Skip to the disclosure focus
RK
Reviewed by
Dr Ross KurinkoLinkedIn
Strategic ESG Advisor · IFRS S1 & S2 / GRI / ESRS expert
GRI Certified Global Trainer · PhD, University of Cambridge · ESG-AI expert
15+ years on FTSE 100 & Fortune Global 500 disclosures
Canary Wharf, London
LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by Global Reporting Initiative
Free · Community members
✓ LRA AI Assistant · Human-in-the-loop
Open official source →
Explore GRI training (ESRS bundle) →
GRI 102: Climate Change·Disclosure GRI 102-10
Carbon Credits
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify the information to prepare, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official Global Reporting Initiative source.
Legal status
GRI 102: Climate Change 2025 is effective for reports or other materials published on or after 1 January 2027, with earlier adoption encouraged.
Published passport
Last reviewed 2026-07-30
Reviewed by
Dr Ross KurinkoLinkedIn
Strategic ESG Advisor · IFRS S1 & S2 / GRI / ESRS expert
GRI Certified Global Trainer · PhD, University of Cambridge · ESG-AI expert
15+ years on FTSE 100 & Fortune Global 500 disclosures
Canary Wharf, London
LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by Global Reporting Initiative
Standard
GRI 102: Climate Change
Disclosure GRI 102-10 · 2025
Last reviewed
2026-07-30
LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by Global Reporting Initiative
To prepare this disclosure
Disclosure focus
Disclosure 102-10 requires an organization to report carbon credits generated outside its value chain and purchased by the organization. A carbon credit is a transferable or tradable instrument representing one metric ton of CO₂ equivalent of greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal.
The organization must report the total amount of carbon credits cancelled during the reporting period in metric tons of CO₂ equivalent and provide a numerical breakdown between credits from GHG emission-reduction projects and credits from GHG-removal projects. It can additionally report the percentage represented by each project type.
The organization should also report the total amount of carbon credits purchased but not cancelled during the reporting period. Where it purchases removal credits, it should identify whether the underlying projects are nature-based or technological.
For every project whose credits were cancelled, the organization must report the project name and ID, project type, cancellation serial number or range, cancellation date, vintage, host country and issuing registry. Vintage is the year in which the GHG reduction or removal occurred rather than the year in which the credit was purchased or cancelled.
For each cancelled-credit project, the organization must explain how the project adheres to the eight quality criteria: additionality, credible baselines, permanence, leakage avoidance, unique issuance and claiming, regular monitoring, independent validation and verification, and GHG programme governance.
Where a project does not meet one or more quality criteria, the organization should explain why and describe the actions taken or planned to achieve compliance. It should also report whether credits cancelled in earlier periods failed to meet quality criteria during the current reporting period.
The organization should explain how double use, double issuance and double claiming are prevented and report whether the credits are associated with a corresponding adjustment. It should report the crediting and monitoring periods, the validation and verification standards and certifications, and the GHG programme’s rules, auditor-accreditation procedures, stakeholder-consultation procedures and grievance mechanisms.
The organization must report the purpose of each carbon-credit cancellation. Relevant purposes can include compliance with a mandatory or voluntary carbon-crediting programme, beyond-value-chain mitigation or climate contributions, and counterbalancing residual GHG emissions in the context of a net-zero target.
Carbon credits must be excluded from gross GHG emissions and gross GHG emissions-reduction targets. The organization should explain how the use of credits does not impede achievement of its gross reduction targets and describe their role in its climate-change transition plan.
Only GHG-removal credits can be used to counterbalance residual GHG emissions, and only as the final step of the mitigation hierarchy after the organization has reduced at least 90% of its emissions, unless an applicable sectoral pathway provides otherwise. Credits from emission-reduction projects cannot be used to counterbalance residual emissions.
The organization must describe the impacts on people and the environment associated with all carbon-credit projects whose credits were purchased during the reporting period, whether or not the credits were cancelled. It must explain how it continuously monitors and evaluates these impacts.
The organization should have a due-diligence process for selecting projects that maximizes positive impacts and prevents or mitigates negative impacts. It should report the impact-monitoring period and identify impacts related to pollution, corruption, land acquisition, human rights, vulnerable groups, livelihoods, food security, water rights, land rights and the risk of forced eviction.
