Climate Responsibility Framework

These FAQs refer to the Gold Standard Climate Responsibility Framework

• What is the relationship between my organisation’s net zero plan and global net zero?

• My organisation is in a hard to abate sector where science-aligned target setting is yet to be established. Can we apply this guidance?

• My organisation intends to follow good practice but is in the process of establishing its plans. What should we be doing in the meantime?

• My organisation has been established a long time and/or has a large volume of historical and residual emissions that would likely be unviable to compensate for. What should we do?

• How should the impact of non-mitigation activities, such as research and development or advocacy be measured?

• How can I apply these principles to a product or event?

• Can I pass carbon pricing on to customers?

• Is offsetting the preferred method of taking responsibility for residual emissions?

• Is a claim of carbon or climate neutrality still credible?

• Is the neutralisation of emissions – for example using carbon removals – the same as offsetting?

• When pursuing beyond value chain mitigation targets (ie, residual emissions), is carbon removal better than avoidance or reduction? What activities and outcomes should I prioritise?

• Should I prioritise nature-based solutions in taking responsibility for my residual emissions?

• What risks of double counting exist in this guidance?

• We use a non-ISO14064 auditor. Is that ok?

• Why can’t I use consequential or impact accounting against my inventory targets?

• Why can’t I use market mechanisms towards my value chain targets?

What is the relationship between my organisation’s net zero plan and global net zero?

Achieving net zero is a systemic challenge of global proportions. It requires joined-up action at every scale, from individuals to organisations, industries, countries – and ultimately the world. Nobody and nothing can claim to be genuinely net zero unless global net zero is achieved. The principles in the Gold Standard Climate Responsibility Framework encourage organisations to take responsibility for their emissions with this big picture clearly in mind. Their emissions contribute to global emissions; their reductions contribute toward global net zero; and they should aspire and work towards global net negative, whereby we collectively reduce the concentration of atmospheric carbon. Organisations should note that they cannot legitimately claim to be ‘good actors’ until they have themselves achieved net zero emissions. This is because many organisations are making reductions from a high starting point. Although they may be progressing towards net zero, they are still doing harm. They must drive down avoidable emissions at pace and have credible means of cancelling out residual emissions through capture or removal and storage. 

My organisation is in a hard to abate sector where science-aligned target setting is yet to be established. Can we apply this guidance?

Activities that perpetuate fossil fuel extraction are irreconcilable with the goals of the Paris Agreement and therefore fall outside the scope of this framework. However, most organisations will be able to apply at least some of this guidance and should apply all they can, even if full alignment is not possible. Organisations that do not will be unable to credibly claim to be acting responsibly, mitigating negative impacts or achieving positive achievements. It is important that actions and achievements are presented accurately and unambiguously. For example, it would be misleading for an organisation to claim to have reduced emissions through offsetting when its net emissions are increasing. Voluntary action should never be employed to deflect or defer regulation. Organisations should recognise that they will be exposed to criticism where they are unable to apply the guidance and drive science-aligned progress.

My organisation intends to follow good practice but is in the process of establishing its plans. What should we be doing in the meantime?

Even without a fully developed decarbonisation plan, organisations can, and should, begin by issuing a clear statement of commitment. This includes being transparent about their current position, acknowledging both gaps and intentions in their climate journey. However, organisations must proceed with care. Public claims that imply climate action, mitigation of harm, or the assumption of responsibility can attract scrutiny – especially when made by entities not yet aligned with the principles outlined in this document. Credibility hinges not only on ambition but on adherence. To support early, effective, and responsible engagement, Gold Standard recommends the following principles:

• Prioritise strategic alignment: Set your foundations in line with the strategic principles outlined here. Doing so is often more impactful than launching isolated actions. Expedite this setup wherever possible.
• Fund mitigation beyond your value chain: For ongoing (unabated) emissions, apply Gold Standard’s guidance by setting a meaningful internal carbon price and using it to finance external climate action – such as purchasing high-quality carbon credits.
• Communicate with integrity: Maintain transparency about your progress. Avoid suggesting that early actions fully resolve climate responsibility, even in the short term.
   

