Skip to main content
Comparison

Insetting funds emissions reductions inside a company’s value chain, and offsetting funds them outside it

Both fund emissions reductions or removals. An inset funds them inside the buyer’s own value chain and an offset funds them outside it, and that one difference changes what a company can report, what it can claim and who benefits.

Published · Carbon3

The short answer

Offsetting means financing emissions reductions or removals outside a company’s value chain to compensate for its own emissions. Insetting means financing verified emissions reductions inside that value chain, at the suppliers, carriers or farms the company buys from. The reduction then appears in the emissions the company reports as Scope 3.

Neither replaces a company’s own emissions reductions, and each does a different job. An offset addresses emissions a company has not yet reduced, while an inset is one way to reduce the emissions in its supply chain.

Schematic of two funding flows. Offsetting: the buyer’s funding goes to an external project outside the value chain and supplier emissions are unchanged. Insetting: the buyer co-funds its supplier, the supplier’s emissions are reduced and verified, and inset credits, one per verified tonne, are issued to the supplier and allocated to partners.
Where the funding goes under each approach. Simplified; claim treatment depends on the applicable reporting framework.

Side by side

Insetting and offsetting compared
OffsettingInsetting
Where the project sitsOutside the buyer’s value chainAt a supplier or partner inside it
Effect on the buyer’s reported emissionsNone: the inventory is unchanged and the credit is reported separatelyWhen a supplier in the buyer’s own chain reduces emissions, the buyer’s Scope 3 goes down through lower supplier emissions data. The inset credit is the proof of that emissions reduction and who funded it, and it is not counted a second time.
Typical claimCompensation for emissions that remainA reduction in the buyer’s own value chain
Who benefits directlyThe project and its hostThe buyer’s own supplier, which shares the cost of its emissions reduction with its customers
VerificationIndependent, under the crediting program’s rulesIndependent: a validation report before work starts and a verification report after monitoring
Who issues the creditsThe crediting program or registry, under its rulesOn Carbon3, credits are issued to the project developer after independent verification, and Carbon3 records them
Sharing between fundersNot usually applicableCredits are allocated between co-funders in line with what each paid
Financing before deliveryVaries by programFuture credits can be issued once the project is validated, so funders can pay for implementation
Where it fits under SBTi V2.0Carbon credits are treated separately, under Ongoing Emissions ResponsibilityA project in the value chain may support target implementation if it meets the standard’s criteria; SBTi has not classified inset credits as such
Simplified comparison. Offset programs differ widely; the insetting column describes inset credits on Carbon3. See the methodology for the full record trail and the standards map for how Carbon3 maps to each standard.

What changes in the emissions inventory

A company’s greenhouse gas inventory under the GHG Protocol records the emissions physically associated with its operations and value chain. Buying an offset does not change those emissions; the credit is reported separately from the inventory. An inset funds a change at a supplier, so the emissions the supplier reports as Scope 1 fall. When a supplier in the buyer’s own chain reduces emissions, the buyer’s Scope 3 goes down through lower supplier emissions data. The inset credit is the proof of that emissions reduction and who funded it, and it is not counted a second time. An emissions reduction outside the buyer’s own chain is reported separately, not as a lower Scope 3 figure.

The open question is how a buyer may count that reduction. When the physical product can be traced to the buyer, the reduction shows up through better supplier data. When it cannot, as with fuel delivered into a shared system, the buyer relies on a market instrument such as an inset credit or a book and claim certificate. The GHG Protocol’s actions and market instruments workstream is developing rules for this case. Feedback on its white paper closed on 31 May 2026 and showed strong support for a multi-statement reporting structure, a market-based inventory approach and a separate statement for the effects of actions. The white paper is not yet a draft standard.

