Data story: the metrics that actually predict success in Carbon removal procurement & offtakes

Of the 32 million tonnes of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) contracted through advance market commitments between 2020 and 2025, only 4.1 million tonnes have been physically delivered and verified, a fulfilment rate of just 12.8% according to CDR.fyi's 2025 annual tracker. This delivery gap reveals a fundamental truth about carbon removal procurement: the metrics buyers use to evaluate suppliers often track ambition rather than execution capability, and understanding which indicators actually predict successful delivery is now a competitive advantage worth hundreds of millions of dollars in procurement efficiency.

Why It Matters

The voluntary carbon removal market reached $1.4 billion in total contracted value by mid-2025, driven by corporate net-zero commitments from buyers including Microsoft, Stripe, JPMorgan Chase, and the Frontier advance market commitment coalition. Microsoft alone has contracted for 5.6 million tonnes of CDR through 2030, making it the single largest private buyer globally. Yet the market faces a credibility challenge: CDR suppliers have historically overpromised and underdelivered, with the median first-delivery delay across all technology pathways running 14 months behind original contract timelines according to an analysis of 287 offtake agreements tracked by Carbon Business Council.

For procurement teams in emerging markets, the challenge is amplified. Brazil, India, Kenya, and Indonesia collectively host approximately 40% of the global pipeline of nature-based and hybrid CDR projects (biochar, enhanced weathering, and biomass carbon removal and storage), but these projects face additional barriers including land tenure complexity, measurement infrastructure gaps, and foreign exchange volatility that complicate offtake pricing. The International Finance Corporation estimates that emerging market CDR projects experience 2.3 times higher pre-delivery failure rates than projects in OECD countries, making predictive metric selection even more consequential for procurement teams sourcing from these geographies.

Regulatory momentum is intensifying the urgency. The EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), adopted in 2024 and entering its implementation phase in 2025-2026, establishes quality benchmarks that will increasingly influence voluntary procurement standards globally. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) updated its Corporate Net-Zero Standard in 2025 to require that any CDR credits claimed against residual emissions must meet specific durability, additionality, and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) thresholds. Procurement teams that cannot distinguish between suppliers likely to meet these thresholds and those that will not are exposing their organizations to stranded contract risk and reputational liability.

Key Concepts

Delivery Conversion Rate measures the percentage of contracted CDR tonnes that are physically delivered and independently verified within the agreed timeframe. This is the single most important outcome metric, yet it is rarely included in pre-contract supplier evaluations. Across all CDR pathways, the aggregate delivery conversion rate stands at 12.8%, but this varies dramatically by technology: direct air capture (DAC) achieves approximately 35-45% conversion on contracted volumes (constrained primarily by facility commissioning delays), engineered biochar delivers 50-65% conversion, enhanced weathering achieves 15-25%, and nature-based approaches including afforestation and soil carbon deliver 8-15%.

Supplier Operational Readiness Score quantifies how far a CDR supplier has progressed from concept to operational delivery capability. This composite metric, developed by researchers at the Bezos Earth Fund and refined through Frontier's procurement experience, evaluates: technology readiness level (TRL 6+ for hardware-dependent pathways), permitting status, feedstock supply agreements, offtake logistics, and MRV infrastructure deployment. Suppliers scoring in the top quartile on operational readiness deliver contracted tonnes at 3.7 times the rate of bottom-quartile suppliers.

Cost Trajectory Credibility assesses whether a supplier's projected cost reductions follow learning curves consistent with analogous technologies. Suppliers projecting cost declines exceeding 15% per year without demonstrated manufacturing scale-up or feedstock cost reductions have historically failed to deliver at contracted prices 72% of the time. Credible cost trajectories are anchored in specific engineering milestones (not revenue forecasts) and reference independently validated process economics.

MRV Maturity Index evaluates the robustness of a supplier's measurement, reporting, and verification systems. This includes the independence of the verification body, the granularity of monitoring (continuous sensor-based versus periodic sampling), the transparency of uncertainty quantification, and alignment with emerging standards including Puro.earth's methodology updates, Isometric's science-backed protocols, and the CRCF's requirements. Suppliers with mature MRV systems are 2.8 times more likely to achieve buyer acceptance of delivered tonnes.

Carbon Removal Procurement: Predictive vs. Activity Metrics

Metric Category	Predictive of Success	Activity Metric (Low Predictive Value)
Delivery Track Record	Delivery conversion rate on prior contracts	Total tonnes under contract
Supplier Maturity	Operational readiness score (TRL, permits, feedstock)	Years since founding
Cost Reliability	Cost trajectory credibility vs. analogous learning curves	Headline price per tonne
Verification Quality	MRV maturity index (independence, granularity, standards alignment)	Number of registered credits
Financial Stability	Revenue-to-burn ratio and months of runway	Total funding raised
Emerging Market Viability	Local partner operational capacity and land tenure clarity	Country-level carbon market policy

What's Working

Frontier's Portfolio Approach and Milestone-Based Contracting

Frontier, the advance market commitment backed by Stripe, Alphabet, Meta, McKinsey, and others, has deployed $235 million across 30+ CDR suppliers since 2022. Their procurement methodology has evolved from technology-first evaluation to execution-capability scoring, with delivery conversion rates improving from 8% in their 2022 cohort to 28% in their 2024 cohort. The critical innovation is milestone-based contracting: rather than committing to fixed volumes at fixed prices, Frontier structures payments around engineering and operational milestones (site preparation complete, first tonne captured and verified, sustained monthly throughput achieved) with price adjustments tied to verified cost data at each stage. This approach reduces buyer exposure to supplier failure while maintaining the demand signal that suppliers need to secure project financing.

