Carbon offsetting is a contentious issue. Some see it as a effective way of reducing your impact on the environment. Others, in the words of Communisis chief executive Steve Vaughan, believe it is "buying an excuse to pollute". There are plenty of sceptics in the industry that share Vaughan's view, but there are also many that argue offsetting has a positive impact on the environment.

Sorting through the arguments is not easy. While some see the cost as worthwhile, others fail to see the benefits. Both sides are as sure of their stance as the other.

According to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), offsetting is a way of compensating for unavoidable emissions. Effectively, carbon emission credits are bought from a third party to offset or cancel out a specified amount of a firm's emissions.

The government's view is that, if this is done in a "robust and responsible way", then carbon offsetting can lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions in the area local to the offsetting project, which is often in developing countries.

"A high-quality carbon offsetting scheme actually reduces your carbon emissions," explains Bill Sneyd, director of advisory services at the CarbonNeutral Company. The firm is well-versed to the carbon needs of the print industry. Its scheme is used by PrintWeek's envrionmental company of the year The Beacon Press and last month it linked up with the BPIF to unveil a carbon calculator service for the Federation's Platinum members.

High demand
"The results from the BPIF so far have shown that there is a great desire from print companies to reduce their carbon emissions and offset," adds Sneyd. "I know that they have had a lot of interest."

They have indeed. Liam Gardner, national environmental advisor at the BPIF, reports that there have been more than 200 queries with 100 companies expressing an interest in participating in the scheme. While this doesn't mean that
all of them will offset, it is a significant enough number to suggest that the reputation of carbon offsetting is undergoing something of a rehabilitation.

"It is a very topical area at the moment," says Gardner. "There is legislation, but reducing carbon emissions is not driven by that - it is market driven. It comes through demands from the supply chain. While in the past green was seen as being a niche area, it can have a real added benefit for a business."

The perception that carbon offsetting schemes are just about planting trees in developing countries is wide of the mark.  It's been well publicised that for each carbon credit used by a firm, or even an individual, money is given to projects for investment in clean technology in areas that need it most.

"Most offsetting programmes are now about technology-based projects," says Sneyd. "It's about investing in renewable energy, energy efficiency and reduction of non-C02 emissions."

Despite the numerous good causes and communities across the world that are benefiting from offsetting schemes, many people still remain sceptical about offsetting. And these aren't climate change deniers either - many are fully paid up members of the green club and have solid environmental policies in place.

The view among the offsetting doubters is that all you are really doing is paying a fine for your emissions, so there isn't the incentive to reduce your levels of C02. Many companies opt instead to make a difference to the environment by reducing their own emissions.

Questions unanswered
"We have a robust system of carbon reduction programmes and, in order to do that, a firm needs to be committed to an environmental system," explains Harry Skidmore, managing director at Easibind.

"We are assessing carbon offsetting schemes all the time - there are more than 50 in the UK alone. But there are several questions that I feel aren't being answered. How many are actually sustainable and what exactly are you offsetting?"

He points out that a company's total number of carbon emissions don't just come from the company itself. You can trace it through your suppliers. By going down the supply chain, suddenly, argues Skidmore, an offsetting scheme becomes very expensive. That's where the question of who will pay comes in.

"Would a customer be prepared to offset? Somewhere along the line our customers would have to pay for this," he says. "That has to work out in the same way as an end user would pay VAT. In my view, there is a lot of work to be done to understand the various layers of such a scheme."

Then there's the question of whether your customers actually want it. Vaughan says that if Communisis' customers want to offset, then they can. But so far, there has been very little take-up. He argues that customers can already see the company has a detailed environmental programme in place.

"I spent time going out to our customers and talking to them about what our environmental policy should look like," explains Vaughan. "Rather than offsetting, they would rather us reduce the impact we are having on the environment. We pursue three indicators: the first is carbon footprint, the second is landfill and the third is sustainability of our supply chain."

Vaughan adds that Communisis has brought in the Carbon Trust to assist it in reducing its energy usage and to source power from renewable suppliers. He says that with a solid programme in place, there's no need to offset.

"It doesn't have to be a horribly complex thing," he says. "The environmental story is useful for your sales and marketing team, but the real benefit is that by reducing your emissions, you will save money."

Doing it for yourself
The Lateral Group is another company doing its utmost to reduce its CO2 emissions. Chief executive Nick Dixon believes that it is "imperative that you reduce your carbon footprint to the best of your ability".

"Carbon offsetting is just marketing hype," he adds. "You need to put your money where your mouth is. I would rather our company be more efficient first than just paying a bill to show that we are offsetting. A lot of companies are saying that they are carbon neutral, but they are just paying a fine."

From that onslaught, you'd think that offsetting is difficult to defend. But the CarbonNeutral Company's Sneyd argues that by going down the offsetting route, you are not only reducing your company's own footprint, but helping to tackle the problem in other communities.

"By buying, for example, carbon credits at £10 per tonne of your C02, you will be making reductions in your offset costs and reducing your carbon footprint," he explains. "It is wrong to say that reducing your emissions internally alone is good enough. From a climate perspective, it doesn't make much difference if your company is simply reducing its carbon footprint. Offsetting makes the difference externally."

The BPIF's Gardner backs up Sneyd's view that offsetting has a purpose. "We support carbon footprinting and we believe that offseting is a very, very good route to reduce your carbon impact. You're getting real tangible benefits," he says.

"It is almost a self-imposed tax, but the more you reduce your footprint, the less you pay. The amount you pay is directly linked to your impact on the environment. But it should only be through approved third-party methods and you do have to be careful where you spend your money."

Less equals more
And Sneyd also dismisses the view that, by investing in an offset scheme, there's no incentive to reduce your carbon emissions. A reduction means you are paying less in offsetting and can more visibly see the difference you're making.

"With a proper carbon management programme in place, you have to go through the continuous cycle of measuring, reviewing your targets and communicating what you have done," he adds.

Whatever the arguments both for and against, by 2010, larger companies will not be able to ignore their carbon footprint. Next year, the government's Carbon Reduction Commitment comes into force (see box) and it could cause problems for companies without a clear carbon plan.

The signs are that there are plenty of companies in the print industry that do have sound environmental plans in place and that a decent number of those are making progress in reducing their C02 emissions. And agreement is unanimous that the industry needs to combat global emissions and actively reduce them as much as possible but whether the best method for doing this is to carbon offset is a contentious and not readily resolvable debate.