The organization must report the categories of stakeholders consulted and explain how stakeholder engagement informed project implementation. Where projects affect Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories or resources, it should explain whether free, prior and informed consent was obtained and how.
The organization must explain how socio-economic benefits are provided to local communities and Indigenous Peoples, including evidence of payments, employment, skills development or training. It must also describe both positive and negative biodiversity impacts and how biodiversity is conserved.
Carbon-credit projects can create trade-offs, such as land-based removal projects reducing land available for food production. The organization must explain how these trade-offs are assessed and should describe the process used to mitigate them.
Information already published by a third party can be incorporated through a clear reference where it covers all relevant quality criteria or impact elements. The organization remains responsible for ensuring that the referenced information is complete, current and applicable to the credits it purchased or cancelled.
This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official Global Reporting Initiative source.
Before you start
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key information to prepare
| Preparation field | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| External carbon-credit definition and boundary | Disclosure 102-10 requires an organization to report carbon credits generated outside its value chain and purchased by the organization. A carbon credit is a transferable or tradable instrument representing one metric ton of CO₂ equivalent of greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting external carbon-credit definition and boundary. | GHG Accounting / Sustainability reporting |
| Cancelled total and reduction-versus-removal breakdown | The organization must report the total amount of carbon credits cancelled during the reporting period in metric tons of CO₂ equivalent and provide a numerical breakdown between credits from GHG emission-reduction projects and credits from GHG-removal projects. It can additionally report the percentage represented by each project type. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting cancelled total and reduction-versus-removal breakdown. | GHG Accounting / Sustainability reporting |
| Purchased but not cancelled credits and removal-project type | The organization should also report the total amount of carbon credits purchased but not cancelled during the reporting period. Where it purchases removal credits, it should identify whether the underlying projects are nature-based or technological. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting purchased but not cancelled credits and removal-project type. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Project and cancellation metadata | For every project whose credits were cancelled, the organization must report the project name and ID, project type, cancellation serial number or range, cancellation date, vintage, host country and issuing registry. Vintage is the year in which the GHG reduction or removal occurred rather than the year in which the credit was purchased or cancelled. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting project and cancellation metadata. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Eight project quality criteria | For each cancelled-credit project, the organization must explain how the project adheres to the eight quality criteria: additionality, credible baselines, permanence, leakage avoidance, unique issuance and claiming, regular monitoring, independent validation and verification, and GHG programme governance. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting eight project quality criteria. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Quality-criterion failures and corrective actions | Where a project does not meet one or more quality criteria, the organization should explain why and describe the actions taken or planned to achieve compliance. It should also report whether credits cancelled in earlier periods failed to meet quality criteria during the current reporting period. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting quality-criterion failures and corrective actions. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Double-counting controls, corresponding adjustments and programme governance | The organization should explain how double use, double issuance and double claiming are prevented and report whether the credits are associated with a corresponding adjustment. It should report the crediting and monitoring periods, the validation and verification standards and certifications, and the GHG programme’s rules, auditor-accreditation procedures, stakeholder-consultation procedures and grievance mechanisms. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting double-counting controls, corresponding adjustments and programme governance. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Purpose of each cancellation | The organization must report the purpose of each carbon-credit cancellation. Relevant purposes can include compliance with a mandatory or voluntary carbon-crediting programme, beyond-value-chain mitigation or climate contributions, and counterbalancing residual GHG emissions in the context of a net-zero target. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting purpose of each cancellation. | Climate / Sustainability reporting |
| Exclusion from gross inventories and reduction targets | Carbon credits must be excluded from gross GHG emissions and gross GHG emissions-reduction targets. The organization should explain how the use of credits does not impede achievement of its gross reduction targets and describe their role in its climate-change transition plan. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting exclusion from gross inventories and reduction targets. | GHG Accounting / Sustainability reporting |
