Climate Week NYC 2026 showed that companies are moving from interpreting new climate frameworks to making operational decisions. They are adapting data systems, reporting practices, supplier programs and investment processes while standards and supporting infrastructure continue to evolve.

The response to our Net Zero Value Chains event reflected growing demand for practical guidance on value chain decarbonization. Over 700 people registered and we were able to welcome 160 people at our venue, with engagement remaining strong throughout the entire session.

The discussions focused on two areas that are shaping corporate Scope 3 strategies: implementation of the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS) and the emerging role of Market-Based Instruments (MBIs).

Across both panels, participants emphasized the need for practical guidance, credible data, interoperable systems and enough flexibility for companies to act and learn without weakening environmental integrity. Read the full insights below.

Panel 1: Implementing the Land Sector and Removals Standard

The first panel examined what the finalized Land Sector and Removals Standard means for companies working across complex agricultural and land-based value chains, with speakers from GHG Protocol, WWF, PepsiCo and Kerry.

Companies need practical implementation support

Insights from the GHG Protocol stakeholder needs survey showed that companies are looking for practical examples, case studies and topic-specific guidance. Removals, land-use change emissions, traceability and interoperability emerged as the principal areas of interest. Companies are already using the Standard to inform climate-related business decisions, but data availability remains a major implementation barrier.

Corporate reporting and operational systems are changing

Companies are beginning to explore new ways of reporting under the LSRS. PepsiCo, for example, has reported removals for the first time, while recognizing that not every project is ready to meet the same reporting requirements.

The discussion highlighted several practical challenges:

– Monitoring removals over time

– Allocating outcomes across co-products, rotational crops and different commodities

– Establishing physical traceability through complex supply chains

– Assessing and reporting leakage

– Integrating new requirements into ongoing projects and legacy data systems

– Supporting farmer participation without making programs unnecessarily complex

Under these requirements, companies are reviewing their MRV strategies, procurement processes and program designs.

Removals remain a significant challenge

Removals are one of the areas where companies need the greatest clarity. Credible reporting requires ongoing monitoring, traceability and reliable allocation methods. Companies are developing MRV frameworks to identify which removals can be reported, but systems and data are not yet consistently available. This creates an important opportunity for MRV providers, assurance bodies, standards organizations and companies to collaborate on common approaches.

FLAG implementation is advancing, but unevenly

WWF’s review of the climate plans and sustainability reports of 405 companies with FLAG targets found that implementation is concentrating on land-use change and deforestation, agricultural emissions, and food loss and waste. Action on deforestation remains prominent despite delays to the EU Deforestation Regulation, suggesting that the continued adoption of FLAG targets is helping maintain corporate attention. Meanwhile, companies report less activity on soil carbon, silvopasture, edge treatments and biochar.

How to accelerate implementation?

The panel’s central message was that better accounting should enable better action. Success will ultimately be measured by whether companies can spend more time implementing mitigation activities and less time resolving uncertainty between different requirements.

Priorities include:

– Practical implementation guides and case studies

– Clearer treatment of removals, allocation and traceability

– Better alignment between LSRS, FLAG and corporate net-zero frameworks

– Shared approaches among data and MRV providers

– Greater involvement from traders and supply-chain intermediaries

Panel 2: Market-Based Instruments and Scope 3 impact

The second panel explored how Environmental Attribute Certificates and other MBIs could complement direct value chain action and help companies address Scope 3 emissions at greater scale. We were joined by speakers from Starbucks, 3Degrees, SBTi, and Cynthia Cummis, independent expert.

Join the conversation on credible approaches in our MBI Program

Interest is shifting toward practical use

Momentum around MBIs is growing. The conversation has moved beyond whether these instruments have a role and toward how companies can use them credibly in practice.

What distinguished the VCI discussion was its focus on operationalization. Companies are beginning to make tactical choices about when to invest directly in strategic supply chains and when an MBI may offer a faster or more scalable pathway.

Starbucks described this as increasingly similar to a conventional “make or buy” decision. Direct supplier engagement, traceability and regenerative agriculture remain important in strategic supply chains. MBIs may complement those efforts where procurement relationships are less direct or where physical interventions would require substantially more time and resources.

New forms of impact reporting

Starbucks is exploring forms of impact reporting alongside its existing climate reporting. This work illustrates both the potential and the complexity of the emerging system.

Companies may need to manage different targets, accounting approaches and reporting ledgers while the external framework continues to change. Sustainability teams must translate this complexity into information that business leaders can use without overstating what an intervention has achieved.

The immediate priority is to create pathways that allow companies to act while maintaining credible reporting.

Credibility requires a common language

Participants emphasized that credibility is not determined only by quality criteria, but also what a company says after making the investment.

Different actions may support different types of claims. Those claims must be supported by evidence and clear about whether the reported outcome represents a change in the company’s physical inventory, progress in an impact ledger or another type of contribution.

The market therefore needs greater agreement on:

– What constitutes a credible intervention

– How activity pools and supply sheds should be defined

– How instruments should be quantified, serialized, tracked and retired

– How double counting and overlapping claims will be prevented

– What companies can communicate about progress toward their targets

– Where responsibility sits across companies, programs, registries and standards

Companies remain accountable for their claims, even when they rely on an external methodology, program or registry.

Flexibility and integrity must develop together

The panel recognized that full alignment will take time. A practical system will need clear minimum safeguards, combined with enough flexibility to accommodate different sectors, commodities and value chains. Early guidance should give companies enough certainty to act while allowing standards bodies to learn from implementation.

Companies need clarity sooner than 2029

While the panel considered what a functioning ecosystem should look like by 2029, companies stressed that business decisions are being made now. They need sufficient stability to avoid making investments that could later become incompatible with revised standards.

A functioning market will require three connected elements:

1. Supply: Accepted methods for quantifying and accounting for mitigation outcomes.

2. Demand: Clear and credible claims that companies can make when using those outcomes.

3. Infrastructure: Registries and tracking systems that support serialization, transfer, retirement, transparency and appropriate co-claims.

Shared conclusions from both panels

Five messages connected the two discussions across LSRS implementation and MBIs:

1. Implementation is now the priority. Companies need practical pathways, not only additional principles.

2. Data and traceability remain decisive constraints. Better data systems, MRV services and assurance approaches are essential for both LSRS implementation and credible MBI use.

3. Interoperability will influence investment. Companies need greater alignment across accounting, target-setting, reporting and claims frameworks.

4. Flexibility must not weaken accountability. Frameworks need to support learning and different value-chain contexts while maintaining clear safeguards.

5. Collaboration is needed to move from pilots to scale. Companies, standards bodies, solution providers, registries and assurance organizations must develop workable approaches together.

The Net Zero Value Chains event demonstrated that companies are ready to move from accounting to action. The next challenge is to build the guidance, infrastructure and shared language that will allow them to act with confidence.

Join the conversation on Scope 3 accounting and implementation