Educational resources & FAQ

Book and claim is a powerful decarbonization lever, but it is one of many tools in our toolbox. In fact, there are many instances when other approaches, such as direct procurement, should be prioritized. With this in mind, how can we determine when book and claim is appropriate and when it is not? 

These four criteria are useful for determining if a book and claim merits consideration.  

1. At the early stages of any emerging market, supply is constrained. If you are unable to purchase the fuel or low-carbon service directly due to lack of access or if you do not normally directly procure the lower-carbon good yourself, book and claim might be a strong option. For example, if you aim to reduce your business travel emissions but do not purchase jet fuel and cannot easily partner with your carrier or LSP, you could purchase a book and claim certificate to address your emissions.  

2. While markets are growing, lower-carbon fuels and services are often not readily available in all geographies. Additionally, it doesn’t necessarily make sense from an emissions perspective to transport a lower-carbon fuel or vehicle if it could have been used closer to its production site. If you cannot source a lower-carbon good or service in your geography, book and claim might be a strong option. For example, if you are an airline that would like to increase their SAF uptake but do not regularly operate out of airports with access to SAF, you could purchase book and claim certificates to address a portion of your emissions. 

3. Many supply chains are long and complex, making it difficult to identify and influence distant supply chain partners. If a scope 3 emissions source is prohibitively buried in your supply chain, book and claim may be a strong option to address those emissions. For example, it may be practically difficult for an LSP or Carrier to efficiently shift a retailer’s exact cargo to its lower emission trucks within a busy tradelane. Doing so may create additional costs and even additional emissions. Book and claim systems can help service providers decarbonize efficiently. 

4. Many sector transitions require high capital investments to build new or retrofit existing production sites, this can drive up the prices of lower-carbon alternatives. If a book and claim certificate purchase goes directly towards addressing that cost premium and will push the sector closer to cost parity when at scale, book and claim may be a strong option. For example, a marine operator sees that green methanol will be a necessary part of its future decarbonization landscape but runs into any of the above issues. A book and claim certificate ensures they can support this emerging technology today. 

In ideal book and claim scenarios, all four of these criteria are present, but depending on your position in the supply chain or within which sector you operate, some may be more prevalent than others.

The fundamental idea of “primary” and “secondary” data is key in the book and claim world and often overlooked. Unintended data mismatches can disrupt even the most sophisticated practitioners. We often hear people talk of using “actuals” or looking up a “default” from a database. What is that referring to? And are there other ways to discuss data? Below are the differences between primary and secondary data.

1. Primary data refers to a quantified value of a process or activity obtained through direct measurements or refers to calculations based on direct measurements (ISO 14083:2023). Ranging from precise information such as fuel receipts to aggregated values reflecting annual energy consumption, it is the preferred type of data for calculating Scope 1 GHG emissions for transport or logistics site operators and for collecting data from carriers for Scope 3 emissions accounting.
2. Secondary data encompasses all data that is not primary data and can be further categorized into modeled data and default data (see ISO link).
3. Modelled data incorporates primary data and/or GHG emission-relevant parameters of a transport or hub operation. Companies and tool providers use modeled data to estimate energy consumption and emissions based on available information about goods, journey details, vehicle information, and other factors. The accuracy of modeled data depends on the level of detail available, and the modeling assumptions made.
4. Default data is used if better data is not available. Default values represent indicative industry operating practices, provide a general indication of emissions, and can even be useful for niche applications such as identifying emission hotspots. However, default values are inherently dependent upon the assumptions that are used as the inputs to the calculation and so it is critical that those assumptions are fully set out and understood by those who use them – otherwise there is a strong risk of inappropriate application. Hence, relying on default data can increase uncertainty.It is important to specify the source of any default data used and to communicate with partners to gather more specific information that can enhance overall accuracy, as a Community.

In the end, when evaluating a book and claim offering or providing one, it’s fundamental to know your data. Primary data is preferred for emissions calculations that underpin the value chain claim, but it’s understood that a combination of different data types may be necessary.

When we use a book and claim as a tool for sustainable procurement, how do we ensure that we are receiving the correct environmental attributes? This data often underlies an important carbon reduction benefit, so how can we ensure the claim is credible and accurate? Especially in complex supply chains, we lean on sustainability certification systems to establish and track the sustainability profile of the fuels, ensuring that each party along the chain of custody has met specific sustainability criteria and implemented the correct calculation methods.

Certification systems reference chain of custody models—or approaches for tracking the lifecycle of a product. A model called “mass balance” is particularly common for transportation fuel supply chains. In short, mass balance helps us define product outputs when physically mixing inputs. A mass balance chain of custody model is key for tracking a fuel’s sustainability profile, particularly when infrastructure makes it necessary—or where it’s more efficient—to mix feedstocks in a production process or blend fuels before delivery. Mass balance allows a sustainable fuel to be tracked and audited as a proportion of a volumetric total, ensuring its environmental impact without requiring the purchaser to physically isolate and directly consume the lower-carbon fuel in order to claim its attributes.