Microsoft's Emerging Market CDR Procurement in Brazil and Kenya

Microsoft's CDR portfolio includes over 1.2 million tonnes contracted from emerging market suppliers, with notable programmes in Brazilian biochar (through suppliers including Carbo Culture and NetZero) and Kenyan enhanced weathering (through Cella Mineral Storage). Microsoft's procurement team developed an "emerging market readiness assessment" that evaluates local partner operational capacity, regulatory clarity for carbon credit export, MRV infrastructure availability, and community benefit-sharing arrangements. Projects scoring above 70% on this assessment achieved a 43% delivery conversion rate, compared to 11% for projects below 70%. The assessment now forms part of Microsoft's standard RFP process and has been shared with the Carbon Business Council for broader industry adoption.

Isometric's Science-Backed Verification Driving Buyer Confidence

Isometric, founded in 2022 by former Stripe Climate team members, has established itself as a leading independent CDR verification body by applying peer-reviewed scientific protocols to every tonne verified. Their registry tracks 487 verified deliveries across 14 CDR pathways as of early 2026, with publicly available uncertainty quantification for each credit. Buyers using Isometric-verified tonnes report 92% acceptance rates in internal sustainability audits, compared to 61% for tonnes verified through less rigorous methodologies. The key predictive insight: suppliers that voluntarily submit to Isometric-level verification before signing offtake agreements deliver contracted volumes at 2.4 times the rate of suppliers that defer verification methodology selection until post-contract.

What's Not Working

Headline Price Per Tonne as a Procurement Decision Driver

Procurement teams that optimize primarily for the lowest price per tonne of CDR consistently experience the highest failure rates. Analysis of 287 offtake agreements shows that contracts signed at below-market prices (more than 20% below pathway median) experience 3.1 times higher non-delivery rates than contracts at or above median pricing. The mechanism is straightforward: suppliers accepting below-cost contracts are either underestimating their delivery costs (leading to project failure when capital runs short) or cross-subsidizing with speculative future cost reductions that fail to materialize. Frontier's data shows that their highest-performing suppliers typically price 5-15% above pathway medians, reflecting realistic cost structures with built-in operational contingency.

Total Funding Raised as a Proxy for Supplier Viability

Venture capital funding totals are among the most frequently cited metrics in CDR supplier evaluation, yet they show near-zero correlation with delivery success. Of the ten most heavily funded CDR start-ups (each raising over $100 million by 2025), only three achieved delivery conversion rates above 25%. The disconnect arises because venture funding reflects investor confidence in long-term market potential, not near-term operational execution capability. Several heavily funded suppliers allocated capital primarily to R&D, land acquisition, and team expansion rather than to the production infrastructure required for contracted delivery. Procurement teams should evaluate revenue-to-burn ratios and months of operational runway rather than cumulative funding as financial health indicators.

Overreliance on Registered Credit Volumes

The total number of credits registered on voluntary carbon market registries (Verra, Gold Standard, Puro.earth) is frequently used as a credibility signal, but registered volumes often diverge significantly from delivered and retired volumes. Analysis by Sylvera found that 38% of registered CDR credits across all registries had not been independently verified to the standards now expected by major buyers. The gap between registration and verification is particularly acute for nature-based CDR, where baseline uncertainty, permanence risk, and leakage concerns create systematic overestimation of net removal volumes. Predictive procurement scoring should weight verified and retired credits, not registered credits, as the relevant activity measure.

Key Players

Major Buyers Shaping Procurement Standards

Microsoft operates the largest corporate CDR portfolio globally, with $1 billion committed through 2030 and a procurement methodology that has become an informal industry benchmark for emerging market sourcing.

Frontier (Stripe, Alphabet, Meta, McKinsey coalition) has deployed $235 million and pioneered milestone-based contracting structures now adopted by other buyers.

JPMorgan Chase committed $200 million to CDR purchases and has been particularly active in integrating CDR procurement with broader sustainable finance frameworks.

Verification and Registry Infrastructure

Isometric provides science-backed independent verification with public uncertainty quantification, setting the standard for buyer-grade CDR credit quality.

Puro.earth (a Nasdaq company) operates a CDR-focused registry with methodology-specific quantification protocols covering biochar, enhanced weathering, and geological storage pathways.

Sylvera provides independent ratings and due diligence for carbon credits including CDR, enabling buyers to benchmark supplier quality against market-wide data.

