The race to cut emissions from business travel is colliding with a murky set of accounting rules for sustainable aviation fuel.

As governments refine tax credits for low carbon fuels and aviation bodies publish new guidance on how to count the benefits of sustainable aviation fuel, or SAF, corporate travel managers and sustainability officers say clearer, globally aligned rules could unlock far more investment and faster emissions reductions from flying.

More News:

New SAF Accounting Rules Put Corporate Travel in the Spotlight

In March 2025, the International Air Transport Association introduced a new SAF Accounting & Reporting Methodology and upgraded its CO2 Connect emissions calculator to show the impact of SAF purchases on flight emissions.

The move gives airlines and corporate customers a consistent way to reflect the carbon benefits of SAF in per passenger data, an essential step for companies that must report business travel emissions under climate targets or disclosure rules.

IATA’s approach initially spreads the emissions reduction from an airline’s total SAF use evenly across its network, so every flight receives the same percentage cut based on total SAF volumes.

Future versions are expected to allow more granular allocation along specific routes, which would give corporate clients greater flexibility to match their own SAF contributions with particular markets or travel corridors.

For global companies, this type of standardized methodology is critical. Many have adopted Science Based Targets initiative pathways that require credible, auditable accounting of aviation emissions.

Without a common rulebook, a tonne of emissions reduction from SAF can be counted in different ways depending on which airline or intermediary issues the claim, undermining trust and depressing demand from corporate buyers that might otherwise pay a premium to clean up their travel.

Tax Credit Guidance Raises the Stakes for Clear Definitions

On the policy side, the United States has been refining its incentives for low carbon fuels, including jet fuel. A temporary sustainable aviation fuel credit, known as Section 40B, took effect for fuel used after 2022 and before 2025.

It pays at least 1.25 dollars per gallon of SAF blended into jet fuel, with a supplemental amount that increases for fuels achieving more than a 50 percent lifecycle greenhouse gas reduction.

From January 1, 2025, that incentive begins to roll into a broader Clean Fuel Production Credit, Section 45Z, which offers 35 cents per gallon for SAF at its base rate and scales with the carbon intensity of the fuel.

Recent Treasury and Internal Revenue Service guidance clarifies which producers can claim the credit, what fuels qualify and how lifecycle emissions must be calculated. Separate safe harbor notices explain how models such as the 40BSAF GREET 2024 tool may be used to determine emissions reductions and to certify that fuel meets sustainability requirements.

These technical rules might appear distant from a corporate travel policy. Yet they determine which types of SAF qualify, which producers attract financing and how quickly volumes scale.

If credit rules are ambiguous or swing between models that favor different feedstocks, investors sit on the sidelines and fuel remains scarce and expensive. For multinationals trying to decarbonize their travel, that means limited availability of credible SAF options and higher costs for the limited volumes they can buy.

Book and Claim Emerges as a Bridge for Corporate Buyers

One of the most promising mechanisms to bridge SAF supply and corporate demand is the so called book and claim model. Under this approach, a company finances the use of SAF on flights it may never board, typically at a production or hub airport, and in return receives a certificate that represents the associated emissions reduction.

The actual fuel is “booked” into the aviation system and physically burned elsewhere, but the climate benefit is “claimed” by the buyer for its own reporting.

In March 2025, Airbus announced a pilot book and claim program that uses a registry managed by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials to track SAF attributes. Several leasing companies and business aviation operators have already signed memoranda of understanding to participate.

For corporate travel, this model offers flexibility: a company whose main travel routes are not served by SAF can still finance additional production and legitimately claim the emissions reduction, if accounting rules recognize the transaction.

However, the integrity of book and claim depends on robust standards to avoid double counting. There must be clear rules about who can claim the reduction, whether multiple entities can share it and how it appears in emissions inventories.

IATA’s updated methodology begins to lay down such rules, but many observers say further alignment is needed between aviation bodies, voluntary carbon markets and national regulators before global companies can confidently rely on book and claim to shrink reported travel emissions at scale.

