CO₂ Compensation in Sustainability Strategy

Strategic Role of CO₂ Compensation

‍

CO₂ emissions that cannot be avoided - so-called residual emissions - require long-term strategies. In addition to direct reduction, companies must plan for carbon removal options to meet net-zero targets. This insight explores the regulatory landscape, technological pathways, and strategic use cases for CO₂ compensation in corporate sustainability strategies.

‍

Emissions Hierarchy and Residual Emissions

The pathway to net zero begins with emission avoidance. However, even with extensive reduction efforts, sectors such as cement or chemical manufacturing will continue to emit CO₂. These residual emissions must be balanced by carbon removal technologies.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) emphasizes the mitigation hierarchy:

1. Abatement of own and value chain emissions
2. Neutralization of residuals through removals
3. Beyond Value Chain Mitigation as a voluntary, strategic investment

The latter includes nature-based projects and early-stage carbon removal technologies that do not count toward SBTi targets but offer reputational, recruiting, or supply chain resilience benefits.

‍

CO₂ Compensation and Regulation

The voluntary carbon market has faced credibility issues, leading to increasing scrutiny. In response, the European Union launched a regulatory framework to standardize and certify carbon removal activities. The aim: transparency, trust, and market stability.

The framework categorizes CO₂ removal into three areas:

• Permanent Removals: e.g., Bioenergy with CCS, Direct Air Capture
• Carbon Farming: e.g., afforestation, wetland restoration, regenerative agriculture
• Storage in Long-Lived Products: e.g., timber, mineralized concrete

Notably, avoided emissions (e.g., reforestation offsets) and post-combustion capture from fossil sources are excluded from certification.

‍

Strategic Use Cases and Cost Considerations

Leading companies adopt carbon removal today for different strategic reasons:

• Reputation and brand positioning
• Talent acquisition and employee engagement
• Early investment in future-critical infrastructure
• Protection of climate-sensitive supply chains

However, cost remains a critical factor. CO₂ removal through Direct Air Capture or geological storage can exceed €500 per ton, making it economically unfeasible compared to energy efficiency or green power sourcing.

A case study of Equinor’s Northern Lights project shows that electrification of operations was significantly cheaper than capturing and storing the resulting CO₂ emissions—emphasizing that reduction remains more cost-effective than removal.

‍

Implications for Strategy and Planning

Companies should not assume that carbon removal technologies will offer a simple or cheap compliance solution in the near future. Instead, they should:

• Prioritize emissions reduction along their own operations and value chain
• Strategically invest in removal technologies as a long-term hedge
• Monitor regulatory developments, especially the evolving EU certification framework
• Align compensation efforts with broader business goals, including technology development and stakeholder expectations

‍

Conclusion

CO₂ compensation is an essential component of future sustainability strategies—but not a shortcut. As regulatory frameworks evolve and residual emissions persist, a structured approach to carbon removal becomes increasingly relevant. Balancing reduction and compensation, with a clear understanding of costs and benefits, will be key to long-term climate performance and business resilience.

For strategic support in carbon mitigation planning and technology evaluation, feel free to contact us!

‍