When it comes to pointing out the problems with carbon offsets, we are far from alone in the art world. Julie’s Bicycle’s “Putting a Price on Carbon” report lays out the risks and challenges of offsetting and advises arts organisations to “decide where to put your contribution and price it adequately – it doesn’t have to be an ‘official’ offset.” In their Energy Book for art galleries, Ki Culture’s preferred option is to “donate to a charity or project that isn’t an offsetting scheme but has great environmental impact”.
The newly-launched arts and environment charity Murmur has also joined the call for alternatives to conventional offsetting. They have partnered with a number of arts businesses to redirect money that might have been spent on offsets into frontline climate initiatives in the art world and beyond. They calculate those contributions based on emissions, but otherwise take a very similar approach to GCC1.
Environmental groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth take a very firm position, pointing out that offsetting “doesn’t really work” and is a “dangerous distraction”. The CLARA coalition of conservation groups, peoples’ movements and humanitarian NGOs has called for an end to carbon offsetting and the use of “real zero” rather than “net zero” targets.
Meanwhile, the idea of setting aside a percentage of revenue towards environmental and social causes has grown in popularity, with thousands of organisations and individuals giving hundreds of millions of pounds via initiatives like 1% for the Planet, Earth Percent, One for the World and Giving What We Can.
Here’s what they say:
EarthPercent:
“We want to encourage artists and music-related organisations to pledge a small percentage of their income to EarthPercent. This percentage can be collected at source and diverted to EarthPercent where it will be directed to the most impactful organisations dealing with climate change.”
One for the World:
“Most people can have a huge impact with only 1% of their income. According to renowned development economist Jeffrey Sachs, 0.7% of the annual income of OECD member countries would be sufficient to eliminate global poverty over a twenty year period. Contributing even 1% of your own annual salary can make a remarkable difference when donated to highly effective nonprofit organisations.”
Giving What We Can:
The Giving What We Can pledges are a public commitment to donating a percentage income to initiatives that can most effectively help others. There are several ways they offer this including ‘The Trial Pledge’, which asks users to “Pledge a percentage of income to effective charities, you choose how much and how long you want to give for”. As well as ‘The Company Pledge’, where businesses “Give at least 10% of profits each year to highly-effective charities. The spirit of this pledge is that it is a “meaningful portion” – high enough that it’s a serious commitment, but not so high that it’s detrimental (e.g. prevents investors, hurts employees, etc)”.
1% for the Planet:
“1% for the Planet members commit to donating at least 1% of annual sales directly to environmental organisations. We certify every donation to ensure businesses meet that commitment. 1% for the Planet was founded on the idea that a company has a responsibility to give back for use of our planet’s resources. When businesses say they give back, we make sure they do.”
Inspired by these initiatives, we believe it makes perfect sense to use a similar approach to avoid the problems inherent in carbon offsetting. It’s also interesting to note how some of the larger environmental policy guidance organisations are starting to shift their language to accommodate these kinds of approaches.
For example, the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) supports thousands of businesses to set meaningful carbon reduction targets. Its guidance is aimed at a broad swathe of businesses, including many that have chosen to set “net zero” targets, with the aim of bringing all of them up to a meaningful level of climate action and ambition. While the SBTi does state that a certain level of offsetting is necessary if you have an organisational net zero target2, their most recent guidance on “Beyond Value Chain Mitigation” (BVCM) notes that many companies are taking external action on climate change without using carbon offsets. They define BVCM as: “a mechanism by which companies can go above and beyond their science-based targets to accelerate the global net-zero transition by helping other economic and social actors to reduce and/or remove GHG emissions today and by funding activities which can expect to deliver BVCM in the longer term.”
SCFs would certainly fall within this definition. Additionally, when discussing how to set aside money for BCVMs, the SBTi guidance includes the option of earmarking a percentage of revenue to spend on climate projects and initiatives, which it calls the “Money-for-Money” method. We also confirmed with SBTi staff that they recommend organisations set a science-based carbon reduction target before embarking on BCVMs, but that this didn’t need to specifically be a “net zero” target - a 50% reduction by 2030 target would also align with their advice.
We are therefore confident that our new SCF guidance is in line with SBTi’s recommendations, and note the broadening of SBTi’s language to acknowledge the growing interest in alternatives to conventional offsetting, including approaches based on revenue, and the emergence of action based on climate “contributions” rather than “compensation”:
“[C]limate contribution claims are those which convey to audiences that the organization has provided support or finance to actions beyond the company’s value chain (including through collective action) with an expected climate mitigation outcome…Unlike compensation claims, the contribution claim does not imply that the BVCM outcomes are netting out or counterbalancing the claimants’ remaining value chain emissions, but instead are communicated as a contribution to global climate mitigation efforts.” – SBTi “Above and Beyond” report, 2024
This follows a similar acknowledgement from Gold Standard, the accrediting body for conventional carbon offsets, who noted in a 2023 report that:
“…it is necessary, in order to better reflect how organisations become positive contributors to global efforts, to trend away from inward focused claims, such as carbon neutrality. Instead the trend moves increasingly towards more collective action, contribution-led claims language in order to truly take responsibility and to make a significant contribution to mitigating the climate emergency.” – Fairly Contributing to Global Net Zero, Gold Standard, May 2023
We’re happy to see these influential environmental standards agencies now acknowledging the importance of action beyond offsets, talking about the difference between compensation and contributions, and validating the use of revenue-based funding methods. This shows how these methods and ideas have grown in importance and popularity since we first launched our SCF scheme in 2021, and we’re excited to keep pressing ahead and further contribute to that gradual shift.
Other guidance, such as the UN’s “Integrity Matters” report, assumes that its audience will be using offsetting to meet its “net zero” targets. However, this advice is very much aimed at large businesses that have set a net zero target, with the worthy goal of ensuring that these corporates take the most meaningful action possible within that framework. Meanwhile, the UN-backed “Race to Zero” criteria clearly leave room for organisations to set reduction targets without the use of offsets or “net zero”, and their recommendations include “immediate contributions to the preservation and restoration of natural sinks, not necessarily linked to neutralization claims”.
At GCC we are in the fortunate position of advising a forward-looking and engaged membership, based on a straightforward science-based 2030 reduction target without the complications of organisational “net zero”. As a small and nimble organisation, we are able to adapt quickly and update our advice based on the needs of our members, whilst also hopefully accelerating the changes we want to see in society. We know that GCC members are under pressure from audiences, artists, staff and supporters to take urgent and meaningful action in line with climate science and climate justice. So on issues like SCFs, we try to stay ahead of the curve, focus on the most effective climate actions, and give our members up-to-date guidance based on where we believe the debate is heading. See here what academics, climate advisors and other leaders in the visual arts and environmental fields say on GCC’s Strategic Climate Funds.
The most important thing is that we are urgently addressing the climate crisis. Rapid decarbonisation should be the primary focus for our members but beyond (and to aid) that work SCFs can be an effective way to accelerate decarbonisation and wider systemic change.
1. While we do recommend a revenue-based approach, we also acknowledge that other fundraising methods like Murmur’s can also be effective and may be preferable to certain organisations. GCC supports any ethical and effective funding of climate action and we are open to working with and mutually supporting other initiatives that take a different approach to get to the same endpoint. The most important thing is that there is now an understanding and willingness to move away from conventional carbon offsetting, which wasn't the case when we first launched SCFs in 2021.
2. This is a key reason why GCC does not recommend setting an organisational net zero target, but instead setting a 2030 reduction target plus an SCF, to help towards global net zero.
Further SCF reading:
