What is carbon contribution?

The climate mitigation hierarchy is clear: a company must first measure its carbon footprint, then implement an ambitious reduction plan (scopes 1, 2 and 3), and finally contribute to financing sequestration or reduction projects outside its value chain.

Carbon contribution is therefore not a substitute for reduction: it is a strategic complement that finances the ecological transition while building a credible and transparent climate narrative.

The shift from 'offsetting' to 'carbon contribution' is the result of a decade of debate on the climate credibility of corporations. France's PAS 2060 norm, long used as a reference for neutrality claims, was withdrawn by BSI in November 2025 in favour of the new ISO 14068-1 'net zero' standard. France's environment agency ADEME, in its 2022 opinion (since updated), recommends that French companies avoid the term 'carbon neutral' at the product or organisational level. In parallel, the SBTi published its Net-Zero Standard and then its BVCM position paper, formalising a new logic: a credit does not 'cancel' an emission, it finances climate action beyond a company's value chain.

The SBTi's BVCM (Beyond Value Chain Mitigation) framework rolls out in four operational steps. First: validate a 1.5°C-aligned decarbonisation trajectory, with short-term targets (5-10 years) and a long-term net-zero target covering scopes 1, 2 and 3. Second: deploy a tangible reduction plan with internal budgets and KPIs. Third: define an annual carbon contribution budget, expressed in tonnes or as a share of residual emissions, and allocate it to high-integrity sequestration or avoidance projects. Fourth: communicate this contribution in extra-financial reports (CSRD, ESRS E1) and to stakeholders, without ever claiming neutrality.

Choosing carbon contribution projects requires a rigorous grid. Several criteria combine: alignment with the ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles (CCP), which certify a programme's integrity; the type of credit (removal, via biological or geological sequestration, vs. avoidance, which prevents future emissions); geographical proximity, which simplifies auditing and strengthens the narrative; documented co-benefits (biodiversity, water, rural employment); and the certification standard (Gold Standard and Verra remain the most internationally recognised, with ISO 14064-2 and Label Bas-Carbone offering complementary frameworks). A balanced strategy typically combines several typologies to spread reversibility risk and maximise impact.

An independent broker like Arka structures contribution strategies around three core functions. First, sourcing: identifying and selecting projects whose technical quality, traceability and documentation are verifiable. Second, due diligence: analysing the Project Design Document (PDD), monitoring reports, status on public registries, and any reversibility or double-counting risks. Third, documentation: providing buyers with a CSRD-ready file including certification standard, vintage, location, volume, registry retirement number, and an attestation letter. This chain of trust is what turns a carbon contribution into a credible lever rather than a reputational risk.