The global energy sector is transitioning, with major oilfield service companies under pressure to cut emissions while staying profitable. Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger (SLB) recently reported their earnings.
However, here we reveal how each company is balancing investments in oil, gas, and low-carbon initiatives. Thus, beyond financials, their sustainability goals and net-zero targets set them apart.
Let’s dive in.
Baker Hughes Reports Mixed Q1 2025 Results
Baker Hughes reported $6.43 billion in revenue for the first quarter of 2025. This marked a 13% drop from the previous quarter but a slight increase of $9 million compared to a year ago. The year-over-year growth was mainly due to stronger performance in Industrial & Energy Technology (IET), partially offset by weaker results in Oilfield Services & Equipment (OFSE).
Net income under U.S. GAAP was $402 million, down $777 million from the previous quarter and $53 million lower year-over-year. However, adjusted net income, which excludes certain items, stood at $509 million. This was also down 27% from the previous quarter but up 19% compared to last year.
Advances in Pipeline Compression and Data Center Power
It also secured a major pipeline project in North America, supplying two compression stations with 10 Frame 5/2E turbines and compressors.
Additionally, in data centers, the company won contracts for over 350 MW of NovaLT™ turbines. It partnered with Frontier Infrastructure to deliver large-scale carbon capture and clean power solutions using its full technology suite.
Lorenzo Simonelli, Baker Hughes chairman and chief executive officer, said,
“Baker Hughes started the year strong, building on the positive momentum from 2024 and setting multiple first-quarter records. Our continued transformation initiatives and strong execution continue to drive structural margin improvement across both segments. The operational transformation and streamlining efforts have created a solid foundation to optimize margins and enhance returns, even in a challenging environment.”
Driving Sustainability Forward: Baker Hughes’ 2024 Progress
Baker Hughes continues to lead the energy transition by striving to become a sustainable pioneer across all its operations. It aims to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.
Major Progress on Emissions Reduction
The company reported strong environmental achievements this year:
- Scope 1 and 2 emissions dropped 29.3 percent compared to the 2019 base year, reaching 564,728 metric tons of CO2e.
- Scope 1 emissions, covering fleet, field activities, and facilities, declined by 22.6 percent to 386,367 metric tons of CO2e.
- Scope 2 emissions from purchased electricity decreased by 40.6 percent (market-based) and 30.7 percent (location-based).
Despite these achievements, it recorded a 16.5% increase in Scope 3 emissions intensity, mainly due to higher demand for high-efficiency gas turbines and electric motors.
Hands-On Approach to Emissions Reduction
Baker Hughes prioritizes direct emissions reduction over carbon offsets or virtual power purchase agreements. It improves energy efficiency, integrates renewable electricity across facilities, and deploys low-carbon technologies.
Additionally, it supports ecosystem projects through the Baker Hughes Foundation. However, these initiatives are not used for carbon credits. This hands-on approach ensures tangible, measurable progress and strengthens the company’s commitment to sustainability.
Carbon-Free Clean Energy
- In 2024, Baker Hughes advanced clean energy adoption using renewable or zero-carbon electricity. Its use rose from 13.5% in 2019 to 34.2% in 2024.
- On-site solar has expanded to 15 sites, and renewable and nuclear energy use has cut emissions by 89,734 metric tons of CO2e since 2019.
Key Highlights:
- The Woodlands, Texas, and Broussard, Louisiana, sites fully transitioned to 100% renewable electricity.
- In Thailand, the partnership with Cleantech enabled on-site solar panels to generate about 18% of the site’s annual electricity.
Nuclear energy plays a huge role in the company’s low-carbon future. It supports conventional nuclear power and small modular reactors. It emphasizes safety, community involvement, and efficient waste management while ensuring reliable operations.
Thus, the strategic use of renewable energy credits, Zero-Emission Certificates, and local certificates supported these improvements.
Halliburton Posts Lower Q1 2025 Earnings as North America Revenue Falls
Halliburton Company reported a net income of $204 million, or $0.24 per diluted share, for the first quarter of 2025. This marked a sharp decline from $606 million, or $0.68 per share, in the same period last year.
