Additionality is a capital allocation question
A practical test for deciding whether climate finance is creating new reductions or simply describing old ones.
Additionality is often discussed as a technical threshold. In practice, it is a question about capital: would this activity, at this scale and on this timeline, happen without the revenue attached to the environmental outcome?
That question should be asked before a unit is issued, not after a claim is made. It requires a view of the project economics, the alternatives available to the operator, and the point at which finance changes the decision.
The counterfactual must be useful
A counterfactual is not a story added to a project file. It is a disciplined comparison against credible alternatives. If the activity is already commercially attractive, climate finance may still improve its reach or speed, but the claim must reflect that distinction.
This is why Carbon3 treats additionality as a capital-allocation test. The evidence should show where capital was missing, how the intervention closes that gap, and why the reduction is attributable to the instrument.
Good climate finance makes causality legible. That is the standard worth carrying into every supply chain.