Verification issues in self-reported climate action

🚨 Expressing intentions is not climate action 🚨 Behavioral scientists and environmental psychologists often measure intentions — people saying they intend to drive less, eat plant-based, or participate in a protest — rather than actual behavior. In our new short comment, Florian Lange, Cameron Brick 🟥, Adam Aron, and I highlight two major problems with this: https://lnkd.in/dC7AS2a3. First, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐫. Meta-analyses indicate that intentions explain only a small fraction of the variance in actual behavior, and studies on climate action reveal a large intention-behavior gap. This means that effect sizes based on intentions are often much larger than those for actual behavior. Second, even if the correlation between intentions and actual behavior was much stronger, we cannot expect results from interventions on intentions to generalize to the promotion of actual behavior. To infer effects on behavior from effects on intentions, one would need to establish that these effects are correlated. But given that the costs and benefits of responding to questions about intentions are very different from the costs and benefits of taking climate action in the real world (e.g., participating in protests, eating vegetarian), such a correlation is unlikely to be sufficiently large. This implies that the relative ordering of the effects of interventions targeting intentions is unlikely to be the same for interventions targeting actual behavior, 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐲. In our short comment, we draw attention to these two points using a recent study by Sinclair et al. (2025; https://lnkd.in/df67aCv6) as an example. Their study is impressive, drawing on multiple lines of research to design and test various behavioral interventions for climate action on a large sample. However, it measured intentions rather than actual behavior, leading to the two problems above. These two issues are not unique to Sinclair et al. — their study simply highlights a broader problem in behavioral science and environmental psychology. We felt that the publication of their study in a high-profile journal presented a good opportunity to raise these points, and we join calls to move the field beyond self-reported intentions and measure actual behavior.

A new study assessed carbon crediting mechanisms, addressing whether carbon credit projects lead to REAL emission reductions. Analyzing 2,346 carbon mitigation projects that account for nearly 1 billion tons of CO₂ (about 20% of all credits issued), researchers found that less than 16% of carbon credits issued constitute real emission reductions. Wind power projects in China and improved forest management in the US showed no statistically significant emission reductions. Cookstove projects achieved only 11% of claimed reductions, SF6 destruction 16%, and avoided deforestation 25%. Even the best-performing category, HFC-23 abatement, reached only 68% of claimed reductions. This assessment comes at a moment of carbon market expansion. The "offset achievement gap" identified by the study - 812 million credits that don't represent actual emission reductions - exceeds Germany's annual emissions. The research reveals three systematic issues: project developers often choose favorable data for their baseline or make unrealistic assumptions, methodologies sometimes use outdated data, and adverse selection leads to crediting projects that would have happened anyway (aka not "additional"). This evidence suggests carbon crediting mechanisms need reform to raise their potential for climate mitigation. It underscores the importance of scrutinizing carbon credit quality and prioritizing direct emission reductions over offsetting for businesses and investors. Kudos to Benedict Probst, Malte Toetzke, Andreas Kontoleon, Laura Diaz Anadon, Jan Minx, Barbara Haya, Lambert Schneider, Philipp Trotter, Thales A. P. West, Annelise Gill-Wiehl, Volker Hoffmann from great institutions.

The presentation highlights a crucial aspect of climate action: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭𝐬 (𝐕𝐂𝐌𝐬). These systems enable the generation, purchase, and sale of carbon credits outside of mandatory regulatory frameworks. VCMs are an essential tool in the global fight against climate change, bridging the gap between corporate net-zero claims and actionable emissions reductions. However, the report points out some key challenges: 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬: Issues like double counting, lack of transparency, and insufficient monitoring can undermine the credibility of carbon credits. This raises questions about their real-world impact and can harm the reputation of companies relying on them. 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐩𝐬: Without robust governance, including clear validation, verification, and community involvement, some projects fail to deliver promised outcomes or worse—harm local ecosystems or communities. 𝐃𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬: Controversy persists over how voluntary credits align with a country’s national climate targets, particularly under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The risk of "greenwashing" is real if credits are used inappropriately. VCMs are a double-edged sword in the sustainability landscape. On one hand, they offer a mechanism for companies and individuals to invest in climate action; on the other, they risk becoming a smokescreen for inaction if poorly implemented. As someone who values actionable sustainability, I see the need for frameworks like the Integrity Council’s Core Carbon Principles. These set the stage for credible carbon markets with strict standards on governance, transparency, and sustainable development. What’s most exciting is the potential for VCMs to fund impactful projects in developing regions, aligning economic and environmental goals. However, this will only work if communities are active participants—not passive recipients—in these initiatives. VCMs must evolve into tools that not only offset carbon but also build resilience and equity on the ground. The journey of VCMs mirrors the sustainability ethos itself: collaboration, transparency, and a commitment to genuine impact. By addressing current flaws and maximizing their strengths, we can make carbon markets a powerful ally in the transition to a low-carbon future. #Carbon #Sustainability #VCM #Reporting #future #emissions #GHG

