Three influential green groups yesterday unveiled a voluntary standard aimed at giving consumers greater confidence in offset programmes.

The Voluntary Carbon Standard – developed by The Climate Group, the International Emissions Trading Association and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development – aims to stamp out alleged malpractice within the embryonic industry.
Growing numbers of companies, such as airlines and retailers, are offering consumers the chance to offset their carbon footprint by paying for initiatives such as tree planting and the development of clean technologies that promise to counter or offset their original emissions.

However, research has shown that many consumers are highly sceptical about such programmes, believing that companies are not using the money as promised – something they are able to get away with because of a lack of government regulation.

The VCS – launched following two years of research and consultation – aims to become the industry gold standard that companies globally use in promoting their voluntary offset projects.

In order to qualify, projects must be independently verified and approved by the VCS' stringent testing framework, the group behind the standard said. It added that the standards would be as "robust" as those used to certify carbon reduction projects entering the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) trading scheme, but would attempt to reduce administrative costs for participants, making the standard more suitable for smaller-scale community offset projects.

"The VCS means business, and consumer buyers can now trust the offsets they buy," explained Mark Kenber, policy director of The Climate Group and co-chair of the VCS steering committee. "The VCS is vital for the environment and for growth of an important global market."

However, the VCS standard will face stiff competition to establish itself as the industry gold standard, with a number of different standards having emerged in the past six months, including a draft standard currently being proposed by the UK government. The trend has prompted some criticism that although largely well-intentioned, this glut of different best practice codes and guidelines could add further confusion to the market.