benefits: Prioritize projects with social or ecological benefits (e.g., biodiversity conservation, local employment).

Companies can effectively compensate for emissions by combining tools like RECs/EACs for Scope 2 emissions with a mix of nature-based and technology-based offsets for Scope 1 and 3. By aligning these strategies with high-quality verification standards, businesses can achieve transparency and credibility in their climate commitments.

6. Key Insights on Business Travel and Emissions

• Impact of aviation and other travel-related emissions
• Strategies to reduce business travel emissions (e.g., virtual meetings, efficient routing, use of SAF)

Key Insights on Business Travel and Emissions

Business travel involves the transportation of employees for work-related activities. Most of these vehicles are not owned or controlled by the company that reports the emissions. These emissions are classified as scope 3, category 6 (Business travel). However, there are some exceptions to this rule. If the company owns or controls the vehicles, the emissions are either scope 1 (Fuel consumption) or scope 2 (Electricity usage for electric vehicles). If the company leases the vehicles and they don’t fit into scope 1 or 2, the emissions are scope 3, category 8 – Upstream leased assets. Moreover, the emissions from employees traveling to and from their workplace are not considered business travel, but scope 3, category 7 – Employee commuting.

Emissions from business travel activities can originate from various modes of transportation, including, air travel, rail travel, bus travel, automobile travel (this encompasses business travel in rental cars or employee-owned vehicles, excluding daily commutes), as well as, any unconventional modes of transportation associated with business activities.

Currently, the aviation industry accounts for about 2.6% of emissions worldwide,or around the same volume of CO2 emitted every year by Germany. If aviation was a country, it would be among the 10 biggest emitters, ahead of nations like Brazil, Mexico, and the UK. 

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute mentioned between 2019 and 2030, the global aircraft fleet is expected to expand 30%, and air travel — particularly in places like China and India — will be up substantially. Because of this growth, emissions from aviation could rise as much as 20% by 2030 — at a time when the planet needs the global economy to halve its greenhouse gas output, not increase it.

The World Economic Forum published a study that a return trip from London to New York is about equivalent to someone heating their home for a year, in terms of the emissions generated. And that rapidly adds up. Figures from the International Air Transport Association project plane passenger numbers will double within two decades – that’s 8.2bn people flying each year. A significant amount of this growth comes from Asia, where a burgeoning middle class is driving a booming tourism industry.

This figure underscores the urgency of taking measures to tackle emissions from air travel, which is often a common mode of transport for many businesses.

When reporting GHG emissions, there is an intentional overlap between airlines and their customers. Airlines report emissions from fuel combustion as Scope 1 (direct emissions), while customers, such as businesses or individuals purchasing flights, report these same emissions under Scope 3 (indirect emissions). This overlap is not considered double counting under GHG accounting rules because Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions are designed to represent emissions at different stages of the value chain and assign accountability to the relevant parties.

The GHG Protocol explicitly allows this overlap to ensure both the emitter (Scope 1) and the value chain participant (Scope 3) acknowledge and work to reduce these emissions. At a global aggregation level, emissions are only counted once, but the overlapping scopes help distribute responsibility and encourage collaboration to drive reductions. This structure fosters ownership, motivating organizations to address their direct (Scope 1) and indirect (Scope 3) impacts.

Reducing Scope 3 emissions from business travel requires a combination of strategic planning, technological adoption, and behavioral changes. 

Optimize Travel policies:

• Promote virtual meetings and utilizing video conferences tools like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, or Google Meet to replace in-person meetings.
• Encourage remote or hybrid work arrangements to minimize commutes and in-office travel.
• Implement policies to prioritize lower-emission travel options, such as trains over short-haul flights.
• Restrict non-essential travel and consolidate trips to reduce frequency.
• Introduce approval systems that assess the necessity and environmental impact of trips.

Shift to sustainable modes of transport:

• Encourage employees to take trains instead of planes for trips within 500–800 kilometers (e.g., within Europe or regions with high-speed rail).
• Promote carpooling or shared ride services for local business travel.
• Provide electric or hybrid vehicles for employees or business-related ground travel.

Leverage Carbon Offsetting Programs/Partners:

• Partner with airlines or third-party providers to offset carbon emissions from unavoidable flights through verified projects like reforestation or renewable energy.
• Support airlines offering sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) options, which reduce lifecycle carbon emissions compared to conventional jet fuel.
• Work with hotels that prioritize energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainable practices.
• Partner with airlines, car rental companies, and public transit systems that demonstrate climate commitments.

Employee Engagement programs to encourage behavioral changes:

• Educate staff on the environmental impacts of business travel and promote sustainable choices.
• Reward teams or individuals who significantly reduce their travel-related emissions.

Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF)

SAF is a biofuel used to power aircraft that has similar properties to conventional jet fuel but with a smaller carbon footprint. Depending on the feedstock and technologies used to produce it, SAF can reduce life cycle GHG emissions dramatically compared to conventional jet fuel. Some emerging SAF pathways even have a net-negative GHG footprint. SAFs lower carbon intensity makes it an important solution for reducing aviation GHGs, which make up 9%–12% of U.S. transportation GHG emissions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), over 360,000 commercial flights have used SAF at 46 different airports largely concentrated in the United States and Europe.

