Carbon offsets promise something deceptively simple: emit here, cancel there. But as the climate crisis accelerates, that simplicity no longer matches reality. Our recent GRP webinar – featuring speakers from Elvis & Kresse, Schroders Capital, Cloverly and ClientEarth – explored why offsets fall short and how a “contribution” approach offers a more credible path forward.
A shift from compensation to contribution
Offsets rely on two key tests: permanence (how long carbon remains out of the atmosphere) and additionality (whether the project would have occurred anyway). These are difficult to guarantee. Nature-based projects face risks like fire or disease, while engineered removals can be more durable but are costly and still small in scale.
As Callum Hunt of Cloverly noted, “There are fantastic projects out there…but permanence and additionality vary.” But beyond technical uncertainties, offsetting risk sends the wrong signal. The belief that ongoing emissions can be neutralised through payments can weaken the essential work of reducing emissions at source.
ClientEarth’s Emma O’Brien captured the issue plainly: “It’s scientifically impossible to offset emissions on a ton-for-ton basis.” Legal scrutiny is increasing, and companies making claims like “carbon-neutral flights” are already facing challenges and rulings against them.
Rather than promising exact carbon equivalence, organisations should fund climate and nature solutions because they matter – not because they erase their own emissions. This shift enhances transparency, reduces the risk of greenwashing, and better aligns with climate science.
What credible climate action looks like
Speakers agreed that meaningful action follows a clear sequence. Organisations must first reduce emissions rapidly across their operations and supply chains. Only once those reductions are underway should neutralisation of genuine residual emissions be considered, and even then, only through durable removals. Beyond that, contributions can accelerate broader systems change.
In sectors like real estate, which generate around 40% of global emissions, this hierarchy is unmistakable. “Offsetting doesn’t fix the building,” said Schroders Capital’s Amarachi Seery. Retrofitting, efficiency, healthy indoor environments and resilience must come first.
Where contributions create the biggest impact
Many of the most important climate solutions simply don’t fit into a carbon-credit model. Legal accountability, ocean protection, market transparency, indigenous land rights, and biodiversity restoration – these are crucial interventions, but difficult to quantify in terms of tonnes. And yet they drive systemic, lasting change.
Kresse Wesling CBE shared how Elvis & Kresse builds climate action directly into its business, from rescuing waste materials to donating 50% of profits and practising regenerative agriculture. As she put it, “Maybe an offset is good in the short term… but the best solution is to fold climate action into your business.”
Her message echoed across the panel: organisations thrive when sustainability is not an add-on but a principle shaping strategy, relationships and long-term value.
Why this moment matters
The climate crisis is complex. It spans ecosystems, finance, justice, public health and community resilience. No single metric can capture it, and no offset can solve it. Philanthropy has a unique role to play by funding the high-integrity, non-commercial solutions that markets alone won’t deliver at the speed required.
As GRP’s Jack Chellman reminded us, “Offsets can feel simple, but offsetting isn’t that simple.” Deep emissions cuts are non-negotiable. And while organisations decarbonise, contributions can power the legal wins, protected oceans, restored forests and resilient communities that shape a liveable future.
If you’re ready to move beyond offsets, GRP offers an evidence-led, transparent way to make your contribution count.
Watch the full webinar ‘Can we do better than offsets?’ here!
Support our work