My organisation has been established a long time and/or has a large volume of historical and residual emissions that would likely be unviable to compensate for. What should we do?

Given the severity of the climate emergency, organisations should address their historical emissions. The most available means of doing so is by using high-quality carbon credits. However, when doing so, organisations should make clear that they have taken responsibility; present day concentrations of atmospheric carbon make it impossible for any organisation to claim that historic emissions have been neutralised. Organisations are recommended to take responsibility for their historic emissions, but this is an optional activity and should not divert attention or resources from the urgent need to pursue forward-looking decarbonisation in line with the strategic principles outlined in the Climate Responsibility Framework.

How should the impact of non-mitigation activities, such as research and development or advocacy be measured?

At present, tools to support these activity types remain limited, though new methodologies are expected to emerge. Organisations should share their intended outcomes and performance indicators, providing ‘bottom-up’ leadership and examples for others to consider and adopt. Measuring the impacts of research, development and advocacy can be challenging and may not always be feasible. Robust design criteria and results frameworks are needed.

How can I apply these principles to a product or event?

Currently, no recognised framework exists for setting science-aligned climate targets specifically for products or events, although such methodologies may emerge from the principles outlined in the Climate Responsibility Framework document. Products and events themselves should not be presented as net zero. Instead, they should be understood as components within a broader, responsible decarbonisation strategy that contributes meaningfully to global net zero efforts. Where product-related climate claims are made, organisations must ensure that associated emissions are managed in line with the organisation’s overall inventory, and ideally demonstrate progress equal to or exceeding the organisation’s broader decarbonisation trajectory.

Can I pass carbon pricing on to customers?

Approaches to funding based on an internal carbon price will vary according to the specific context of each organisation, and potentially by sector or geography. As business models evolve to meet climate targets, so too will customer engagement and pricing strategies. Organisations must communicate these costs carefully. Pricing changes should be framed transparently to build support for climate action and to avoid the perception that customers are carrying the costs of tackling the climate emergency. Offsetting, in particular, requires careful attention. Offsetting involves a unique and exclusive claim. Therefore any transaction between organisation and customer related to offsets must either transfer the benefit of the claim to the customer, in which case the organisation forfeits its own claim; or make clear that the customer is offsetting on behalf of the organisation, enabling the organisation to retain the claim. This distinction can be difficult to communicate, especially when both parties are targeting emissions from the same source. 

Is offsetting the preferred method of taking responsibility for residual emissions?

Offsetting has been the most used approach for managing ongoing emissions, based on the principle that an emission reduction or removal elsewhere compensates for emissions produced – resulting in no net increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. This concept relies on fungibility, where emissions released by an organisation are treated as equivalent to those removed or reduced elsewhere. The reality is that not enough high-quality offset opportunities exist to meet global demand. Therefore, it is important to shift to internal accountability. Organisations should link their financial and carbon reporting systems, with carbon clearly priced. Organisations should continue to contribute to global net zero through mechanisms like the carbon market, provided the credits are high-quality. This is important while they develop the mechanisms to become internally accountable. Carbon markets remain a valuable tool for co-financing climate mitigation, and they should be considered long term as part of a broader climate strategy.

Is a claim of carbon or climate neutrality still credible?

Many organisations set the target of becoming carbon neutral – and some claimed to have become so – with good intentions but without legitimate definitions and guidance. The term ‘carbon neutral’ does not represent the holistic and responsible practices set out in this document, and is no longer supported by most leading non-governmental organisations. Instead, organisations are recommended to follow the Gold Standard supplementary claims guidelines. Organisations are encouraged to reassess past carbon neutral targets or claims and build on them, to set and pursue science-based pathways to global net zero. Many historic strategies and activities continue to represent good practice and remain in need of financing.

Is the neutralisation of emissions – for example using carbon removals – the same as offsetting?

The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard allows organisations that have reduced their value chain emissions to a science-aligned level to ‘neutralise’ any residual emissions using carbon removals, and so claim to be net zero. However, the claim implies that residual emissions and removals have been mathematically balanced, a position that only holds if stringent quality criteria are met. For a net zero claim to be credible, the removals must be:

• Additional (beyond what would occur anyway)
• Permanent (with enduring impact)
• Non-leaking (not displacing emissions elsewhere)
• Uniquely claimed (not double-counted)
• Robustly monitored, reported, and verified

Without these conditions, the integrity of the net zero claim cannot be substantiated. Therefore, carbon removals should be treated as a form of conditional offsetting.