| Residual-emissions counterbalancing and mitigation hierarchy | Only GHG-removal credits can be used to counterbalance residual GHG emissions, and only as the final step of the mitigation hierarchy after the organization has reduced at least 90% of its emissions, unless an applicable sectoral pathway provides otherwise. Credits from emission-reduction projects cannot be used to counterbalance residual emissions. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting residual-emissions counterbalancing and mitigation hierarchy. | Climate / Sustainability reporting |
| Impacts from all projects whose credits were purchased | The organization must describe the impacts on people and the environment associated with all carbon-credit projects whose credits were purchased during the reporting period, whether or not the credits were cancelled. It must explain how it continuously monitors and evaluates these impacts. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting impacts from all projects whose credits were purchased. | Operations / Sustainability reporting |
| Project due diligence and continuous impact monitoring | The organization should have a due-diligence process for selecting projects that maximizes positive impacts and prevents or mitigates negative impacts. It should report the impact-monitoring period and identify impacts related to pollution, corruption, land acquisition, human rights, vulnerable groups, livelihoods, food security, water rights, land rights and the risk of forced eviction. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting project due diligence and continuous impact monitoring. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
| Stakeholder consultation, human rights and FPIC | The organization must report the categories of stakeholders consulted and explain how stakeholder engagement informed project implementation. Where projects affect Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories or resources, it should explain whether free, prior and informed consent was obtained and how. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting stakeholder consultation, human rights and fpic. | Stakeholder Engagement / Human Rights / Sustainability reporting |
| Socio-economic benefits and biodiversity impacts | The organization must explain how socio-economic benefits are provided to local communities and Indigenous Peoples, including evidence of payments, employment, skills development or training. It must also describe both positive and negative biodiversity impacts and how biodiversity is conserved. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting socio-economic benefits and biodiversity impacts. | Stakeholder Engagement / Human Rights / Sustainability reporting |
| Project trade-offs and mitigation | Carbon-credit projects can create trade-offs, such as land-based removal projects reducing land available for food production. The organization must explain how these trade-offs are assessed and should describe the process used to mitigate them. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting project trade-offs and mitigation. | Operations / Sustainability reporting |
| Complete and current third-party cross-references | Information already published by a third party can be incorporated through a clear reference where it covers all relevant quality criteria or impact elements. The organization remains responsible for ensuring that the referenced information is complete, current and applicable to the credits it purchased or cancelled. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting complete and current third-party cross-references. | Procurement / Supply Chain / Sustainability reporting |
＋ Show GRI 102-10 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Disclosure 102-10 requires an organization to report carbon credits generated outside its value chain and purchased by the organization. A carbon credit is a transferable or tradable instrument representing one metric ton of CO₂ equivalent of greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal.
The organization must report the total amount of carbon credits cancelled during the reporting period in metric tons of CO₂ equivalent and provide a numerical breakdown between credits from GHG emission-reduction projects and credits from GHG-removal projects. It can additionally report the percentage represented by each project type.
The organization should also report the total amount of carbon credits purchased but not cancelled during the reporting period. Where it purchases removal credits, it should identify whether the underlying projects are nature-based or technological.
For every project whose credits were cancelled, the organization must report the project name and ID, project type, cancellation serial number or range, cancellation date, vintage, host country and issuing registry. Vintage is the year in which the GHG reduction or removal occurred rather than the year in which the credit was purchased or cancelled.
For each cancelled-credit project, the organization must explain how the project adheres to the eight quality criteria: additionality, credible baselines, permanence, leakage avoidance, unique issuance and claiming, regular monitoring, independent validation and verification, and GHG programme governance.
Where a project does not meet one or more quality criteria, the organization should explain why and describe the actions taken or planned to achieve compliance. It should also report whether credits cancelled in earlier periods failed to meet quality criteria during the current reporting period.
The organization should explain how double use, double issuance and double claiming are prevented and report whether the credits are associated with a corresponding adjustment. It should report the crediting and monitoring periods, the validation and verification standards and certifications, and the GHG programme’s rules, auditor-accreditation procedures, stakeholder-consultation procedures and grievance mechanisms.
The organization must report the purpose of each carbon-credit cancellation. Relevant purposes can include compliance with a mandatory or voluntary carbon-crediting programme, beyond-value-chain mitigation or climate contributions, and counterbalancing residual GHG emissions in the context of a net-zero target.
