CSOs, What Does LSRG Mean for You?

As we approach the end of 2025, the release of the finalized GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance (LSRG) is imminent, and the implications substantial. Whether you’re operating in food and beverage, agriculture, retail, consumer goods, or forestry, the message is clear: the era of uncertainty around land-use emissions is over.

Just a few weeks ago, I joined a panel with Stephen Mackenzie from the SBTi, Emily O’Halloran from Kellanova, and Margaret Morales from Trellis to break down what this guidance means, what’s changing, and how companies can credibly lead on insetting and removals without falling into the traps of greenwashing or data paralysis. Our discussion had three parts:

LSRG 101: What’s Changing and Why It Matters

Historically, land-based emissions, responsible for roughly a quarter of global GHGs, have been underreported or inconsistently measured in corporate inventories. A lack of standardized guidance has caused this to happen. With the upcoming finalization of the LSRG, companies with land-intensive supply chains need to start preparing – yesterday. These new guidelines are bringing rigor, complexity, and a lot of data.

In terms of rigor, the LSRG stacks up at over 400 pages, much longer than the corporate standard and Scope 3 guidance combined. It introduces mandatory requirements layered on top of the existing Scope 1, 2, and 3 structure, adding three major emission categories for land-based reporting: land-use change, land management, and carbon removals.

The ability to differentiate these distinct carbon pools is a must if you want to be GHG Protocol-compliant. If your sustainability report claims compliance, your inventory must reflect these complexities, and disparate pools.

Moreover, the LSRG doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s spilling into other standards, most notably, SBTi’s FLAG guidance. Companies in FLAG sectors that set pre-2023 targets must add FLAG targets within six months of LSRG finalization. This is setting off a cascade that touches CDP, IFRS, and other frameworks.

Perhaps most crucially, if the LSRG resolves the “lack of guidance” challenge, then the next bottleneck is clear: data. Expect data requirements, especially at the land-management unit level, to increase dramatically. 

Navigating Climate Strategy: From FLAG to Insetting 

During our panel discussion, my fellow panelist, Stephen, emphasized that the SBTi recognizes the magnitude of change companies are facing with what the LSRG will be. Companies should not pause action. There’s already a strong commitment to pragmatism, across frameworks in that there will be no penalties for making good-faith progress even amid evolving standards.

Emily O’Halloran shared practical insights from Kellanova’s work on regenerative agriculture and supply chain engagement. Her advice was clear: standardize everything, from the format of internal data requests to the vocabulary used in supplier conversations. Have one person own the data intake process, and one source of truth.

We also dug into insetting. While the term itself may need rebranding (supply chain interventions is more accurate), the concept is gaining traction fast. When done right, insetting aligns emissions reductions directly to your value chain, but credibility is key. The LSRG is raising the bar with rigorous MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) expectations. Continuous monitoring, uncertainty quantification, reversals reporting, and traceability are all within scope.

This has cost implications. If the MRV for a project outweighs its emissions benefit, it may not be worth pursuing. Try and find synergies with existing projects and programs. For example, if you’re a producer already taking soil samples or a retailer funding regenerative ag programs, the guidance now provides the blueprint for turning those actions into credible climate claims.

What Companies Should Do Now

So, what’s the playbook for Q4 and beyond? To me, three steps emerge before you tackle methodologies or emissions categories.

1. Look within. 
   The first and most strategic step is internal alignment. Too often, companies scramble to fill data gaps externally, overlooking what already exists within their organization. I’ve seen it repeatedly: teams spend months developing complex workarounds for missing data — only to discover that “missing data” might already be sitting with Dave in procurement. This disconnect wastes time and undermines credibility. It’s why preparation for LSRG starts with people. Bring internal teams into the journey early, engage cross-functional stakeholders, and map what data lives where. You might just be surprised by the pockets of insight hiding in plain sight.
2. Standardize data hygiene. 
   Collaboration isn’t enough without structure. As Emily aptly pointed out, it’s critical to standardize your data intake processes. Start by deciding how you want to receive and store emissions-related data, from both internal business units and external partners. This means aligning on formats, metrics, and submission protocols. To reiterate, this means assigning a single owner, and a central point of accountability for what the data collection form looks like and how it evolves. That individual becomes the gatekeeper of consistency, ensuring the data is fit for purpose before it enters reporting systems. A centralized, standardized approach ensures that every piece of emissions data, whether it comes from a supplier in Iowa or a finance manager in Jakarta, is held to the same standard and speaks the same language. This not only reduces the potential for errors, but streamlines the process in subsequent years, saving scarce time and resources for the real work of actually reducing emissions.
3. Don’t get hamstrung by open questions. 
   The finalized LSRG will clarify outstanding issues like how deep traceability must go. When it lands, act fast to understand what’s finalized and what still leaves room for interpretation. Forward momentum matters. Whether it’s setting a FLAG target, developing a transition plan, or piloting a regenerative ag initiative, action sends a strong signal to stakeholders, and sets you up to absorb future changes with less disruption.

The LSRG will demand more detail and documentation than ever before. But the heavy lift doesn’t have to start with external consultants or new software. It starts with clarity, within your team, your data structures, and your internal processes.

If you take any point away from my assessment, it is this: Before you look outward, look inward. It’s the foundation for credible, defensible, and ultimately successful climate action in the LSRG era.

If you’re curious how to turn LSRG compliance into a strategic advantage, speak to us today. Learn how you can build trust with investors, unlock capital, and accelerate your transition to net zero.

 

 

 

Ben Putman
Senior Decarbonization Specialist,
Terrascope