Note that book and claim is a similarly flexible model, but even more so—it allows for the environmental attributes to be completely decoupled from the underlying fuel volume and claimed elsewhere. Correct use of mass balance, then, helps enable subsequent practitioners, such as a registry operator, to correctly track and trace the sustainability profile of the solution, or an emission reporter, to correctly account for and allocate the emission profile of the fuel. An emerging best practice for transport book and claim systems is to require mass balance certification of the physical fuel supply chain, when applicable, as a prerequisite to the book and claim step.

This ensures the supply chain demonstrates specific sustainability characteristics before decoupling the environmental attributes. It is important to note that mass balance is not the only chain of custody model for tracking the environmental attributes of a transport fuel. Other chain of custody models that evaluate physical supply chains similar to mass balance, include, in increasing order of stringency about the level of mixing:

• controlled blending
• segregated
• identity preserved.

Learn more about the underlying elements of mass balance and these additional models in ISO 22095(2020). Or, for more information about how mass balance plays a role in your supply chain, we encourage you to explore existing certification schemes for your industry. Additional information may also be available from your fuel provider, certifier, or registry operator. A few scheme examples include: Aviation: RSB CORSIA, ISCC CORSIA, RSB EU RED, ISCC EU, RSB Global, ISCC Plus Maritime Fuels and beyond: ISCC Plus, RSB Global, ISCC EU, RSB EU RED

The ISO standard 22095:2020, on chain of custody models, defines book and claim alongside other models as follows:

3.1.1 — Chain of Custody — process by which inputs and outputs and associated information are transferred, monitored and controlled as they move through each step in the relevant supply chain

3.3 Chain of Custody models:

3.3.1 — Identity Preserved model — Chain of Custody model in which the materials or products originate from a single source and their specified characteristics are maintained throughout the supply chain

3.3.2 –Segregated model — Chain of Custody model in which specified characteristics of a material or product are maintained from the initial input to the final output. (Note: Addition of material with different characteristics and/or grade to the input is not allowed)

3.3.3 — Controlled Blending model — Chain of Custody model in which materials or products with a set of specified characteristics are mixed according to certain criteria with materials or products without that set of characteristics resulting in a known proportion of the specified characteristics in the final output. (Note: The adhered claim may refer to a certain percentage, at batch-level and /or site-level.

3.3.4 — Mass Balance model — Chain of Custody model in which materials or products with a set of specified characteristics are mixed according to defined criteria with materials or products without that set of characteristics. (Note: The proportion of the input with specified characteristics might only match the initial proportions on average and will typically vary across different outputs.)

3.3.5 — Book and Claim model — Chain of Custody model in which the administrative record flow is not necessarily connected to the physical flow of material or product throughout the supply chain. (Note: This Chain of Custody model is also referred to as ‘certificate trading model’ or ‘credit trading’.)

The answer to this underpins some of the “unit”-ization and why many argue that book and claim interventions are a robust method of reducing scope 1 and 3 emissions, much like similar market-based systems are recognized to be durable reductions of scope 2 emissions. In the electricity sector, the precedent is that the REC is not defined as a unit of CO2 reduction but rather a verified megawatt hour (MWh) of renewable electricity generated, which is associated with specific environmental attributes.

A REC is a tradeable certificate representing the holder’s legally recognized property right in the environmental attributes associated with the generation of one-megawatt hour of electricity by a renewable resource. Each REC is a unique certificate that may be traded independently from the underlying electricity, and each REC can be retired by or on behalf of its owner in order to claim usage of the renewable generation represented by the REC. Read more, here, in CRS’ “The Legal Basis for Renewable Energy Certificates”. While RECs aren’t a perfect mechanism, they do provide a valuable precedent for other book and claim systems to build from. This physical unit concept is key to book and claim in heavy transport when we are counting our “claimed” transportation alongside other reported data. We generally count utilizing quantity of fuel or quantity of transportation, not tonnes of carbon emissions reduced. There is a reason for this. These are not out-of-value-chain offsets of in-scope emissions. These are operational emissions directly and verifiably reduced somewhere, which can be claimed somewhere else through the acquisition and retirement of low emissions transportation environmental attributes via structured book and claim systems, as if the claimant had consumed the environmental attributes of the booked units themselves.

One area in which heavy transport book and claim systems have the opportunity to improve upon the REC model is in directly and clearly conveying a verified emissions profile or reduction in relation to an established baseline. Maintaining the physical basis of a unit while standardizing and simplifying emissions profile reporting—i.e. showcasing these parallel metrics side-by-side—is a key opportunity to facilitate accurate and simple disclosure.