When adjusted for impairments and other charges, Q1 2025 net income came in at $517 million, or $0.60 per share, down from $679 million, or $0.76 per share, in Q1 2024.
Total revenue for the quarter dropped to $5.4 billion from $5.8 billion last year. Operating income was $431 million, down from $987 million a year ago.
Geographical Revenue Highlights
In North America, revenue dropped 12% to $2.2 billion due to lower stimulation activity in the US Land and fewer tool sales in the Gulf.
International revenue dipped 2% to $3.2 billion. Latin America revenue fell 19% to $896 million from slower activity in Mexico and lower tool sales. However, Europe/Africa revenue rose 6% to $775 million, driven by stronger activity in Norway, Namibia, and the Caspian.
Jeff Miller, Chairman, President, and CEO, said,
“I am pleased with our performance in the first quarter. We delivered total company revenue of $5.4 billion and adjusted operating margin of 14.5%. Our first quarter international tender activity was strong, Halliburton won meaningful integrated offshore work extending through 2026 and beyond. Customers awarded Halliburton several contracts that demonstrate the strength of our value proposition and the power of our service quality execution.”
Halliburton’s Emissions and Clean Energy Progress
Halliburton is committed to reducing emissions to help the oil and gas industry become cleaner.
It aims to:
- Cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 40% by 2035 from 2018 levels
- Work with top suppliers to track and reduce Scope 3 emissions
Low-Carbon Electric Fracturing Fleets
Hydraulic fracturing made up 80% of its emissions. As demand in North America rose, total Scope 1 and 2 emissions increased by 2% from the previous year. However, since 2018, it has lowered its emissions per operating hour by 16% by investing in electric fracturing fleets.
The company now uses smarter fracturing tools that give customers more power options and better efficiency. It’s also reusing older equipment in smarter ways to lower emissions and boost returns.
Strong Climate Commitments
Last year, the company focused on three areas to lower its carbon footprint. They were:
- Helping oil and gas customers lower their emissions
- Using its skills for low-carbon projects like carbon capture and geothermal
- Backing startups through Halliburton Labs to support new energy ideas
Notably, they are also using the carbon assessment tool on big projects in Mexico, Norway, Iraq, and Namibia. It identified possible emissions from equipment, transport, and its products. This helps customers plan cleaner operations from the start.
Growing in Low-Carbon Solutions
Halliburton has invested largely in carbon capture, geothermal, and other low-carbon energy projects. Some notable projects in these fields include:
Carbon Capture (CCUS)
As said before, it works with customers to offer full CCUS solutions. These include tools like the NeoStar™ CS safety valve and CorrosaLock™ cement, built for harsh CO₂ storage conditions. Halliburton is also teaming up with other energy players to develop more CCUS options.
Geothermal Energy
Being a pioneer in geothermal, it supports every stage of a geothermal project from testing and drilling to production. In 2024, it offered tools like GeoESP® pumps and Thermalock™ cement for hot, tough environments. It also provided strong drill bits, smart drilling fluids, and custom well designs for deep, complex projects.
Schlumberger (SLB) Q1 Update: Revenue Drops, But Digital and Cash Flow Stay Strong
SLB reported $8.49 billion in revenue for the quarter, down 3% compared to last year. Net income also dropped 25%, landing at $797 million.
- GAAP earnings per share (EPS) came in at $0.58, down 22%.
- Adjusted EPS, excluding one-time items, was $0.72, a 4% decrease.
- Adjusted EBITDA stood at $2.02 billion, down 2%.
However, cash flow from operations surged to $660 million, up $333 million year on year. The board also approved a $0.285 per share quarterly dividend.
SLB Chief Executive Officer, Olivier Le Peuch, commented,
“First-quarter adjusted EBITDA margin was slightly up year on year despite softer revenue as we continued to navigate the evolving market dynamics.
It was a subdued start to the year as revenue declined 3% year on year. Higher activity in parts of the Middle East, North Africa, Argentina and offshore U.S., along with strong growth in our data center infrastructure solutions and digital businesses in North America, were more than offset by a sharper-than-expected slowdown in Mexico, a slow start to the year in Saudi Arabia and offshore Africa, and steep decline in Russia.”