What the rules say today

Rules that shape insetting and offsetting claims
RuleStatusWhat it means here
GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard and actions and market instruments standardUnder revision; consultation draft estimated 2027, revised standard estimated Q4 2028Will settle how a buyer reports a supplier’s reduction bought through a market instrument. Until then, Carbon3 builds to the strictest reading.
SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0Published 11 June 2026; validations from 1 February 2027; mandatory for new submissions from 1 February 2028Prioritizes direct decarbonization in operations and value chains. Recognizes projects implemented by or on behalf of the company, and energy and commodity certificates, that meet its integrity criteria; their outcomes are reported separately from the physical inventory. Carbon credits sit under Ongoing Emissions Responsibility.
SBTi Ongoing Emissions ResponsibilityIntroduced with V2.0Voluntary action on emissions released on the path to net zero, including removals and mitigation funding; from 2035, Category A companies must address part of their ongoing emissions with removals.
Directive (EU) 2024/825Applies from 27 September 2026Bans claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse gas impact based on offsetting. Inset credits support Scope 3 reporting, not such product claims.
Summaries for orientation, not legal advice. Read the primary texts listed under Sources.

When each fits

  • Insetting fits when the emissions sit with identifiable suppliers or carriers that could reduce them with funding: a shipping line’s fuel, a steel mill’s process, farm practices in a sourcing region. See the sectors on the Insetting 101 page.
  • Offsetting and removals fit emissions a company cannot yet reduce in its own operations or value chain, and the voluntary action on ongoing emissions that SBTi V2.0 encourages.
  • Many companies use both: insetting for the supply-chain emissions they can influence, and high-quality offsets or removals for the rest, each reported in its own place.

Insetting through Carbon3

Carbon3 is a registry and marketplace for inset credits, not offsets. Each credit is issued to the project developer: realized credits after the independent verification report, and future credits once the project is validated. Carbon3 records every allocation, transfer, sale and retirement against the credit’s serial number, so each tonne is claimed once.

Read how it works, the methodology or the Insetting 101 guide.

Questions

Is insetting better than offsetting?

They do different jobs. Insetting reduces emissions inside a company’s value chain; offsetting compensates for emissions that remain. A credible climate plan puts its own emissions reductions first and reports each instrument for what it is.

Do inset credits reduce a company’s Scope 3 emissions?

The reduction happens at the company’s supplier, inside its value chain, which Scope 3 accounting covers. How a buyer may count a reduction bought through a credit is being settled in the GHG Protocol revision, estimated for the fourth quarter of 2028; claim treatment depends on the applicable reporting framework.

Can an inset credit be used for a carbon neutral product claim?

No. Inset credits support Scope 3 reporting. In the EU, Directive (EU) 2024/825 bans product claims of a neutral, reduced or positive greenhouse gas impact based on offsetting from 27 September 2026, and Carbon3 does not support product neutrality claims from credits.

Who verifies inset credits on Carbon3?

Independent bodies. A validator checks the scope, baseline and method before work starts; an independent verifier confirms the tonnes after monitoring. Carbon3 never validates, verifies or issues; credits are issued to the project developer and Carbon3 records them.

Sources

  1. GHG Protocol, Actions and Market Instruments Standard. White paper and request for information; not yet a draft standard
  2. GHG Protocol, key standard development updates: FAQ. Preliminary feedback on the actions and market instruments white paper
  3. GHG Protocol, Consolidated Corporate Standard: Standard Development Plan (29 July 2026). Request for information 31 March to 31 May 2026; consultation draft estimated Q2 2027; revised standard estimated Q4 2028
  4. SBTi, From Ambition to Action: Actions and Market Instruments in the Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0. Projects, market instruments, claims and the treatment of carbon credits
  5. SBTi, Introducing the Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 (11 June 2026). Implementation hierarchy, market instruments, Ongoing Emissions Responsibility
  6. SBTi Services, Guide for Companies in the Transition to Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 (June 2026). Key dates
  7. Directive (EU) 2024/825 on empowering consumers for the green transition. Applies from 27 September 2026
  8. Carbon3 methodology and standards map

The Carbon3 Newsletter

Weekly analysis of industrial decarbonization and insetting across Scope 1 to 3, from the Carbon3 team.