Carbon credits are one tool sustainability teams can use within a holistic climate leadership strategy. Deciding if, when and how to use them is a common conversation amongst teams of all sizes.
At GreenBiz25, I looked to gain more perspective, decision making frameworks and strategies from leaders who needed to answer the “if, when and how” questions themselves. Carbon buyers tend to discuss when they began exploring carbon credits in their climate action plans; why they chose to move forward with purchasing; how they allocate sustainability budgets across multiple climate initiatives; how they evaluate risk in climate leadership; and what criteria they prioritize when they evaluate carbon credits.
Recently, I attended a panel discussion at GreenBiz featuring David Wei from Brunswick Group as the moderator, alongside Joe McMahan from Maple Leaf Foods, James Mulligan from Amazon, and Rochelle Routman from HMTX Industries. It was a fascinating conversation that reinforced the complexity of carbon credit decisions. It’s a discussion happening at every level, whether in small startups or large corporations.
David Wei (Moderator): Partner, Global Climate Hub, ESG & Sustainable Business Team, Brunswick Group
Joe McMahan: VP, Sustainability and Shared Value, Maple Leaf Foods
James Mulligan: Head of Carbon Neutralization Science & Strategy, Amazon
Rochelle Routman: Chief Sustainability and Impact Officer, HMTX Industries
One of the biggest takeaways was when carbon credits make sense. As Jamey Mulligan from Amazon put it succinctly, “when you can’t reduce to zero.” That’s when companies start looking at carbon credits, not as a shortcut, but as a necessary complement to deep emissions reductions. Amazon’s focus, as Jamey explained, is on “catalyzing new high-quality supply, at scale,” ensuring that the market grows in a way that truly supports long-term decarbonization.
The how of selecting carbon credits was another key discussion point. Rochelle Routman from HMTX Industries highlighted that companies should align their carbon credit purchases with their overall strategy and culture. For her, that meant sourcing credits from international projects, reflecting her company’s global supply chain. In contrast, Joe McMahan only sources from projects in North America, since his company’s supply chain is entirely regional. This underscored how a company’s footprint and values should drive its credit purchasing decisions.
Quality of offsets determines the true impact
Then there’s the question of quality. The panelists acknowledged the reality that higher-priced credits tend to be higher quality. But, as Joe pointed out, the market is still dominated by low-quality, $3 offsets, which, by definition, have minimal impact. His most powerful statement of the session was:
“Use of offsets for any type of claim is only as useful and valuable as the quality of the offsets.”
Jamey’s comment also stuck with me:
“For a marketplace to function, you shouldn’t have to be an expert to buy. If you need to be an expert, then the marketplace isn’t working, and we need to fix it.”
That really highlights a core challenge in the voluntary carbon market, buyers need clearer guidance and better access to quality credits without requiring deep technical expertise.
Closing out the discussion, the panelists made an important point: even if a company is just beginning its decarbonization journey, it can still start buying credits. The key is to approach it strategically and prioritize quality from the start.
Greater durability of tech-based removals: a critical advantage
The panelists represented some of the most experienced carbon buyers in the market today. However, a recurring theme was the heavy reliance on Nature-Based Removals (NBRs), such as afforestation, reforestation, and soil carbon sequestration. While these solutions are widely used due to their accessibility and cost-effectiveness, they also present risks. Factors like land-use constraints, vulnerability to wildfires and deforestation, not to mention challenges in measuring long-term storage can limit their reliability. High-quality NBRs often include safeguards, but reversals remain a key concern.
As Tech-Based Removals (TBRs) continue to scale in availability and affordability, solutions like enhanced rock weathering (ERW) and direct air capture (DAC) are emerging as viable complements to corporate carbon portfolios. These technologies offer a critical advantage: greater durability. Unlike NBRs, which can be subject to environmental risks, durable removals store carbon in a more stable and permanent form. However, challenges remain, particularly in cost and scalability. While prices for TBRs are projected to decline over time, they currently represent a small fraction of the market. Companies looking to integrate these solutions must consider their long-term potential while managing near-term budget constraints.
Final thoughts
This panel discussion was clear, carbon credits should be used strategically, not as a substitute for direct emissions reductions. Companies should take a structured approach to credit purchases, defining clear objectives, ensuring alignment with broader sustainability strategies, and prioritizing credit quality.
As the market evolves, I hope to see more diverse carbon portfolios that blend nature-based and durable removals, ensuring both immediate impact and long-term permanence in the fight against climate change.
