Why are companies shifting budget from “traditional” offsets to carbon removal projects?

The simplest reason is that many companies want to reduce the risk of making weak or easily challenged claims. That’s why they are looking more closely at credits linked to CO₂ removal, not only to reductions or “avoidance”. In practice, budget is moving toward projects where the story is more verifiable and where permanence is clearer.

The second reason is that corporate demand is becoming more selective. In voluntary markets there is increasing talk of “high integrity”, transparency, and more robust verification standards. This creates a clear divide between credits that pass internal filters (audits, policies, reputational checks) and credits that remain technically purchasable but are no longer “usable” for many companies.

A third driver is how companies design their net-zero pathway. A useful example comes from a public case: LEGO says the priority remains cutting emissions in its own operations and supply chain, and that carbon removal is a complementary tool for emissions that are hard to eliminate. The same narrative also highlights a practical point: building a removal portfolio can include both nature-based options (such as reforestation) and technologies, precisely to learn the differences in durability and verification requirements.

Finally, the “how” of buying is changing too. Instead of spot purchases, many companies prefer multi-year agreements and portfolios, because they want continuity and control over risk. When quality becomes the main constraint, procurement shifts toward more structured contracts and toward partners who help assess methods, data, and verification.

What changes for credit prices and availability when new corporate buyers enter (e.g., major brands)?

The first effect is that the market splits in two. On one side are more “standard” credits, often easier to find. On the other, attention grows for credits with stricter requirements on transparency, verification, and traceability. Even if overall volumes do not grow at the same pace, the value attributed to credits that clear the internal controls of more exposed buyers increases.

The second consequence is that “real” availability tightens. It’s not only about how many credits exist, but how many are compatible with corporate policies that require clear documentation, accessible data, third-party verification, and reliable registries. When buyers that are more sensitive to reputational risk enter, the shortlist of purchasable projects gets shorter.

The third consequence is that buyers start purchasing as if they were managing a risk category. Tenders with scoring criteria become common, along with diversification across registries, a preference for recent vintages, and contractual clauses on invalidation or reversal. Communication changes too: the credit is no longer “a number”, but a package of evidence that must stand up to questions from investors, auditors, and stakeholders.

For agrifood value chains, this translates into more detailed specifications. Those buying ingredients or processing raw materials tend to ask for projects closer to the supply chain, where it is easier to explain the link to territory, practices, and traceability. In this space, options such as agroforestry and biochar from residues come into play, if supported by monitoring and solid registries. The strategy that often works is tiered: a more cautious share, a share for controlled experimentation, and a territorial share for consistency with the value chain.

Carbon finance toward Africa: how do CORSIA-type deals work and what risks/opportunities do buyers face?

CORSIA matters because it creates regulated demand in the aviation sector and, as a result, influences where capital flows. When a program defines which units are eligible, projects in developing countries can become more “financeable”, because they have a more predictable demand channel.

In practice, deals often look like multi-year purchase agreements. The buyer secures future volumes, while the project gains revenue visibility and can finance activities and monitoring. These contracts include conditions on standards and methodology, rules on registries and vintage, and replacement clauses if a unit loses eligibility. It is a way to manage a very concrete risk: eligibility can change and does not automatically coincide with “high integrity”.

The main risk, in fact, is confusing formal compliance with substantive quality. Independent reviews have highlighted that additionality can be a critical issue in part of the projects considered eligible. For this reason, more cautious buyers add layers of due diligence: document checks, ratings, second opinions, a preference for public data, and readable MRV.

The opportunities, however, are real. Buyers can access volumes and nature-based projects with co-benefits, if they set up governance and reversal management properly. And for non-aviation corporates there is an operational point: buying “CORSIA-eligible” can be a robustness choice, but claims must be handled carefully. It is necessary to avoid double counting and clarify whether one is talking about offsetting or contribution, with full disclosure.

Forest–wood supply chain, nurseries, and carbon credits in Italy: what projects can emerge and on what timelines?

In Italy, potential often runs through the forest–wood supply chain and land management. A signal comes from Calabria: at the “Stati Generali delle Foreste” (a national-level forestry forum held in Italy) there was discussion of the forest–wood supply chain, nursery production, and carbon credits as levers to relaunch the sector, alongside protection from wildfires and hydrogeological instability. In the same context, the role of a scientific approach and sustainable forest management was reiterated, with the involvement of universities and research.

Projects that can emerge, in general terms, include afforestation and reforestation, improved forest management, nursery production linked to planting and maintenance plans, and initiatives that enhance wood and forest management in a traceable way. The key difference to clarify is between removal (when CO₂ is taken out of the atmosphere and stored) and emissions reduction. This distinction becomes even more relevant in the context of the European CRCF.

The CRCF, in fact, aims to create a common language on quantification, additionality, long-term storage, and sustainability, and sets out a pathway toward more consistent registries and traceability at EU level. For an Italian buyer this means something practical: those purchasing “local” credits will have to ask for more evidence, and project developers will have to invest earlier in data, audits, and chain of custody.

Timelines are not immediate. Between setup, MRV, and validation, many projects need months—and often more than a year—before reaching usable credits. In forest projects, biological timelines also come into play. That is why forward contracts become useful: the buyer locks in future volumes and the project can become more “bankable”. In the supply chain, details matter: parcels, management plans, monitoring with remote sensing and ground checks, and clear roles among owners, consortia, operators, and processors.

The first line of defense is repeatable due diligence. The checklist starts with the standard and methodology, then goes into baseline and additionality testing, leakage, permanence and reversal management (buffer pools or insurance), project governance, and data transparency. Here it is useful to align with the quality criteria that the CRCF puts at the center: robust quantification, additionality, long-term storage, and sustainability.

The second line of defense is traceability through registries. You need serial numbers, proof of retirement, and controls against double counting. The EU pathway toward a more coordinated electronic registry makes this even more concrete: in procurement, “where is it written” and “how do you prove it” becomes

The third line of defense is managing regulatory risk. In CORSIA, eligibility can change, and in the EU the rules on methodologies and criteria can evolve as well. In contracts it is worth including regulatory-change and unit-replacement clauses, plus monitoring KPIs.

Finally, a portfolio strategy is needed. A mix of high-durability credits, nature-based credits with co-benefits but managed risks, and controlled experimentation reduces exposure. And to avoid greenwashing the rule is simple: separate offsetting from contribution, provide disclosure (vintage, standard, location, methodology), and accept independent verification. The market’s direction today is precisely toward more selectivity and more attention to quality and durability.