.jpg)
Reducing Scope 3 emissions can’t be achieved alone. Because environmental outcomes are distributed across the supply chain — and because the cost of transition often sits upstream — co-claiming and co-investing within its supply chain are becoming essential strategies to scale regenerative agriculture.
But how can environmental claims be shared without risking double-counting or greenwashing? And what does a credible, science-aligned, farmer-empowering model of co-investment look like ?
In this webinar, you’ll hear from Cargill and Bolaks as they share how they’ve partnered to jointly invest in regenerative agriculture practices and align on outcome attribution — working together to share both the cost and the environmental impact.
We’ll also hear from SustainCERT, who will offer insight into the importance of verification for the DMRV infrastructure needed to support credible and auditable co-claiming in line with evolving Scope 3 guidance.
What you’ll learn:
→ How co-claiming works in multi-tier supply chains
→ How to avoid the risks of double-counting and greenwashing
→ What credible co-investment partnerships with suppliers look like
→ The MRV requirements needed for scalable, science-based implementation
→ Best practices for collaboration between supply chain partners
Join us to explore the practical models and tools that are shaping the next generation of climate action in agri-food supply chains.
Question 1: Are you working with regenerative agriculture programs or carbon-focused intervention?
Dave: Our core focus is on quantifying the carbon impacts resulting from changes in on-farm practices, driven by the needs of customers like Bolaks. While we currently prioritize carbon, we aim to expand our quantification in the future to include other vital impacts such as soil health, water resilience, and biodiversity. For now, we are focused on measuring the carbon reductions and removals achieved through individual regenerative practices, rather than attempting to define a broad "regenerative agriculture entity."
Question 2: How is the co-investment structured, and are all partners equally involved? Can you provide examples of who is claiming the benefits from the program (e.g., the grower, Cargill, Bolaks, etc.)?
Samuel: The financial model on our end is primarily based on a percentage price increase for the feed. This covers the cost of including the sustainable ingredients. For the co-investment, we determined our desired outcomes and discussed the associated costs with Cargill. The internal decision was then made to allocate a specific budget percentage, which we felt we could justify to our board and owners, to meet the strategic sustainability goals we've set. Regarding benefit claims, for now, it's about incorporating information, similar to next year's reporting on reductions and how they were achieved, to provide greater detail on our sustainability progress. Our immediate focus was achieving the goals themselves rather than extensive external communication about the claims.
Question 3: How is the benefit of removals allocated in multi-crop rotations? If Cargill purchases the wheat, can the farmer sell the benefit (insets) to buyers of other crops in the rotation?
Dave: Currently, most of the farms we work with in this specific project have relatively simple rotations (primarily wheat and oilseed rape).
However, the complexity of multi-crop rotations is something we recognize and are actively addressing. The SustainCERT, Soil Capital and Cargill white paper, released two years ago, explored this very challenge: how an investor in a specific field can claim the insets generated across the entire rotation, even if their specific crop isn't grown on that field every year. We believe that reallocating the insets across the crops in the rotation is a viable solution.
Regarding the specific question about selling benefits to other buyers: No, the benefit (inset) generated on that field is contractually tied to us and cannot be sold to anyone else. Our current model is to purchase the benefits directly from the farmer, and these benefits are primarily tied to the contracted wheat for now. We are committed to a continuous relationship with the farmer to ensure the long-term adoption of regenerative practices, as lack of payment continuity poses a risk to sustained practice change.
Reducing Scope 3 emissions can’t be achieved alone. Because environmental outcomes are distributed across the supply chain — and because the cost of transition often sits upstream — co-claiming and co-investing within its supply chain are becoming essential strategies to scale regenerative agriculture.
But how can environmental claims be shared without risking double-counting or greenwashing? And what does a credible, science-aligned, farmer-empowering model of co-investment look like ?
In this webinar, you’ll hear from Cargill and Bolaks as they share how they’ve partnered to jointly invest in regenerative agriculture practices and align on outcome attribution — working together to share both the cost and the environmental impact.
We’ll also hear from SustainCERT, who will offer insight into the importance of verification for the DMRV infrastructure needed to support credible and auditable co-claiming in line with evolving Scope 3 guidance.
What you’ll learn:
→ How co-claiming works in multi-tier supply chains
→ How to avoid the risks of double-counting and greenwashing
→ What credible co-investment partnerships with suppliers look like
→ The MRV requirements needed for scalable, science-based implementation
→ Best practices for collaboration between supply chain partners
Join us to explore the practical models and tools that are shaping the next generation of climate action in agri-food supply chains.
Question 1: Are you working with regenerative agriculture programs or carbon-focused intervention?
Dave: Our core focus is on quantifying the carbon impacts resulting from changes in on-farm practices, driven by the needs of customers like Bolaks. While we currently prioritize carbon, we aim to expand our quantification in the future to include other vital impacts such as soil health, water resilience, and biodiversity. For now, we are focused on measuring the carbon reductions and removals achieved through individual regenerative practices, rather than attempting to define a broad "regenerative agriculture entity."
Question 2: How is the co-investment structured, and are all partners equally involved? Can you provide examples of who is claiming the benefits from the program (e.g., the grower, Cargill, Bolaks, etc.)?
Samuel: The financial model on our end is primarily based on a percentage price increase for the feed. This covers the cost of including the sustainable ingredients. For the co-investment, we determined our desired outcomes and discussed the associated costs with Cargill. The internal decision was then made to allocate a specific budget percentage, which we felt we could justify to our board and owners, to meet the strategic sustainability goals we've set. Regarding benefit claims, for now, it's about incorporating information, similar to next year's reporting on reductions and how they were achieved, to provide greater detail on our sustainability progress. Our immediate focus was achieving the goals themselves rather than extensive external communication about the claims.
Question 3: How is the benefit of removals allocated in multi-crop rotations? If Cargill purchases the wheat, can the farmer sell the benefit (insets) to buyers of other crops in the rotation?
Dave: Currently, most of the farms we work with in this specific project have relatively simple rotations (primarily wheat and oilseed rape).
However, the complexity of multi-crop rotations is something we recognize and are actively addressing. The SustainCERT, Soil Capital and Cargill white paper, released two years ago, explored this very challenge: how an investor in a specific field can claim the insets generated across the entire rotation, even if their specific crop isn't grown on that field every year. We believe that reallocating the insets across the crops in the rotation is a viable solution.
Regarding the specific question about selling benefits to other buyers: No, the benefit (inset) generated on that field is contractually tied to us and cannot be sold to anyone else. Our current model is to purchase the benefits directly from the farmer, and these benefits are primarily tied to the contracted wheat for now. We are committed to a continuous relationship with the farmer to ensure the long-term adoption of regenerative practices, as lack of payment continuity poses a risk to sustained practice change.