Corporate Climate Targets Collide With Patchwork Standards

Companies with net zero or science based climate targets are under growing pressure to reduce travel related emissions, not simply offset them with unrelated projects.

Yet in aviation, direct emissions cuts from efficiency measures and operational changes are limited; the bulk of long term reductions will depend on cleaner fuels. As a result, SAF is increasingly central to corporate decarbonization plans, especially for hard to abate long-haul travel where alternatives such as high speed rail are unavailable.

The challenge, sustainability executives say, is that accounting frameworks have not kept pace with the rapid evolution of SAF products and procurement models. Some standards classify SAF certificates as akin to energy attribute certificates, which can be counted inside a company’s Scope 3 inventory under certain conditions.

Others treat them more like carbon offsets, with different eligibility rules and disclosure requirements. The Science Based Targets initiative has signaled support for SAF as a decarbonization lever, but detailed guidance on how to claim benefits in corporate inventories is still maturing.

This patchwork leaves travel managers in a bind. If different auditors or reporting standards interpret a SAF purchase differently across regions, a company risks over or under counting its progress, or having to restate its emissions data later.

Faced with that uncertainty, some firms choose to limit SAF investments to pilot projects rather than integrating them deeply into travel programs. Clearer, harmonized rules could flip that calculation and unlock much larger volumes of demand.

Cost, Supply and the Risk of Overpromising Emissions Cuts

Even with better rules, the economics of SAF present a serious constraint. Industry analyses suggest that SAF still costs between three and five times as much as conventional jet fuel, depending on feedstock and production pathway.

A report from Boston Consulting Group in 2025 warned that SAF production is on track to fall 30 to 45 percent short of aviation’s 2030 targets, despite a more than tenfold increase in supply over the past three years.

For airlines, that price premium must be recovered somehow. Corporate customers are often the first in line. Many carriers now offer “green fare” bundles or bilateral agreements in which business clients pay extra to underwrite SAF use, in exchange for claims on associated emissions reductions.

Without consistent accounting rules, however, companies that pay those premiums may be uncertain whether they can actually count the reductions toward regulated or voluntary targets. The fear of paying twice once for the fuel, and again in reputational terms if claims are later challenged is a major barrier.

There is also a risk that poorly defined rules could enable overclaiming. If multiple parties are allowed to take credit for the same SAF volume for example, the airline, the corporate buyer and potentially a third party offset scheme the same emissions reduction could appear several times in global inventories.

That would undermine trust in SAF as a climate solution and could trigger regulatory crackdowns that chill investment. To avoid that outcome, corporate buyers are pushing for registries and certificates that can be traced, retired and audited, similar to renewable electricity tracking systems.

Regulators, Airlines and Corporates Search for a Common Language

Efforts to clarify SAF rules are gathering pace on several fronts. In addition to tax and modeling guidance from U.S. authorities, European policymakers are implementing blending mandates that require a rising share of jet fuel sold in the bloc to be sustainable over the next decade.

These mandates effectively create guaranteed demand, but they also force regulators to define precisely what counts as SAF, which feedstocks are acceptable and how lifecycle emissions are measured.

Industry bodies are trying to keep up. Beyond IATA’s emissions calculator update, standard setting organizations in sustainable finance and non financial reporting are wrestling with how to treat SAF purchases in disclosure frameworks.

Corporate travel buyers are increasingly represented in these conversations, arguing that clear, simple rules would allow them to commit to multi year offtake agreements that support new SAF plants. Without that, developers struggle to secure financing and project pipelines stall.

Some observers point to the history of renewable electricity markets as a template. There, energy attribute certificates and guarantees of origin evolved over time into robust systems that allow corporates to claim the benefits of renewable power purchases, even when electrons are not physically delivered to their facilities.

Advocates say a similar trajectory is possible for aviation, but only if stakeholders converge on compatible registry systems, verification practices and contractual terms.