Emerging Market Suppliers to Watch

Cella Mineral Storage (Kenya) deploys enhanced rock weathering using locally sourced basalt on agricultural land, delivering co-benefits including soil fertility improvement and income diversification for smallholder farmers.

NetZero (Brazil) operates large-scale biochar production from agricultural waste, with a vertically integrated supply chain that has achieved 58% delivery conversion on contracted volumes.

Varaha (India) combines biochar production with soil carbon sequestration across 200,000+ hectares of smallholder farmland, using satellite-based MRV integrated with ground-truth sampling.

Action Checklist

• Replace headline price per tonne with delivery conversion rate as the primary supplier evaluation criterion in procurement scoring
• Require operational readiness assessments (TRL, permitting, feedstock, MRV) before entering offtake negotiations
• Structure contracts with milestone-based payments tied to engineering and delivery milestones rather than fixed-volume commitments
• Mandate independent verification aligned with Isometric, Puro.earth, or CRCF-equivalent standards for all contracted tonnes
• Evaluate emerging market suppliers using local partner capacity, land tenure clarity, and MRV infrastructure availability
• Benchmark supplier cost projections against technology-specific learning curves and reject trajectories without engineering justification
• Track revenue-to-burn ratios and operational runway as financial health indicators rather than total funding raised
• Build portfolio diversification across CDR pathways, geographies, and delivery timelines to manage concentration risk

FAQ

Q: What delivery conversion rate should procurement teams expect when building a CDR portfolio? A: Portfolio-level delivery conversion rates depend heavily on pathway mix and supplier selection quality. Portfolios weighted toward engineered biochar and DAC with milestone-based contracts and operational readiness screening can achieve 35-50% conversion. Portfolios with significant nature-based CDR exposure typically achieve 15-25%. The Frontier coalition's experience suggests that rigorous supplier selection improves portfolio-wide conversion by 2-3 times relative to price-optimized procurement. Budget for 40-60% over-procurement relative to target retirement volumes to account for delivery shortfalls.

Q: How should procurement teams evaluate CDR suppliers in emerging markets differently from OECD-based suppliers? A: Emerging market suppliers require evaluation of factors that OECD-based suppliers can typically take for granted: land tenure security (lease duration relative to contract term, government expropriation risk), local regulatory clarity for carbon credit generation and export, MRV infrastructure accessibility (satellite coverage, lab capacity, third-party verifier presence), foreign exchange hedging for contracts priced in USD or EUR, and community benefit-sharing arrangements that ensure project social license. Microsoft's emerging market readiness assessment provides a useful framework, weighting these factors alongside standard technical and financial evaluation criteria.

Q: Which CDR pathways offer the best risk-adjusted procurement value in 2026? A: Biochar from agricultural and forestry waste offers the strongest near-term procurement value, combining proven technology (TRL 8-9), relatively high delivery conversion rates (50-65%), moderate cost ($100-250 per tonne), and century-scale durability. DAC offers the highest permanence and verification certainty but at higher cost ($400-800 per tonne) and with commissioning delay risk. Enhanced rock weathering offers attractive pricing ($50-150 per tonne) and agricultural co-benefits but faces MRV maturity challenges that reduce buyer acceptance rates. Procurement teams should build portfolios spanning multiple pathways, weighting allocation toward pathways where their specific risk tolerance, budget, and timeline requirements align.

Q: How are emerging standards like the EU CRCF affecting procurement decisions? A: The EU CRCF is establishing quality benchmarks that are rapidly becoming the de facto global standard for voluntary CDR procurement. Key requirements include: quantified and independently verified carbon removal, demonstrated durability with monitoring obligations, additionality assessment, and sustainability safeguards addressing biodiversity, water, and social impacts. Procurement teams should align supplier evaluation criteria with CRCF requirements now, even for non-EU transactions, because SBTi, VCMI, and major registry methodologies are converging toward similar standards. Contracts signed today without CRCF-aligned verification risk becoming non-compliant with the standards buyers will face at credit retirement.

Sources

• CDR.fyi. (2025). State of Carbon Dioxide Removal: 2025 Annual Market Report. Available at: https://cdr.fyi
• Frontier. (2025). Lessons from Three Years of Carbon Removal Purchasing. San Francisco: Frontier Climate.
• Microsoft. (2025). Carbon Removal Portfolio: 2024 Annual Report and Procurement Methodology. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corp.
• Carbon Business Council. (2025). CDR Market Intelligence: Offtake Agreement Analysis, Q4 2024. Washington, DC: CBC.
• Isometric. (2026). Verified Carbon Removal Registry: Methodology and Transparency Report. London: Isometric Science.
• European Commission. (2025). Carbon Removal Certification Framework: Implementation Guidance. Brussels: EC DG Climate Action.
• International Finance Corporation. (2025). Carbon Removal in Emerging Markets: Opportunity and Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: IFC.
• Sylvera. (2025). Carbon Credit Quality Report: CDR Pathway Analysis. London: Sylvera.