Worldwide, aviation accounts for 2% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and 12% of all CO2 emissions from transportation. ICAO’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) caps net CO2 aviation emissions at 2020 levels through 2035. The international aviation industry has set an aspirational goal to reach net zero carbon by 2050. SAF presents the best near-term opportunity to meet these goals. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, announced in 2021, brings together multiple federal agencies for the purpose of expanding domestic consumption to 3 billion gallons in 2030 and 35 billion gallons in 2050 while achieving at least a 50% reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions.

7. Practical Steps for Companies

• Step-by-step guide to tracking emissions:
  1. Identify your emission sources
  2. Choose a framework and set boundaries
  3. Collect data and calculate emissions
  4. Report and analyze results
• Step-by-step to set near term and long term targets
• Tools and resources for GHG inventory, target setting and tracking targets

Practical Steps for Companies

GHG emissions inventory tracking

• Step1: Discover – identify source of emissions across operations and value chain
  • Draw the scope & boundary
  • Determine relevant emissions sources, likely material sources (account 5% of total Scope), and likely owners of underlying activity data to support a climate footprint for Scopes 1, 2 and 3.
    • Scope 1: Direct emissions from owned or controlled sources
    •  Scope 2: Indirect emissions – purchased electricity, steam, heating
    • Scope 3: Other Indirect emissions in the value chain
• Step2: Collect – Collect and underlying activity data
  • Work with data owners to compile annual datasets for all relevant emissions categories. Review data for coverage, accuracy and omissions.
• Step3: Develop dataset – Curate comprehensive, validated activity data
  •  Validate actual data, gap-fill and estimate where needed. Select appropriate emissions factors and sources to apply to activity data. QA/QC
• Step4: Calculate Footprint – Develop GHG inventory by quantifying emissions
  • Conversion, apply emissions factors to activity data to calculate climate impact in terms of GHG emissions by scope, source and facility. Document data sources, methodologies and assumptions.
  • Documentations: Keep detailed record, methodologies, and assumption used
  • Reporting: outline scope, methodology, and results
• Step5: Review & Improve: continuous improvement for data accuracy, completeness, and overall methodology
  •  Set reduction target and strategy roadmap to achieve the targets

SBTi Target Setting

Setting science-based targets involves a structured process aligned with the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to ensure emissions reduction goals are consistent with global climate objectives. These steps apply to both near-term and long-term targets:

1. Commit to set SBTis by Signing the formal Commitment Letter to publicize your intention to  align with science-based climate goals to stakeholders.
2. Calculate the Company’s Carbon Footprint measuring Scope 1, 2, and 3 with base year representative of typical business operations for benchmarking, and ensuring robust data collection, particularly for Scope 3 emissions, which often account for the majority of a company’s footprint.
3. Develop Near-Term and Long-Term Targets
   • Align with Climate Scenarios:
     1. Near-term targets: Reduce emissions over 5 – 10 years in line with limiting global warming to 1.5°C or well-below 2°C.
     2. Long-term targets: Aim for net-zero emissions by 2050 or earlier, aligned with reaching global net-zero.
   • Choose Methodologies according to SBTi-approved approaches, such as
     1. Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA): Reduce absolute emissions by a percentage based on global decarbonization pathways.
     2. Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA): Apply sector-specific intensity-based targets.
   • Scope 3 Requirements:
     1. Include Scope 3 emissions in targets if they represent more than 40% of total emissions.
4. Submit Targets for Validation
   • Prepare documentation and submit targets to the SBTi for review.
   • Pay the required fee to initiate the validation process.
   • Address any adjustments based on SBTi feedback and receive official validation.
5. Implement the Targets
   • Create an action plan or roadmap with specific initiatives, timelines, and milestones to achieve near-term and long-term targets.
   • Collaborate with stakeholders such as internal teams, suppliers, and customers to execute emissions reduction strategies.
6. Monitor and Report Progress
   • Regularly measure and report emissions to evaluate progress toward targets.
   • Report results publicly through platforms like CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project) or corporate sustainability reports.
7. Review and Update Targets
   • Periodic Reassessment and Update targets as necessary to align with evolving climate science, business growth, or new SBTi criteria.

Tools and resources for GHG inventory, target setting and tracking targets

• GHG Calculation Tools & Guidance
• GHG Protocol e-learning opportunity
• Simplified GHG emissions calculator
• GHG Equivalencies Calculator (scope 1 & 2 only)
• EPA Annual GHG Inventory Summary and Target Tracking Form (xls)
• SBTi Corporate Net-zero Tool

8. Overcoming Challenges

• Common misconceptions (e.g., greenwashing, confusion around net-zero definitions)

1. Confusion Around Net-Zero Definitions

• Misconception: Net-zero means zero emissions or eliminating all emissions entirely.
• Clarification: Net-zero refers to achieving a balance between emissions produced and emissions removed from the atmosphere. While some emissions may remain (e.g., from hard-to-abate sectors), they must be offset by equivalent removals, such as carbon capture or reforestation.
• Impact: Misunderstanding can lead to unrealistic expectations or ineffective strategies.