When pursuing beyond value chain mitigation targets (ie, residual emissions), is carbon removal better than avoidance or reduction? What activities and outcomes should I prioritise?

Avoidance should be the first line of action, followed by reduction, with removal as a last resort. However, the complexity and urgency of the climate emergency requires a pragmatic response that includes all three approaches. Each organisation’s strategy should reflect the best balance between them. The fast-shifting dynamics of climate mitigation mean that future frameworks may also recognise the value of indirect mitigation activities such as advocacy and enabling policies, which can deliver disproportionately large climate benefits, yet fall outside conventional offsetting mechanisms and require distinct support.

Organisations are encouraged to take a holistic view of carbon reduction alongside other metrics – as set out in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals – considering a diverse blend of direct and indirect ‘beyond value chain’ investments.

Should I prioritise nature-based solutions in taking responsibility for my residual emissions?

Nature-based solutions are important and should form a core part of the funded portfolio of activities but should not be the only part. Other important activities are those that are not typically reached by other forms of investment, such as supporting vulnerable communities to access energy and other services. For guidance see the Gold Standard Nature Responsibility Framework.

What risks of double counting exist in this guidance?

Double counting happens when more than one organisation claims the same emissions reduction or removal toward their respective climate targets. This undermines the integrity of climate claims and results in overstated progress towards organisational, industry, national and global net zero. For value chain abatement, it is important to adhere to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol and ancillary guidance, noting that:

• All offsetting approaches, whether compensatory or neutralisation-based, demand unique claims. A reduction or removal credit (ie, retired carbon credit) must not be counted toward multiple entities’ targets. Doing so undermines the integrity of offset claims, especially those tied to regulatory requirements or net zero declarations. 
• Organisations should clearly distinguish between activities reported against value chain targets and those funded to address residual emissions. 
• Some activities, such as research and development, may indirectly accelerate value chain progress and could become valid in future methodologies. However, no detailed guidance yet exists and organisations should proceed cautiously when seeking to quantify the contribution made.
  

We use a non-ISO14064 auditor. Is that ok?

Appropriate accreditation demonstrates that the auditor has the required competencies, management processes and quality standards. Certification to ISO 14064, or an equivalent that is specific to greenhouse gas emissions, is strongly recommended. 

Why can’t I use consequential or impact accounting against my inventory targets?

Two principal carbon accounting methods are used, each serving different purposes:

• Attributional accounting: This refers to emissions inventories – capturing the absolute quantity of emissions associated with a specific activity within a defined reporting period. It provides a static snapshot of emissions linked to organisational operations.
• Consequential accounting: This measures the change in emissions resulting from an intervention or decision – essentially, the difference between ‘before’ and ‘after’ scenarios for a given activity.

These approaches rely on different metrics (emissions versus emissions reductions). The emissions inventory remains the central instrument for establishing an organisation’s climate liability and tracking progress toward decarbonisation. It offers a transparent, time-bound record of emissions and is critical for accountability. Consequential accounting is valuable for assessing the real-world impact of specific interventions. It is particularly useful in impact reporting, results-based finance, market-based mechanisms such as carbon credits. 

Importantly, consequential metrics should not be deducted from the emissions inventory, as inventories are meant to reflect total emissions for a period, not adjusted values. Emission reductions and removals should be tracked separately to preserve clarity and comparability.

For further insight, a helpful introductory resource on these distinctions is available via the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Why can’t I use market mechanisms towards my value chain targets?

Simply, investing in external mitigation activities does not decarbonise the value chain and may reduce the incentive to do so. Some market mechanisms do exist to address value chain emissions, but care must be given as to when and how they are used and the claims made about their impact. Organisational net zero can only be credibly claimed when emissions are reduced in line with climate science, which requires action by every organisation. No action can remove that obligation, nor should displace the ambition.

For any remaining questions please contact us at help@goldstandard.org