Impactful sustainability work is primarily based on changes in practices. Offsetting does not replace your own emission reductions but complements them when it’s not yet possible to eliminate all emissions. Carbon credits spark a lot of debate in climate policy discussions because they have also been used in ways that shift attention from actual emission reductions to compensation. That’s why it’s important to talk realistically about their role. Carbon credits are just one tool as part of broader climate work. The starting point should always be reducing your own emissions as effectively as possible, and only after that considering carbon removal.

We have worked systematically at Airpro to reduce emissions. This has involved investing in electric equipment, increasing the use of renewable fuels, and expanding the use of renewable energy. At the same time, fuel consumption has been reduced by optimizing movement and influencing ways of working through internal campaigns. As a result of these actions, we have reduced our direct Scope 1 emissions by over 86% since 2022. Continuous improvement is at the core of this work. We are developing ways to track sustainability data more accurately and using it in everyday decision making, for example in optimizing equipment use and mobility. At the same time, we are increasing our employees’ understanding of responsible ways of working.

Ensuring quality

Not all carbon credits are equal, and criticism is often linked to their quality. There are significant differences in the market in terms of whether carbon removal or emission reductions are genuinely achieved, how permanent the carbon storage is, and how impacts are measured and verified. Another concern is the risk of double counting, meaning whether the same climate benefit can be counted for more than one party.

We assessed and narrowed down carbon removal options. In 2025, we neutralised all our Scope 1 emissions, a total of 77 tCO2e, using removal credits. We only used independently verified credits based on standards such as Verra (VCS) and Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB). Standards alone don’t determine the quality of credits, which is why we evaluated and compared the options together with a trusted partner before making decisions. The goal was to ensure that the climate impacts of the projects are as reliably verifiable as possible, while also taking biodiversity and the wellbeing of local communities into account.

Towards long-term impact

We selected carbon removal credits based on reforestation. A key factor in this choice was that as we move closer to net zero in our Scope 1 emissions, the focus increasingly shifts to removing the remaining emissions. Offsetting can be a justified part of climate work when emission reduction efforts have been carried out thoroughly, the quality of credits is high, and the choices are based on transparent and critically assessed criteria. It's also essential to continuously evaluate impacts and ensure that climate benefits are genuinely verifiable. We see carbon removal credits as part of long-term climate work where emission reductions are always the primary goal.

In addition to climate impacts, social impact is also important. Carbon credits are often discussed in terms of tons of carbon dioxide, but at their best they can also deliver broader social benefits, such as supporting employment and living conditions in local communities. The reforestation project Airpro selected in Colombia focuses on restoring degraded forest areas, strengthening biodiversity, and supporting local communities and employment. This perspective is essential, as effective climate action can at its best strengthen both the environment and human wellbeing at the same time.

Carbon credits do not replace emission reductions and they do not remove responsibility for one’s own choices. When used in a clearly defined and critically assessed way, they can however form a justified part of long term climate work and the journey towards net zero.

Heidi Karamo,
Sustainability Specialist