Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has taken another major step toward its 2030 carbon-negative goal by expanding its partnership with carbon removal company UNDO. The tech giant has agreed to purchase 28,900 tonnes of permanent CO₂ removals, backed by an innovative financing structure from Inlandsis, a Canadian climate fund managed by Fondaction Asset Management.
The deal—estimated to be worth over $5 million based on current Enhanced Rock Weathering (ERW) credit prices—marks Microsoft’s third and largest purchase from UNDO to date.
It follows earlier commitments in 2023 and 2024, bringing the company’s total removals with UNDO to nearly 49,000 tonnes.
Financing the Next Frontier of Carbon Removal
To keep global warming below 1.5°C, the world must remove billions of tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere by mid-century. But achieving that scale requires more than promising technology. It demands financing structures that can fund large-scale deployment and reward verified results.
That’s where Inlandsis plays a crucial role. The fund has developed a first-of-its-kind debt financing model to fully support UNDO’s latest ERW project. The structure ensures that capital is deployed in sync with verified progress, effectively tying funding to real-world delivery.
UNDO’s CEO Jim Mann described the model as a turning point for the industry:
“Innovative financing is the catalyst for unlocking gigatonne-scale carbon removal. The support of Inlandsis shows how financial backers can help transform carbon removal into a genuine asset class, one that is scalable, tradable, and investable. By combining financial innovation, strategic partnerships and bleeding-edge science, UNDO is accelerating deployment and delivering both climate and agricultural benefits in Ontario and beyond.”
By blending financial innovation, strategic partnerships, and rigorous science, UNDO is proving that enhanced rock weathering can be both a credible carbon removal method and an investable business model.
Additionally, the company’s focus on transparent MRV (measurement, reporting, and verification) ensures that every credit sold is backed by evidence and durability.
Microsoft’s Evidence-Backed Commitment
Microsoft’s partnership with UNDO has evolved gradually but strategically—each stage built on verified outcomes and increasing scientific confidence.
- 2023: Microsoft made its first-ever ERW purchase with a 5,000-tonne agreement.
- 2024: The company followed up with 15,000 tonnes and additional funding to strengthen scientific measurement and monitoring.
- 2025: This latest deal for 28,900 tonnes represents the company’s largest ERW investment yet.
The steady growth signals Microsoft’s confidence in the integrity and scalability of enhanced rock weathering. It also reflects a shift in the carbon removal market, where buyers are moving from pilot projects to multi-year, performance-based partnerships.
Phillip Goodman, Director of Microsoft’s Carbon Removal Portfolio, underscored the importance of science-led delivery,
“Enhanced rock weathering is a promising pathway to gigatonne-scale carbon removal. UNDO’s commitment to scientific rigour gives us confidence in both the durability of these credits and their role in helping Microsoft achieve its goal of being carbon negative by 2030.”
For Microsoft, this approach ensures that every tonne purchased represents verified, durable removal—not speculative offsets. The company’s portfolio strategy emphasizes transparency, permanence, and continuous improvement.
READ MORE:
- Microsoft and UNDO Partner for 15,000 Tons of Carbon Removal Using Enhanced Rock Weathering
- Microsoft (MSFT Stock) Tops Q2 2025 Record-Breaking Surge in Durable Carbon Removal Credit Purchases
Backing UNDO: Insurance-Enabled, Bankable Carbon Solutions
For Inlandsis, the UNDO deal marks two significant milestones: it is the fund’s first ERW investment and its first Canadian project under its second climate fund. These achievements underscore how carbon finance is evolving—shifting from traditional offset models to evidence-backed removal financing.
David Moffat, Managing Director at Inlandsis, said the project highlights a new direction for climate investment:
“This strategic and innovative deal strengthens the growing relationship between Microsoft and UNDO while advancing the critical fight against climate change. It also reflects our commitment to financing credible, scalable carbon solutions in Canada and beyond.”
Adding another layer of security, the deal is underwritten by CFC, a specialized insurance provider for the carbon markets. CFC’s involvement de-risks the transaction by ensuring compensation if project milestones aren’t met—an emerging best practice in carbon finance.
Such insurance-backed financing is becoming a cornerstone for scaling carbon removal. It gives both investors and lenders the confidence to fund long-term projects, accelerating deployment and making climate solutions bankable.
