Apple’s latest Environmental Progress Report shows a clear shift in how the company is approaching sustainability. It shows that 30 percent of materials across all products shipped in 2025 came from recycled content, up from the previous year. This represents a steady year-on-year increase of around 6% points, showing consistent progress rather than one-time gains.
The company now uses 100% recycled cobalt in all its batteries. It also uses 100% recycled rare earth elements in all magnets. All of these show how circular manufacturing is becoming a core part of the way Apple designs, builds, and scales its products.
The shift reflects a broader strategy. The tech giant is working to reduce reliance on virgin mining and move toward a more circular supply chain. This is central to its long-term goal of reaching carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030.
Recycled Materials Move Into Core Product Architecture
The most important change is not just how much recycled material Apple uses, but where it is being used. In its newest product line, including the MacBook Neo, Apple has significantly increased recycled content in critical components. According to the company’s 2026 Environmental Progress Report:
- Around 90% of the aluminum in the MacBook Neo enclosure is recycled
- 100% of cobalt in Apple-designed batteries is recycled
- The device overall reaches around 60% recycled content across key materials
These figures matter because aluminum and cobalt are among the most carbon-intensive materials in electronics manufacturing. Primary aluminum production uses a lot of energy. Cobalt extraction causes high emissions and comes with supply chain risks.
By shifting toward recycled inputs, Apple reduces emissions at the earliest stage of production. And that’s before devices are even assembled. This approach is part of a broader design philosophy.
The iPhone maker is increasingly engineering products around material recovery, not just performance or cost. That shift is central to its decarbonization strategy.
Emissions Avoidance Becomes a Key Climate Lever
Apple’s report highlights a clear link between recycled materials and emissions reduction.
In 2024, the company says that its use of recycled and lower-carbon materials helped avoid 6.2 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Over the same period, Apple’s total carbon footprint was 15.1 million metric tons. This means that material strategy alone accounted for a meaningful portion of the emissions reduction impact.
The logic is straightforward. When recycled materials replace virgin mining and refining, emissions fall sharply. This is especially important for metals like aluminum, copper, and cobalt, which carry high embedded carbon.
Apple is effectively shifting emissions reductions upstream — reducing impact before manufacturing even begins.
Meet Daisy, Dave & Cora: The Robots Powering Apple’s Recycling Revolution
A key part of Apple’s system is automation in recycling. The company has developed a set of specialized robotics platforms designed to recover materials from used devices at scale.
The first system, Daisy, can disassemble up to 36 different iPhone models and process as many as 1.2 million devices per year. Engineers designed it to efficiently recover high-value components that traditional recycling systems often miss.
Another system, Dave, focuses on dismantling the taptic engine, a component rich in rare earth magnets, tungsten, and steel. These materials are critical for electronics production but difficult to recover without precision engineering.
The newest system, Cora, expands Apple’s recycling capability further. It uses smart shredding and sensor sorting to boost recovery rates for more types of materials.
Together, these systems form a structured recovery pipeline. Devices returned through Apple’s trade-in and recycling programs are not simply dismantled. They are processed with the goal of reintroducing materials back into future product cycles.
This is a key shift. Instead of linear production — mine, build, dispose — Apple is moving toward closed-loop manufacturing.
Why Materials Are Now the Heart of Apple’s Net-Zero Plan
Apple’s recycled materials strategy is directly tied to its climate target.
The company aims to be carbon neutral by 2030. This commitment includes its business, supply chain, and product lifecycle. It also includes not just its own operations but also supplier emissions and product use emissions.
Within this framework, materials and manufacturing are the largest drivers of Apple’s emissions. The company’s lifecycle analysis reveals that most of its carbon footprint comes from product manufacturing. This mainly happens in Scope 3 supply chain activities like raw material extraction, component production, and assembly.
Apple also sees materials, electricity, and transportation as the top three sources of product emissions. Materials are key because metals like aluminum, cobalt, and rare earth elements have high carbon intensity.
This is why recycled content is central to Apple’s decarbonization roadmap. It reduces emissions in Scope 3 categories, which are typically the hardest to control.
Apple has also pushed suppliers to adopt renewable energy and lower-carbon production methods, particularly in high-impact manufacturing regions. This creates two ways to reduce emissions: cleaner energy and cleaner inputs.
Emissions Profile Shows Progress, But Not a Straight Line
Apple’s emissions profile reflects both progress and complexity. The company’s total footprint is in the tens of millions of metric tons each year, reflecting the scale of its global operations.
In 2025, the company reported a total net carbon footprint of 14.5 million metric tons of CO₂e, down from 15.3 million metric tons of gross emissions before offsets.
Product manufacturing is still the main source of emissions, accounting for the largest share of emissions within Scope 3. In fact, manufacturing alone contributed about 8.15 million metric tons of CO₂e, or more than half of total product lifecycle emissions.
However, Apple reports gradual reductions in emissions intensity per product over time. Emissions have dropped by over 60% since 2015, while revenue has risen sharply during this time.
This means each device is now easier to make with less carbon. Total emissions can still change based on product cycles and demand.
The increasing use of recycled materials is a key driver of this improvement. It reduces the need for mining, refining, and high-energy processing — all of which sit upstream in the supply chain.
However, Apple’s emissions trajectory is not linear. Like many hardware companies, its reach depends on global demand, new product launches, and supply chain limits. This makes structural changes like material redesign more important than incremental operational gains.
Apple’s Carbon Credit Portfolio
Moreover, Apple uses carbon credits in a targeted way to address a small portion of its remaining emissions as it works toward its 2030 net-zero goal. The 2026 Environmental Progress Report states that the company retired verified credits from nature-based projects in 2025.
The portfolio includes the Lumin/Eucapine reforestation project in Uruguay, which accounted for 422,395 metric tons CO₂e (vintage 2020). It also includes the Windrock Improved Forest Management project in the United States, covering 319,785 metric tons CO₂e (vintage 2022).
These projects focus on restoring degraded land, improving forest management, and increasing long-term carbon sequestration. Apple sees carbon credits as a complement, not as substitutes, to its main decarbonization strategy.
This strategy focuses on reducing emissions first. It emphasizes using recycled materials, renewable energy, and improving the supply chain. Only after these efforts does Apple use high-quality credits to tackle leftover emissions.
The Real Shift: Apple Is Redesigning How Electronics Are Made
Apple’s recent report shows a clear direction for tackling its environmental footprint. The company is no longer treating sustainability as an external offset mechanism. Instead, it is embedding it directly into product architecture.
The increase to 30% recycled materials in products shows a big change in how the tech giant makes things. Key parts, like cobalt and aluminum, are almost entirely made from recycled content. Robotics-driven recycling systems reinforce this direction, creating a closed-loop system where old devices feed directly into new production.
At the same time, Apple’s emissions profile shows both progress and constraint. Reductions are real, but scaling global hardware production means absolute emissions remain significant.
Still, the direction is clear. Apple is moving away from linear electronics manufacturing and toward a circular model where materials are continuously recovered, reused, and reintroduced into production.
In doing so, it is reshaping what sustainability looks like in the global tech industry — not as an add-on, but as a design principle built into the product itself.
The post Apple’s 2026 Environmental Report: 30% Recycled Materials Shows a Milestone in Circular Manufacturing appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits