In the complex and often contentious world of corporate climate accountability, a significant shift is underway. For years, the "gold standard" for climate targets—the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)—maintained a rigorous, some argued rigid, stance on how corporations must account for their emissions. However, following a landmark and controversial decision in mid-2024 to allow more flexibility in tackling supply-chain emissions, the first real-world applications of this new paradigm are coming to light.
Leading the charge is food and beverage titan PepsiCo. In its recently released 2025 Climate Accounting Statement and latest sustainability reporting, the company has detailed a sophisticated reliance on Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs) and other market-based mechanisms to address its Scope 3 footprint. This move represents a pivotal moment in corporate sustainability, signaling a transition from direct supply-chain intervention to a more fluid, market-driven approach to decarbonization.
Main Facts: A Strategic Pivot to Market Mechanisms
The core of PepsiCo’s recent climate strategy lies in the adoption of market-based instruments to bridge the gap between its ambitious 2030 goals and the practical realities of a global supply chain. Scope 3 emissions—those that occur in the value chain, including both upstream and downstream activities—typically account for more than 90% of a food and beverage company’s total carbon footprint. For PepsiCo, these emissions are primarily tied to agriculture (land use) and packaging (energy).
To address these, PepsiCo has begun integrating Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs). These certificates allow a company to fund emissions-reduction projects within their broader "activity pool"—a geographic or sector-specific region from which they source—and claim the environmental benefits of those projects, even if a direct, physical link to a specific raw material is difficult to prove.
According to PepsiCo’s latest disclosures, the company utilized these instruments to lower its Scope 3 totals significantly. Specifically, it applied EACs and similar market instruments to reduce its Forest, Land, and Agriculture (FLAG) emissions by approximately 150,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) and its energy-related Scope 3 emissions by roughly 690,000 tCO2e.
Furthermore, PepsiCo has become one of the first major corporations to leverage new Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol rules regarding carbon removals. By recording over 320,000 tCO2e of removals on its 2025 balance sheet, the company is demonstrating how soil carbon sequestration and regenerative agriculture can be quantified and "retired" against corporate targets.
Chronology: From Ambition to Practicality
The path to PepsiCo’s current accounting strategy has been marked by a series of regulatory shifts and internal recalibrations.
Late 2023: The Reality Check
In a move that sent ripples through the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) community, PepsiCo downgraded several of its sustainability ambitions. The company cited a lack of supportive government policy and a shortage of commercially viable technology options as primary hurdles. This "realism" phase set the stage for the company’s advocacy for more flexible accounting rules.
January 2024: GHG Protocol Updates
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the world’s most widely used greenhouse gas accounting standard, unveiled new draft rules for the land sector and removals. This provided the necessary framework for companies like PepsiCo to start counting carbon sequestered in soil—a vital component of regenerative agriculture—toward their climate goals.
April – June 2024: The SBTi Controversy
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) underwent a period of internal and external turmoil. In April, the SBTi board signaled it would allow the use of environmental attribute certificates for abatement of Scope 3 emissions. This was met with both applause from the business sector and a "rebellion" from some SBTi staff who feared it would undermine the integrity of climate targets. By June, the SBTi confirmed a move toward greater flexibility in its Corporate Net-Zero Standard, effectively greenlighting the approach PepsiCo was already preparing to implement.
May 2024: The TalusAg Partnership
PepsiCo announced a forward-looking deal to purchase EACs covering 30,000 metric tons of low-carbon ammonia from a TalusAg plant in Iowa. Ammonia is a critical component of fertilizer, which is a major source of Scope 3 emissions. This deal served as a pilot for how blockchain-based platforms (in this case, S3 Markets) could track and verify the "green" attributes of industrial inputs.
August 2024: The 2025 Climate Accounting Statement
PepsiCo released its detailed accounting statement, confirming the "directionally correct" figures regarding the use of market mechanisms to hit its year-on-year targets.
Supporting Data: PepsiCo’s 2030 Trajectory
To understand the impact of these market mechanisms, one must look at PepsiCo’s progress against its three core pillars of decarbonization. Despite the complexities of its global operations, the company remains largely on track for its 2030 milestones:
- Scope 1 and 2 Emissions: PepsiCo aims for a 75% reduction against a 2015 baseline. Currently, the company is making steady progress through the electrification of its fleet and the procurement of renewable electricity for its direct operations.
