Offsets Are Table Stakes in Carbon Accounting
Brennan Spellacy, CEO of Patch, on the API layer of the carbon stack
This pushes carbon accounting companies toward owning the measurement workflow, not the offset transaction. Buyers choose tools like Persefoni for auditable footprint calculation, reporting, and reduction planning, then expect a built in path to buy credits or removals after the footprint is known. That makes compensation a necessary box to check, but one that is easy to plug in through a partner API rather than build as core product.
-
Persefoni describes its core job as turning messy company activity data into a carbon footprint aligned to standards like the GHG Protocol and PCAF. In that workflow, offsets come after measurement and target setting, which is why Patch fits as an add on procurement layer rather than the center of the product.
-
The partner model is explicit. Persefoni says Patch helps customers procure offsets after they calculate emissions, and says selling offsets inside the accounting product would create a conflict of interest. That is strong evidence that compensation is expected functionality, but not where the accounting vendor wants to anchor trust or margin.
-
The same pattern shows up elsewhere in the market. Watershed now bundles a marketplace for carbon removal, clean power, and SAF alongside its accounting and reporting software, and Normative has built a partner network for carbon removal. Once multiple platforms offer access, the feature stops being a wedge and starts being table stakes.
The likely end state is a cleaner split in the carbon stack. Accounting platforms will compete on data quality, auditability, supplier and finance workflows, and regulatory readiness. Specialist infrastructure layers will compete on project supply, pricing, and execution. As more buyers expect both in one screen, the winners will be the systems that make the handoff feel invisible.