Claims assessment · Entity claim
Carbon insetting” (value-chain offsets)
Typical treatment across five regimes. Every verdict below is tied to a stated legal hook.
Market comparison
How this claim is typically treated
Five major markets · one reviewed comparison
| Market | Typical treatment | Legal basis | What is required |
|---|---|---|---|
| European UnionEU | Conditional | View legal reasoningUCPD Art. 6; ESRS E1 separation of reductions vs credits | Insetting not a regulated term — reductions within own value chain must be accounted per GHG Protocol scope rules, not double-counted as credits. |
| United KingdomUK | Conditional | View legal reasoningCMA Green Claims Code | Explain mechanism plainly; evidence the intervention sits inside the value chain. |
| United StatesUS | Conditional | View legal reasoningFTC 260.4/.5 | Substantiate project reality and accounting boundary. |
| CanadaCA | Conditional | View legal reasoningCompetition Act s.74.01(1)(b.2) | Recognised-methodology accounting of the reduction. |
| AustraliaAU | Conditional | The cited source is recorded in the assessment. View legal reasoningACL s.18 | Avoid implying certified offsets where none exist. |