- Scope 3 (Non-FLAG): This category includes packaging, transportation, and third-party manufacturing. The target is a 40% reduction by 2030. The 690,000 tCO2e reduction via EACs mentioned earlier is a critical component of this pillar.
- Scope 3 (FLAG): This covers the "Forest, Land, and Agriculture" emissions. This is perhaps the most impressive area of recent progress, with total emissions in this category falling by 8% year-on-year to approximately 12 million tCO2e.
The use of the "Activity Pool" concept is a vital data point here. The SBTi defines an activity pool as a group of suppliers within a specific region. Because a company like PepsiCo buys commodities (like corn or potatoes) from massive regional markets, it is often impossible to trace a specific bag of chips back to a specific sequestered ton of carbon on a specific farm. The market-based approach allows PepsiCo to invest in the region’s agricultural health and claim the proportional credit.
Official Responses: The Corporate and Regulatory Stance
The shift toward flexibility has been met with a mixture of pragmatic optimism and cautious skepticism.
Anna Palazij, PepsiCo’s Vice President for Sustainability, has been a vocal proponent of these changes. Speaking to industry analysts, Palazij emphasized that PepsiCo had long advocated for accounting methods that reflect the reality of commodity markets. She noted that when the SBTi signaled its shift in June, PepsiCo was "ready to integrate the approach" because they had already built the internal infrastructure to track these attributes.
The SBTi’s leadership has defended the move as a necessary evolution. The organization argues that the previous "direct-link only" requirement was creating a bottleneck, preventing capital from flowing into decarbonization projects because companies couldn’t "count" the results toward their targets. By allowing EACs, they hope to unlock billions in corporate funding for supply-chain improvements.
Critics and Climate Scientists, however, remain wary. Organizations like the Carbon Market Watch have expressed concerns that EACs could become a "get out of jail free" card, allowing companies to buy their way out of emissions reductions rather than doing the hard work of changing their business models. The debate remains: does this flexibility accelerate progress or simply mask a lack of it?
Implications: A New Era for the Fortune 500
The "PepsiCo Model" of climate accounting carries profound implications for the global business landscape.
1. The End of "Unattainable" Scope 3?
For years, many Fortune 500 companies viewed Scope 3 targets as aspirational but ultimately unattainable due to the lack of control over suppliers. PepsiCo’s success in using market mechanisms suggests that Scope 3 is now "manageable." We can expect a wave of other multinational corporations—from Nestlé to Unilever—to adopt similar EAC-based strategies in their upcoming sustainability reports.
2. The Professionalization of Carbon Markets
The involvement of startups like S3 Markets and the use of blockchain for "issuance, tracking, and retirement" of certificates indicates that the carbon market is maturing. To avoid "greenwashing" allegations, the industry is moving toward high-fidelity, transparent digital ledgers. This provides the "audit trail" that institutional investors are increasingly demanding.
3. Shift in Agricultural Funding
By utilizing FLAG removals and activity pool credits, PepsiCo is essentially turning its sustainability department into a financing arm for regenerative agriculture. This could provide the necessary financial incentive for farmers to adopt cover cropping, reduced tillage, and precision fertilization—practices that were previously seen as too expensive or risky for individual growers.
4. The Risk of a "Two-Tier" Climate Standard
There is a growing risk of a divide in corporate climate action. On one hand, you have companies following the "mitigation hierarchy"—reduce first, then offset. On the other, the "market-based" approach could lead to a reliance on credits that may not always result in a 1:1 reduction in atmospheric CO2 if the standards for those credits are not rigorously enforced.
Conclusion
PepsiCo’s 2025 Climate Accounting Statement is more than just a corporate update; it is a blueprint for the next phase of the corporate net-zero journey. By embracing the flexibility offered by the SBTi and the GHG Protocol, PepsiCo is demonstrating that market-based mechanisms are no longer on the fringes of sustainability—they are becoming the engine of it.
As the food giant moves toward its 2030 goals, the world will be watching to see if these "paper" reductions translate into a cooler planet. For now, the message to the corporate world is clear: the rules have changed, and the tools for hitting net-zero targets have just become much more versatile.
About the Author