𝗘𝗨 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗕𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗱𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 (𝗖𝗕𝗔𝗠): 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗙𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? 𝗘𝗨 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁: Climate change is a global problem that needs global solutions. As the EU raises its own climate ambition, and as long as less stringent climate policies prevail in many non-EU countries, there is a risk of so-called ‘carbon leakage'. 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗯𝗼𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝗘𝗨 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻: It occurs when companies based in the EU move carbon-intensive production abroad to countries where less stringent climate policies are in place than in the EU, or when EU products get replaced by more carbon-intensive imports. 𝗘𝗨 𝗚𝗼𝗮𝗹: The CBAM is the EU's tool to place a fair price on carbon emissions during the production of carbon-intensive goods entering the EU, and to encourage cleaner industrial production in non-EU countries. 𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁: From a climate data science perspective, transparent and accurate emissions reporting is fundamental to understanding and mitigating climate change. Yet, the current CBAM approach risks becoming another exercise in 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘀. Importers rely on emission data provided by distant producers with vastly different monitoring capacities, often resorting to generic default values, which effectively amounts to carbon emission guesswork. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗼𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝗘𝗦𝗚 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, where countless consultants and companies monetise emissions accounting, but real scientific rigour and comparability remain elusive. When emission figures become a commodity rather than a metric, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. True progress requires data that is reliable, verifiable, and not influenced by political or financial considerations. The EU’s stated intent to address global climate change and carbon leakage through CBAM presumes accurate and comparable emissions data across diverse global producers. However, reliance on unverifiable self-reported data and default emission factors undermines this ambition by fostering inconsistent and often speculative reporting. Consequently, the tool risks becoming a symbolic gesture that fails to effectively incentivise cleaner production, falling short of its goal to fairly price carbon and drive genuine emissions reductions worldwide. And anyone who will deal with it similarly to the import of banned oil from Russia to the EU will profit from it. Who are we doing this theater for? Source: https://lnkd.in/ebavF5c8 

The recent announcement by the European Commission to 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 Directive is a cautionary development for sustainability governance. Originally aimed at curbing greenwashing through third-party verification and harmonised substantiation criteria, this move signals a worrying step back from accountability in environmental marketing practices. As someone working closely with ESG due diligence and regulatory developments in Asia, I find this retreat troubling. In our region, frameworks like Malaysia’s National ESG Framework (2024) and RUUPIN are only just taking root. Regulatory backpedalling by the EU risks setting a precedent that could weaken the policy momentum many Asian countries are trying to build. 😥 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿? In recent months, we’ve seen increased scrutiny of environmental claims—from palm oil and rubber exports to energy sector offsets—especially following public outcries over unverifiable carbon neutrality labels. The lack of regulatory clarity breeds confusion and opens doors for both greenwashing and green-hushing. The latter is increasingly common among corporates fearful of reputational risk, leading to less disclosure at a time when more transparency is needed. We don’t just need ambition—we need assurance. ESG, when not governed with rigour, risks becoming a liability rather than a lever for resilience. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗹𝗲: ➡️ The EU Green Claims Directive aimed to enforce reliable environmental claims via third-party verification. ➡️It has now been withdrawn, citing concerns about legislative overload and delays in negotiations. ➡️Environmental groups have criticised the withdrawal, warning it could undermine the EU’s climate credibility. From a climate action standpoint, this is more than a procedural issue—it risks slowing the decarbonisation agenda. Verification of claims isn’t a burden, it’s the backbone of environmental integrity. We need more safeguards, not fewer. #sustainability #greenwashing #climateaction #regulatorycompliance #esg #planetaryhealth #ClimateEmergency #netzero #AsiaSustainability #GHG #ESGRegulations #planetaryboundaries

For the last few days, I was going through some five studies, including CAG, conducted between 2020 and 2025 to understand the practices, impact creation, and evolving trends in the CSR and Philanthropy landscape. While I admire the organisations for making efforts, my analyses summarise the three major gaps: - inclusivity gap - scope and completeness gaps - assurance & validation gaps. 1. Inclusivity Gaps: Studies failed to capture views of corporate leaders and major stakeholders in CSR and Philanthropy, such as communities, panchayats, government functionaries at the grassroots and district levels, NGOs of the area, public leaders, etc. Geographic skew: aspirational districts and NE states are inadequately represented. 2. Scope and Completeness Gaps: None of the studies fully links outputs to on-ground impact or beneficiary outcomes. 3. Assurance and Validation Gaps: There is no independent audit or peer review methodology- particularly for corporate self-reported figures. Final views: No single study fully satisfies all three dimensions. Together, they offer broad visibility into corporate, public sector, household and innovative vehicle-giving, but each has blind spots. Inclusivity suffers when any study omits key stakeholder groups, completeness is hindered by limited geographic or instrument scope; and assurance is weakest where self-reporting is not independently verified.