What Travel Managers Can Do Now

While many of the rules are still in flux, corporate travel and sustainability teams are not entirely powerless. Experts recommend that companies start by mapping their current and projected aviation footprint, identifying the routes and carriers that contribute most to emissions.

They can then engage airlines and travel management companies to understand what SAF or book and claim options are available, and under what accounting assumptions.

Legal and finance teams, meanwhile, should follow developments in tax policy and international standards to assess which SAF purchases will hold up under audit.

Companies that operate private or charter aircraft may also have the ability to participate directly in producer level credit schemes, particularly where they can aggregate demand across multiple business units or partners.

Critically, travel managers are encouraged to be transparent with internal stakeholders about what SAF can and cannot deliver today. While it offers real and necessary emissions reductions, limited supply and evolving rules mean that SAF alone cannot neutralize all aviation emissions in the near term.

Combining demand reduction, modal shifts where possible, and targeted SAF investments aligned with emerging accounting standards is likely to be the most resilient strategy.

FAQ

Q1: What is sustainable aviation fuel and how does it reduce emissions?
SAF is jet fuel made from renewable or low carbon feedstocks such as waste oils, agricultural residues or captured carbon. When certified under approved lifecycle models, it can deliver at least 50 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions than conventional jet fuel over its full production and use cycle.

Q2: Why are clearer rules needed for corporate SAF use?
Corporate buyers need to know exactly how to count the emissions reductions from SAF in their carbon inventories and climate targets. Without clear and harmonized rules, companies risk double counting, inconsistent reporting across standards and potential challenges from auditors or regulators, which undermines confidence and limits investment.

Q3: What is book and claim in the context of SAF?
Book and claim is a system in which a company pays for SAF to be produced and used somewhere in the aviation network, then receives a certificate representing the associated emissions reduction. The company can claim that reduction for reporting, even if its own employees are not physically on the flights that burned the SAF.

Q4: How do recent U.S. tax credits influence SAF adoption?
U.S. tax credits such as the former Section 40B and the new Section 45Z lower the effective cost of producing SAF by paying producers based on the fuel’s carbon intensity. These incentives can make SAF projects financially viable and increase supply, which is essential if corporate customers are to access enough fuel to meaningfully cut travel emissions.

Q5: Are airlines already offering SAF options to corporate clients?
Yes, many airlines offer SAF based programs, ranging from green fares that bundle a small SAF contribution into ticket prices to bespoke agreements where large corporate clients co fund specific SAF volumes and receive detailed emissions accounting in return.

Q6: How expensive is SAF compared with conventional jet fuel?
Estimates vary by technology and feedstock, but SAF typically costs three to five times more than traditional jet fuel. Tax credits, mandates and corporate co funding can narrow that gap, but higher prices remain a key barrier to widespread adoption.

Q7: Can multiple parties claim the same SAF emissions reduction?
In principle they should not, but in practice this is a core concern. Without robust registries and clear rules about claim ownership and certificate retirement, there is a risk that the same emissions reduction could be reported by several parties. Emerging accounting frameworks aim to prevent this through transparent tracking systems.

Q8: How do international climate standards view SAF purchases?
Most major frameworks recognize SAF as a legitimate decarbonization tool for aviation, but they are still refining exactly how claims should be reflected in Scope 3 emissions and target progress. Companies are advised to follow evolving guidance from initiatives such as the Science Based Targets initiative and to document their assumptions clearly.

Q9: What practical steps can a travel manager take today?
Travel managers can engage with preferred airlines about SAF programs, pilot small book and claim purchases, coordinate with sustainability teams on reporting implications and update travel policies to prioritize routes and partners that offer verifiable SAF options, while also encouraging virtual meetings and low carbon alternatives where feasible.

Q10: Will clearer SAF rules alone be enough to decarbonize business travel?
Clear rules are necessary but not sufficient. They can unlock more corporate funding and accelerate SAF deployment, but aviation will still need massive investment in new production capacity, continued efficiency gains and some demand reduction to achieve deep emissions cuts in line with global climate goals.