Buy a credit today, it might not count tomorrow.
Across the world's largest corporations, a quiet paradox has taken hold: companies that have pledged to reach net zero understand that carbon removal is necessary, yet almost none are buying. A study of Fortune 1,000 sustainability leaders in the UK, US, Germany, and France finds that regulatory ambiguity — not lack of conviction — is the true obstacle, as executives fear that credits purchased today may not count under tomorrow's rules. It is a moment that reveals how deeply the architecture of policy shapes the courage of markets, and how the absence of clear frameworks can freeze even well-intentioned actors in place.
- Fortune 1,000 companies have made sweeping net zero pledges but have developed no actual purchasing strategies for carbon removal credits — commitment and action remain worlds apart.
- The core fear is temporal: buy a carbon credit today, and shifting regulations in the EU or US could render it worthless or unrecognized within just a few years.
- In Europe, overlapping and unresolved directives like CSRD and the Green Claims Directive are creating a fog of compliance uncertainty, while US political volatility offers no federal anchor to plan around.
- Executives say mandatory purchasing requirements — even modest ones — combined with tax credits and subsidies modeled on renewable energy support could break the deadlock and signal a stable market.
- The window for action is narrow: expected updates to the EU Emissions Trading System and the Science Based Targets initiative this year could either unlock the carbon removal market or cement its stagnation.
Large corporations have pledged to reach net zero, and most of their sustainability leaders understand that carbon dioxide removal will be necessary to close the gap that efficiency and renewables cannot. Yet a new study by Bellwether Research, commissioned by the Carbon Business Council, found that among 25 senior sustainability executives at Fortune 1,000 companies across the UK, US, Germany, and France, not one had developed an actual purchasing strategy for carbon removal credits. The logic was understood. The checkbooks remained closed.
The reason, consistent across sectors and borders, was policy uncertainty. In Europe, executives cited unresolved questions around the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Green Claims Directive — frameworks that will ultimately determine what counts as legitimate climate action. In the United States, political volatility and the absence of clear federal guidance made long-term investment feel like a gamble. The underlying anxiety was the same everywhere: a credit purchased today might not be recognized under whatever regulatory regime exists in three years.
When asked what would change their calculus, the executives were direct. Mandatory purchasing requirements, even at modest initial levels, would create the stable market signal needed to justify action. Financial incentives — tax credits, subsidies, mechanisms similar to those that accelerated solar and wind — would improve cost competitiveness and help carbon removal mature beyond its current niche status.
Ben Rubin of the Carbon Business Council described the moment as one of genuine opportunity, arguing that clearer rules could rapidly accelerate both corporate demand and supply growth. With key updates to the EU Emissions Trading System and the Science Based Targets initiative expected this year, the signals sent now may determine whether carbon removal becomes an established climate solution — or remains frozen in a holding pattern of rational, well-intentioned caution.
Large corporations have made sweeping commitments to reach net zero emissions, but when it comes to actually buying carbon dioxide removal credits—a tool many see as essential to meeting those goals—they are largely sitting still. A new study of senior sustainability leaders at Fortune 1,000 companies across the United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and France reveals why: the rules of the game keep shifting, and nobody wants to spend serious money on something that might not count tomorrow.
The research, conducted by Bellwether Research and commissioned by the Carbon Business Council, interviewed 25 sustainability executives in February and March of this year. All worked for companies with formal net zero pledges. None had yet developed actual purchasing strategies for carbon removal credits. The pattern was consistent across sectors—financial services, transport, retail, automotive, construction, chemicals—and across borders. Companies understood the logic. They grasped that some emissions simply cannot be eliminated through efficiency or switching to renewables. Carbon removal, whether through direct air capture or nature-based solutions, would be necessary to close the gap. But understanding necessity and writing a check are different things.
Policy uncertainty emerged as the dominant barrier. In Europe, companies cited confusion around the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Green Claims Directive—frameworks that will determine what counts as legitimate climate action and what gets disclosed to investors. In the United States, respondents pointed to political volatility and the absence of clear federal policy as reasons to delay. The core anxiety was simple: buy a carbon removal credit today, and it might not be recognized or credited under whatever regulatory regime exists in three years. That risk made caution rational.
What would change the calculus? The executives were clear. Mandatory purchasing requirements—even at modest initial levels—would create a stable, predictable market signal that would justify investment. They also pointed to financial incentives as crucial: tax credits, subsidies, and other mechanisms similar to those that have supported solar and wind deployment. These tools would improve the cost competitiveness of carbon removal and help the market move beyond its current emerging phase.
Ben Rubin, Executive Director of the Carbon Business Council, framed the moment as one of opportunity. Clearer rules and guidance, he argued, would accelerate corporate action and drive supply growth. But the window is narrow. Updates to the EU Emissions Trading System and the Science Based Targets initiative's Corporate Net Zero Standard are expected this year. Early policy signals now could determine whether carbon removal scales from a niche market to an established climate solution, or whether it remains trapped in a holding pattern of corporate caution.
Citas Notables
Clearer rules and guidance are needed to accelerate action and drive future supply. Policy leadership can support earlier, more consistent private sector investment, which will mobilise the capital needed to scale carbon removal in the near-term.— Ben Rubin, Executive Director of the Carbon Business Council
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why are these companies hesitant if they already believe carbon removal is essential?
Because belief and financial commitment are not the same thing. They're afraid that credits they buy today won't be recognized under future rules. It's a regulatory risk problem, not a conviction problem.
So they're waiting for governments to move first?
Exactly. They want mandatory requirements or clear incentives—something that makes the investment defensible to their boards and their investors. Right now, buying carbon removal credits looks like a bet on an uncertain future.
What's the timeline here? How long can this wait-and-see market last?
That's the tension. The market is growing, billions are flowing in. But if policy doesn't clarify soon, you risk locking in a pattern where only early movers and risk-takers invest, while the bulk of corporate capital stays on the sidelines.
Are there any countries or regions moving faster than others?
The research doesn't single out leaders, but Europe has more regulatory pressure through the CSRD and other directives. The U.S. is more fragmented—political volatility makes it harder for companies to plan.
If I'm a carbon removal company, what should I be doing right now?
Probably two things: building relationships with early-adopter corporations who will invest despite uncertainty, and lobbying hard for policy clarity. The market won't scale without both.