Carbon Offsetting: Real Impact or False Comfort?
Carbon offsetting remains one of the most debated topics in sustainability. This expert-led webinar explored whether offsetting delivers genuine climate impact, where it fits within a credible net zero strategy, and why organisations should prioritise emissions reduction before considering offsetting. The discussion also touched on carbon markets, Scope 3 emissions and what meaningful climate action looks like in practice.
Download slidesWatch the full session
Watch on YouTube 
David Shukman Former BBC News Science Editor 
Professor Hugh Montgomery OBE Co-chair of Lancet Countdown 
Dr Matt Sawyer Centre for Sustainable Healthcare 
Julie Furnell Managing Director, Mobilityways The Opening Argument
Professor Hugh Montgomery opened the discussion by setting out the scale and urgency of the climate challenge. Drawing on climate data and current emissions trends, he argued that organisations should focus less on distant net-zero commitments and more on reducing emissions today.
The problem with these net zero approaches is that nets are largely full of holes.
Professor Hugh Montgomery OBECo-chair of Lancet Countdown
His concern was that organisations often focus on the destination rather than the actions needed to get there. Future technologies and offsetting may play a role, but they should not distract from reducing emissions today.
What Makes Offsetting Credible?
Hugh Montgomery’s presentation prompted a wider discussion amongst the panel about the challenges facing carbon offsetting.
Dr Matt Sawyer highlighted concerns around permanence, additionality and transparency, while David Shukman reflected on longstanding questions about how projects are monitored and verified. Tree-planting projects, for example, can take decades to deliver carbon benefits and remain vulnerable to fire, disease and land-use change. These challenges do not rule out offsetting, but they do increase the need for credible, high-quality projects.
Matt expressed that voluntary carbon markets should play “a supporting or a supplementary role” rather than a substitute for emissions reduction. Organisations should focus on reducing emissions across their operations, supply chains, and travel, using carefully selected offsetting projects only for residual emissions.
He suggested four questions organisations should ask when assessing offset projects:
- Is the carbon reduction genuinely additional?
- Will the carbon remain stored long-term?
- Can the impact be independently verified?
- Does the project deliver wider social or environmental benefits?
Together, these principles provide a useful framework for evaluating offsetting claims.
What this Means for Organisations
The discussion then turned to what organisations should prioritise in practice. For employers, credible climate action starts with establishing a reliable baseline and identifying opportunities to reduce emissions directly.
Julie Furnell highlighted that the legitimacy of this depends on having robust data, particularly across Scope 3 categories such as employee commuting. Without it, organisations struggle to understand the true scale of their emissions, identify opportunities for reduction, or determine which emissions are genuinely unavoidable.
Transport in general emerged as one of the clearest opportunities for immediate action. Active travel, public transport and carpooling can all reduce emissions while supporting employee wellbeing and easing parking pressures.
Ultimately, the discussion highlighted three key priorities for organisations: understand emissions through robust data, focus on reducing emissions at source, and approach offsetting with transparency and care. Carbon credits may have a place within a broader net-zero strategy, but they are most effective when used alongside meaningful emissions reduction rather than in place of it.
Top Audience Questions
The greatest impact is likely to come from reducing emissions at source. Organisations should prioritise investment in emissions-reduction initiatives, energy efficiency, and significant Scope 3 categories before using offsetting to address residual emissions.
Greater scrutiny and accountability are likely as governments, regulators and investors place increasing emphasis on credible climate action. Organisations should expect directives around transparency and reporting to continue growing.
Residual emissions that cannot currently be eliminated may justify the use of high-quality offsetting. However, these emissions should be clearly identified and separated from those that can still be reduced through operational changes or new technologies.
Confidence in carbon markets depends on stronger standards, transparency and verification. While accreditation schemes continue to evolve, organisations should carefully assess the quality and credibility of any projects they support.
The same principle applies at any scale: focus on reducing emissions directly wherever possible, measure progress accurately and avoid relying on future offsetting or technological solutions as a substitute for action today.
Get the slides
Keep a copy of the presentation to read offline or share with your team.
You might also enjoy
TrainingPeople’s Emergency Briefing Screening and Q&A
The People’s Emergency Briefing brings together the scale of the climate and nature crisis and the solutions available in one accessible film.…
Watch →
TrainingWill Carpooling Work in My Organisation?
Mobilityways experts Finlay and Freddie explore why some carpooling schemes quietly disappear after launch, how organisations can choose the right delivery model,…
Watch →
TrainingNHS Resourcing Your Sustainable Transport Strategy
Insights from NHS Resourcing Your Sustainable Transport Strategy with With Andrew Bradley & Barry Waterhouse from the NHS, Howard Duff & Candice…
Watch →