2. Over Reliance on Offsetting

• Misconception: Offsetting emissions through carbon credits or reforestation is equivalent to reducing emissions.
• Clarification: While offsets are a valuable tool, they should not replace direct emissions reductions. Companies must prioritize reducing their emissions at the source before using offsets for unavoidable emissions.
• Impact: An overreliance on offsets can undermine credibility and delay essential systemic changes.

3. Greenwashing

• Misconception: A company is sustainable or climate-friendly simply because it claims to be carbon neutral or has purchased carbon credits.
• Clarification: Greenwashing occurs when organizations overstate or misrepresent their environmental efforts without substantive reductions. Transparency and verified reductions are critical for genuine climate action.
• Impact: Damages trust and undermines the credibility of climate commitments.

4. Misinterpreting Science-Based Targets (SBTs)

• Misconception: Setting targets is the same as achieving emissions reductions.
• Clarification: While setting science-based targets is an important step, meaningful action comes from implementing strategies to achieve these targets through tangible emissions reductions.
• Impact: Focusing solely on target-setting without follow-through risks accusations of inaction.

5. Belief That Scope 3 Emissions Are Optional

• Misconception: Companies can ignore Scope 3 emissions because they occur outside their direct operations.
• Clarification: Scope 3 emissions, which often represent the largest share of a company’s footprint, are a critical part of any comprehensive climate strategy. The SBTi requires their inclusion when they exceed 40% of total emissions.
• Impact: Neglecting Scope 3 emissions leads to incomplete reporting and undermines the effectiveness of climate action.

6. Carbon Neutrality vs. Climate Positive

• Misconception: Carbon neutrality is the ultimate goal of climate action.
• Clarification: While carbon neutrality balances emissions, climate-positive initiatives go further by removing more carbon than emitted, contributing net benefits to the environment.
• Impact: Limits ambition and misses opportunities for leadership in climate action.

7. Perception That Climate Action Is Expensive Without ROI

• Misconception: Emissions reductions and climate initiatives only incur costs with little return on investment (ROI).
• Clarification: Effective climate strategies often reduce operational costs, improve efficiency, and enhance brand value, offering both financial and reputational benefits.
• Impact: Discourages investment in sustainability, slowing progress.

8. Misunderstanding Renewable Energy Commitments

• Misconception: Purchasing renewable energy credits (RECs) is equivalent to directly using renewable energy.
• Clarification: RECs support renewable energy generation but may not directly reduce the purchaser’s operational emissions. On-site renewable installations or power purchase agreements (PPAs) have a more direct impact.
• Impact: Misrepresentation can lead to accusations of greenwashing.

9. Unrealistic Expectations for Immediate Net-Zero Achievements

• Misconception: Companies can quickly achieve net zero by implementing a few initiatives.
• Clarification: Achieving net zero is a long-term effort requiring systemic changes, innovation, and collaboration across the value chain.
• Impact: Unrealistic timelines can result in frustration, failure, and loss of credibility.

10. Assumption That All Emissions Are Equally Harmful

• Misconception: All emissions have the same impact on global warming, regardless of their source or timeframe.
• Clarification: Emissions like methane (short-lived but highly potent) differ in impact from CO₂ (long-lived). Effective strategies must prioritize reducing high-impact emissions first.
• Impact: Poor prioritization of reduction efforts can delay significant climate benefits.

9. Resources and References

• Links to foundational documents (e.g., GHG Protocol, SBTi standards)

Resources and References

• Links to foundational documents (e.g., GHG Protocol, SBTi standards)
  • GHG Protocol, Corporate Standard Guideline
  • GHG Protocol, Value chain (Scope 3) Standard
  • SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard
  • Science Based Target Sector Specific
  • Science Based Target Resources
  • EPA Scope 1, 2, and 3 Inventory and Guidance
  • EPA Target Setting

Partner with Dyme

Business travel creates unavoidable emissions, but companies can take meaningful steps to support climate action by booking through Dyme. When you book with Dyme, we reinvest our profits into renewable energy projects, helping to fund clean power and reduce long-term reliance on fossil fuels. While this doesn’t directly lower emissions from flights or hotel stays, it ensures that every trip contributes to building a more sustainable future.

For companies following the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) or the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, these renewable energy investments cannot be counted in their carbon accounting since they sit on Dyme’s balance sheet. To meet reporting requirements, Dyme has several partners. Elements platform measures and reduces Scope 3 employee emissions from business travel, commuting, and remote work energy usage. By integrating with corporate systems and utilizing AI analytics, Elements provides cost-saving strategies to assist companies in achieving their net-zero targets. For businesses looking for recognized carbon offsets can work with our partners, such as Cnaught, which provide certified Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) and other verified offset solutions. We also partner with 

Our goal is to make every trip part of something bigger—funding projects that accelerate the transition to renewable energy. Whether or not your company uses offsets for reporting, choosing Dyme means your travel spend helps expand clean energy, driving long-term climate benefits.