Core Business Shows Bright Spots Amid Slowdown
While overall revenue in SLB’s core divisions slipped 4%, some segments performed well.
- Production Systems revenue rose 4% with growing demand for surface production systems, completions, and artificial lift.
- Margins improved by nearly 2 percentage points.
- Reservoir Performance benefited from strong international stimulation and intervention work, though lower evaluation activity held it back.
CEO Olivier Le Peuch noted that despite lower rig activity, SLB’s diverse portfolio helped soften the blow.
Digital and AI Business Keeps Gaining Momentum
SLB’s digital division continued to grow strongly, separate from the usual ups and downs of the oil and gas cycle.
- Digital revenue jumped 17% year on year.
- Overall, Digital & Integration revenue rose 6%.
Le Peuch said more energy companies are investing in digital tools and AI to boost performance and unlock value from their data. SLB plans to keep expanding its offerings in AI, cloud, and digital operations.
Shareholder Returns Set to Rise in 2025
Looking ahead, SLB promised to return at least $4 billion to shareholders in 2025 through dividends and buybacks.
- The company plans to give back more than half of its free cash flow.
Even with market uncertainties, such as shifting economic conditions and oil price changes, SLB remains focused on protecting margins, maintaining strong cash flow, and delivering steady value.
SLB’s Clear Climate Goals with Measurable Progress
SLB is firmly committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 and has laid out clear targets to guide its journey. The company aims to cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2025 and by 50% by 2030. It also targets a 30% reduction in Scope 3 emissions by the end of the decade.
Progress Highlights in 2024:
In FY2024, SLB’s total emissions from Scope 1, 2, and 3 were 36,115 thousand metric tons. This shows a steady decline from 40,123 thousand metric tons in FY2023 and 49,098 thousand metric tons in FY2019. Overall, the company has reduced its total emissions by about 26% since FY2019.
- Scope 1 and 2 market-based emissions intensity dropped by 11%. They stood at 990 thousand metric tons and 373 thousand metric tons, respectively.
- Scope 3 emissions intensity reduced by 18%. They were 34,855 thousand metric tons.
- 38% of the electricity used at SLB’s global sites came from renewable sources
Cleaner Operations, Smarter Tools
In 2024, SLB cut Scope 1 emissions by rolling out its Field Fuel Playbook. This guide helped teams monitor fuel use, cut idling, and choose cleaner fuels. Employees used it to improve planning and reduce waste across operations.
For example, PumpIRIS™ was rolled out to cut pump idling in field jobs. The pilot avoided over 3,000 metric tons of CO₂e and saved nearly $1 million annually.
The company also helped clients avoid more than 950,000 metric tons of CO₂e in 2024. Its new Digital Sustainability tools support climate action in industries that are hard to decarbonize
Building the Future with Clean Tech
The company’s New Energy business moved forward in 2024, focusing on key technologies that support the energy transition:
- SLB Capturi, a joint venture with Aker Carbon Capture, launched to scale up carbon capture using modular systems. Three projects are underway, and two sites near Norway’s Northern Lights carbon storage hub are already using SLB services.
- In Nevada, a lithium demo plant showed how to make battery-grade lithium carbonate with 96% recovery from brine, using 90% less land and far less water. The plant combines direct lithium extraction with advanced processing, and it’s now ready to scale up.
- New modeling tools were launched to help clients manage lithium-brine resources more efficiently and sustainably.
Boosting Geothermal in the Philippines
Using CoilTools™, SLB revived five geothermal wells in Leyte without drilling. This added 14 MW of power and supports the Philippines’ 2030 target of 3,200 MW.
These goals reflect SLB’s long-term strategy to lower its carbon footprint and support the global transition to clean energy.
We can see that scope 3 emissions are a major concern for the oilfield service companies, and their sustainability approach is significantly strong. Even though their revenues are moderately down, we expect the top oilfield giants like Baker Hughes, Halliburton, and Schlumberger to drive a sustainable change in this sector.
The post Oilfield Giants Walk a Tightrope: Q1 Profits, Emissions & the Race to Net Zero 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