Carbon credits must be excluded from gross GHG emissions and gross GHG emissions-reduction targets. The organization should explain how the use of credits does not impede achievement of its gross reduction targets and describe their role in its climate-change transition plan.
Only GHG-removal credits can be used to counterbalance residual GHG emissions, and only as the final step of the mitigation hierarchy after the organization has reduced at least 90% of its emissions, unless an applicable sectoral pathway provides otherwise. Credits from emission-reduction projects cannot be used to counterbalance residual emissions.
The organization must describe the impacts on people and the environment associated with all carbon-credit projects whose credits were purchased during the reporting period, whether or not the credits were cancelled. It must explain how it continuously monitors and evaluates these impacts.
The organization should have a due-diligence process for selecting projects that maximizes positive impacts and prevents or mitigates negative impacts. It should report the impact-monitoring period and identify impacts related to pollution, corruption, land acquisition, human rights, vulnerable groups, livelihoods, food security, water rights, land rights and the risk of forced eviction.
The organization must report the categories of stakeholders consulted and explain how stakeholder engagement informed project implementation. Where projects affect Indigenous Peoples’ lands, territories or resources, it should explain whether free, prior and informed consent was obtained and how.
The organization must explain how socio-economic benefits are provided to local communities and Indigenous Peoples, including evidence of payments, employment, skills development or training. It must also describe both positive and negative biodiversity impacts and how biodiversity is conserved.
Carbon-credit projects can create trade-offs, such as land-based removal projects reducing land available for food production. The organization must explain how these trade-offs are assessed and should describe the process used to mitigate them.
Information already published by a third party can be incorporated through a clear reference where it covers all relevant quality criteria or impact elements. The organization remains responsible for ensuring that the referenced information is complete, current and applicable to the credits it purchased or cancelled.
How to prepare it
Report carbon credits generated outside the organisation's value chain and purchased by the organisation. Cover every project whose credits were purchased for impact information, whether or not the credits were cancelled.
Collect and reconcile the records for: External carbon-credit definition and boundary; Cancelled total and reduction-versus-removal breakdown; Purchased but not cancelled credits and removal-project type; Project and cancellation metadata; Eight project quality criteria; Quality-criterion failures and corrective actions; Double-counting controls, corresponding adjustments and programme governance; Purpose of each cancellation; Exclusion from gross inventories and reduction targets; Residual-emissions counterbalancing and mitigation hierarchy; Impacts from all projects whose credits were purchased; Project due diligence and continuous impact monitoring; Stakeholder consultation, human rights and FPIC; Socio-economic benefits and biodiversity impacts; Project trade-offs and mitigation; Complete and current third-party cross-references.
Only GHG-removal credits can counterbalance residual emissions and only as the final mitigation-hierarchy step after at least 90% reduction unless an applicable sectoral pathway specifies otherwise.
Draft the response using the defined terms shown in the disclosure focus; do not substitute broader internal labels.
Review the final wording against every requirement and the supporting governance or data records before sign-off.
Request the data
Request the disclosure evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
Provide the complete credit transaction and project register; cancelled total and reduction/removal breakdown; purchased-but-not-cancelled total; project, serial, vintage, host-country and registry data; assessment of all eight quality criteria and failures; double-counting and corresponding-adjustment controls; cancellation purpose; inventory and target exclusions; due diligence, impact monitoring, stakeholder, FPIC, socio-economic, biodiversity and trade-off evidence.
Use the organisation's own role and document names, but preserve the defined GRI terms and the scope described above.
Better request
Provide the complete credit transaction and project register; cancelled total and reduction/removal breakdown; purchased-but-not-cancelled total; project, serial, vintage, host-country and registry data; assessment of all eight quality criteria and failures; double-counting and corresponding-adjustment controls; cancellation purpose; inventory and target exclusions; due diligence, impact monitoring, stakeholder, FPIC, socio-economic, biodiversity and trade-off evidence.
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
Keep carbon credits outside gross Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 inventories and gross reduction targets. Distinguish reduction credits from removal credits, cancellation from purchase and vintage from purchase or cancellation year.
Context note
A third-party reference can be incorporated only when it covers the relevant quality or impact elements completely and currently. The organisation remains responsible for the resulting disclosure.
