Can carbon insetting deliver credible sustainability outcomes in forest-risk supply chains? A critical perspective from soy and cattle production in Argentina’s Gran Chaco

• Applies a land‑use governance lens to carbon insetting—traceability, regenerative agriculture, and ecosystem restoration—to cut soy and beef supply‑chain emissions of global commodity traders. • Exposes how market‑driven insetting repeats offsetting’s exclusionary politics. • Unpacks insetting’s SDG trade‑offs to test its input‑throughput‑output legitimacy. • Calls for hybrid public‑private environmental governance to align producer interests, corporate commitments, and global climate goals. Multinational commodity traders are under increasing regulatory (e.g., EUDR, CSRD) and reputational pressure to reduce emissions associated with land-use change in forest-risk commodity supply chains. Carbon insetting has emerged as a prominent strategy for reducing emissions by embedding mitigation measures directly within companies’ own supply chains, in contrast to traditional external offsetting mechanisms. It integrates mitigation measures such as reducing deforestation through tracing product origins, agroforestry systems, regenerative agriculture, and ecosystem restoration directly within a company’s supply chain. However, empirical evidence on the legitimacy of carbon insetting as a private governance strategy remains limited. This study examines how carbon insetting is operationalized by major soy and cattle traders and assesses its legitimate role as a private governance tool by evaluating how it reveals, manages, and mitigates trade-offs across multiple Sustainable Development Goals. For that purpose, the analysis adopts a land-use governance perspective that focuses on how traders’ carbon insetting mechanisms – traceability, regenerative agriculture, and forest and ecosystem restoration – intersect with producer realities. A mixed-methods approach combines qualitative content analysis of sustainability reports from these traders with field research and interviews conducted in Argentina’s Gran Chaco. Results show that traceability offers the most immediate and enforceable decarbonization but risks excluding smallholders and reinforcing market concentration. Regenerative agriculture supports soil health and rural livelihoods but offers limited long-term carbon sequestration. Restoration projects deliver high carbon potential but raise equity and land access concerns when implemented through corporate land acquisition. The study contributes to current debates on corporate climate governance by offering an explorative case study of insetting’s potential and limitations. Findings highlight that without stronger accountability and deeper territorial integration, insetting risks becoming little more than a repackaged offsetting strategy.