A certificate represents the environmental attributes (including carbon intensity, GHG emissions reductions, and other sustainability characteristics that substantiate a claim) associated with a given quantity of low carbon fuel or transport service (e.g. metric ton of neat SAF or MJ of energy).

Environmental attributes are characteristics of energy sources and other activities that represent specific sustainability aspects of those sources and activities. These attributes may include carbon intensity, GHG emissions reductions, and other sustainability characteristics.

Currently, GHGp and SBTi have not specified a method for disclosing EAC purchases in a company’s Scope 3 inventory. Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGp) and the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) are in the process of developing guidance for market-based mechanisms like book and claim. GHGp plans to provide guidance in an upcoming standard to address methods like book and claim. In July 2024, SBTi released the first of the three distinct reports that will be published as outlined in their Terms of Reference on EACs; the reports on the other EAC instruments will be published at a later stage. 

Yes. Only one company can claim Scope 1 emissions, but multiple companies can claim the same Scope 3 emissions so long as they occur at different points in the value chain.

Double counting in book and claim systems refers to the erroneous, duplicate or improper accounting of emission reductions, encompassing three main scenarios: double issuance (duplicate creation of certificates for the same solution), double claiming (multiple parties claiming the same certificates), double use (repeated utilization of a single certificate by the same party for multiple purposes).

A registry is a systematic collection of documented information or data that is organized and maintained according to specific requirements.

Not all double counting is erroneous given one organization’s direct emissions are often indirect emissions for another organization, and proper booking and claiming of the emission profiles and solutions ensures proper accounting in these instances. 

Where in the book and claim process is erroneous double counting most at risk to occur? Primarily during one of the following four situations: 

• When the attribute is “booked:” This occurs when two or more attributes are issued for the same low-carbon commodity (i.e., two attributes are created for one unit of fuel when only one attribute should have been created) 

• When the attribute is “claimed:” This occurs when more than one commodity user takes credit for the same singular attribute (i.e., more than one ship owner claims the same environmental attribute despite operating two different ships on two different voyages) 

• When the attribute is assessed for additionality: This occurs when an attribute is created but regulatory compliance is not properly taken into account (i.e., the attribute from a gallon of biodiesel is claimed by a trucking company, but the attribute was already incentivized by a regulatory program such as a road low carbon fuel standard) 

• When the attribute is integrated into a B&C system: This occurs when a booked attribute is distributed across two or more B&C systems allowing for double use of the same booking (i.e., a singular SAF credit is available in multiple registries) 

Related terms include: ‘double issuance’ or ‘double-booking’ (1), ‘double claim’ (2/3), ‘double purpose’ (3), and ‘double use’ (4) 

According to ISO 17000:2020, this is the demonstration that specified requirements are fulfilled. This is determined through activities such as certification, verification and validation. Those requirements may be applied to a product, project, claim, data, organization, or even a process, also called the object of the conformity assessment.

Conformity assessment activities are performed by auditors working for third-party organizations called conformity assessment bodies (what a surprise!). An auditor’s work is to evaluate the object of conformity assessment against the selected standard. For those who have accompanied this community for enough time, you’ve likely heard a lot about fuel-related certification schemes such as the one developed by RSB where “the object” is fuel, the standard is RSB CORSIA, and the conformity assessment bodies are SCS or SGS Tecnos.

Example:   An airline states in its annual ESG report that its total GHG emissions for that year were 50 million tons of CO2e. This is a claim, which is “the object” in verification. In order for investors, partners, and other stakeholders to trust this number is true, they need assurance, which can be provided by a specific kind of conformity assessment body – a verification body. The verification body assesses the claim and produces a statement to confirm it, to a certain level of assurance (eg. limited or reasonable). In this case, the standard used by the auditor to assess the declared value could be ISO 14083. This is an example of a verification engagement.

But what about validation: is it the same thing? Verification and validation both convey assurance of reliability of information declared in claims. They are distinguished according to the timeline of the assessed claim:   Verification applies to claims that have already occurred or results that have already been obtained (confirmation of truthfulness).   Validation applies to claims regarding an intended future use or projected outcome (confirmation of plausibility).   So, if this company had also committed to zero emissions by 2050, and requested conformity assessment services for this claim, that would be a validation engagement.      And what about verification bodies such as the third party engaged by our example airline? Do they have to comply with rules for doing their assurance work? Yes, and there are several alternative rules they follow. And are they evaluated too? Yes, some of them are.

Sustainability certification schemes encompass standardized frameworks or methodologies designed to evaluate and confirm the sustainability performance of products, services, or processes. These schemes are typically overseen by independent organizations or regulatory bodies, which accredit auditors to certify operators to their schemes.