A Replicable Model for the Carbon Market
This financing structure is designed to meet the needs of all players in the carbon ecosystem:
- Buyers like Microsoft get verified, durable credits with transparent evidence.
- Lenders gain confidence through milestone-based repayment tied to credit issuance.
- Farmers benefit from predictable, low-disruption operations that align with agricultural cycles.
By ensuring that capital flows only after verified results, the model turns projected tonnes into measured, issued removals. It’s a practical, transparent framework that can be replicated across regions and scales.
UNDO’s growing list of partners—Microsoft, Barclays, British Airways, and McLaren—illustrates strong corporate demand for high-integrity removals. Each new deal builds capacity for UNDO’s operations, allowing it to scale faster while maintaining scientific rigor.
Ground-Level Action: Every Rock, Every Acre, Every Record
Under the new agreement, UNDO will deploy 90,000 tonnes of crushed wollastonite, a calcium silicate rock, across 30,000 acres of Canadian farmland. The operation is designed to fit seamlessly within normal farming practices, using existing machinery and scheduled around planting and harvest.
The delivery process is transparent and data-rich:
- Equipment is calibrated and GPS-tracked.
- Every load of rock is logged and verified.
- Soil and porewater samples are collected at multiple intervals and analyzed in accredited labs.
- Each sample follows a strict chain of custody from field to lab to final data report.
These steps ensure that every credit issued represents real, measured carbon removal. UNDO’s system links field operations with verified outcomes, providing partners with full traceability from quarry to credit.
UNDO’s ERW process
Science-Led, Evidence-Based Removals
Enhanced rock weathering accelerates a natural process where CO₂ reacts with silicate minerals in rock, forming stable carbonates that lock away carbon for thousands of years.
UNDO’s science-first approach ensures that every aspect—from sampling design to lab analysis—is statistically sound and auditable. Sampling plans are written in advance for accuracy, include control plots, and specify precise locations and timing for collection.
Once samples are analyzed, results go through multiple quality control checks, and data are tied to GPS coordinates and timestamps. Life-cycle emissions from quarrying, transportation, and spreading are subtracted, and uncertainty margins are conservatively applied before credits are issued.
Issuance happens only after independent verification, meaning each credit represents net carbon removed, not just projected outcomes. This evidence-led methodology helps ensure transparency and credibility, both essential for scaling trust in the carbon market.
A Blueprint for Scalable Carbon Removal
This partnership between Microsoft, UNDO, and Inlandsis represents a powerful new model for how the carbon removal sector can grow. It combines long-term purchasing commitments, performance-linked finance, scientific validation, and insurance-backed assurance into one scalable framework.
The collaboration also offers a clear path for other companies and investors: pair proven carbon removal science with structured, delivery-based finance to accelerate real climate impact.
As UNDO expands operations, its combination of practical field deployment, scientific transparency, and financial accountability will serve as a blueprint for scaling carbon removal across geographies.
The next phase is focused on steady execution—planning rock supply, coordinating farm deployments, and sharing verified progress through public reporting. Each season adds data, strengthens methodologies, and builds confidence in the durability of ERW as a global climate tool.
The Surge in Verified Removals Signals Market Maturity
Microsoft’s (MSFT stock) $5 million partnership with UNDO is a signal of market maturity. It shows how science-based removal, innovative finance, and transparent delivery can work together to build a credible, investable carbon market.
Allied Offsets data showed that in the first quarter of 2025, around 780,000 CDR credits were contracted — a surge of 122% compared to the same period in 2024.
Additionally, 16 million credits were sold in the first six months of 2025 – marking it the strongest start to a year so far. The momentum is fueled by major buyers like Microsoft, aiming to be carbon negative by 2030. Also rise in biomass-based removal methods that are reshaping corporate offset strategies is contributing to the growth.
Market Highlights
As the world races to reach net zero, this deal stands out as a real-world example of progress: a partnership that delivers measured, permanent carbon removal, financed and verified with integrity.
ALSO READ:
- Microsoft (MSFT) Signs $2.6 Million Soil Carbon Credit Deal with Agoro Carbon to Meet its Net-Zero Goals
- Microsoft Signs Groundbreaking 7MT Carbon Credits Deal with U.S.-Based Chestnut Carbon
The post Microsoft (MSFT) Buys 28,900 Tonnes of CO₂ Removal from UNDO in Landmark Multi-Million-Dollar Deal appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