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 102-10 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI Assistant.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| External carbon-credit definition and boundary is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates external carbon-credit definition and boundary. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting external carbon-credit definition and boundary. |
| Cancelled total and reduction-versus-removal breakdown is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates cancelled total and reduction-versus-removal breakdown. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting cancelled total and reduction-versus-removal breakdown. |
| Purchased but not cancelled credits and removal-project type is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates purchased but not cancelled credits and removal-project type. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting purchased but not cancelled credits and removal-project type. |
| Project and cancellation metadata is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates project and cancellation metadata. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting project and cancellation metadata. |
| Eight project quality criteria is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates eight project quality criteria. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting eight project quality criteria. |
| Quality-criterion failures and corrective actions is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates quality-criterion failures and corrective actions. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting quality-criterion failures and corrective actions. |
| Double-counting controls, corresponding adjustments and programme governance is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates double-counting controls, corresponding adjustments and programme governance. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting double-counting controls, corresponding adjustments and programme governance. |
| Purpose of each cancellation is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates purpose of each cancellation. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting purpose of each cancellation. |
| Exclusion from gross inventories and reduction targets is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates exclusion from gross inventories and reduction targets. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting exclusion from gross inventories and reduction targets. |
| Residual-emissions counterbalancing and mitigation hierarchy is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates residual-emissions counterbalancing and mitigation hierarchy. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting residual-emissions counterbalancing and mitigation hierarchy. |
| Impacts from all projects whose credits were purchased is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates impacts from all projects whose credits were purchased. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting impacts from all projects whose credits were purchased. |
| Project due diligence and continuous impact monitoring is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates project due diligence and continuous impact monitoring. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting project due diligence and continuous impact monitoring. |
| Stakeholder consultation, human rights and FPIC is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates stakeholder consultation, human rights and fpic. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting stakeholder consultation, human rights and fpic. |
| Socio-economic benefits and biodiversity impacts is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates socio-economic benefits and biodiversity impacts. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting socio-economic benefits and biodiversity impacts. |
| Project trade-offs and mitigation is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates project trade-offs and mitigation. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting project trade-offs and mitigation. |
| Complete and current third-party cross-references is reported accurately and completely. | The response omits, misclassifies or overstates complete and current third-party cross-references. | Approved source records, calculation files, reconciliations and review evidence supporting complete and current third-party cross-references. |
Evidence pack to prepare
Common reporting gaps
Reporting only the cancelled total without a reduction-versus-removal breakdown.
Omitting credits purchased but not cancelled.
Using reduction credits to counterbalance residual emissions.
Treating registry transfer or internal write-off as cancellation.
Calling a project high quality without assessing all eight criteria and any failures.
Assessing impacts only for cancelled credits rather than every purchased project.
Ask the Study Studio AI Assistant about this disclosure
Get practical answers for your reporting context. Your first two answers are free — join LRA Community for free to continue without a limit.
Try
How do I prepare GRI 102-10?
What data do I need to collect?
What mistakes should I avoid?
2 free answers
Framework references
Relevant GRI requirements and related disclosures
Available framework references and nearby disclosures relevant to preparing this requirement.
GRI
GRI 102-10
within GRI 102: Climate Change
Related & explore
Transition plan for climate change mitigation → CardClimate change adaptation plan → CardJust transition → CardGHG emissions reduction targets and progress → CardScope 1 GHG emissions → Card
Browse all disclosures →
More in GRI 102 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →
Go deeper · GRI 102-10
Learn to prepare this disclosure end-to-end
This guide covers one disclosure. The GRI Standards Certified Training — taken as a bundle with an ESRS course — walks the full workflow: datapoints, evidence, drafting and assurance, with exercises on your own data.
Available as Guided Flex, Live Cohort, 1:1 Expert Mentorship or Corporate Programme.
How this library is built
312 published reports indexed
63,171 pages with page-level citations
272 practitioner-built Disclosure Cards
/en/knowledge-hub/disclosure-cards/gri-102-10/
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 102-10 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI Assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI Assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →