Ørsted has announced a significant expansion of its partnership with Microsoft, agreeing to sell an additional 1 MT of carbon removal over 10 years from the Avedøre Power Station. This is part of the bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) initiative known as the ‘Ørsted Kalundborg CO2 Hub’. This new deal builds on Microsoft’s existing commitment to purchase 2.67 million tonnes of CO2 from the Asnæs Power Station, bringing their total contracted carbon removal to 3.67 MTs.
The Key Highlights of the Ørsted-Microsoft Deal
1. Carbon Capture Implementation
As part of the ‘Ørsted Kalundborg CO2 Hub’, Ørsted will install carbon capture technology at the wood chip-fired Asnæs Power Station in Kalundborg, western Zealand, and the straw-fired boiler at Avedøre Power Station in Greater Copenhagen. The combined heat and power plants will capture 430,000 tonnes of biogenic CO2 annually, which will then be transported to a storage reservoir in the Norwegian North Sea for permanent storage. The hub is expected to be operational by early 2026.
2. Microsoft’s Carbon Removal Commitment
Starting in 2026, Microsoft will receive one million tons of carbon removal from the straw-fired unit at Avedøre Power Station. This plant uses locally sourced straw, an agricultural by-product, to generate electricity and district heating. By capturing and storing biogenic carbon from these biomass-fired plants, the process not only reduces CO2 emissions but also removes carbon from the atmosphere, creating negative emissions. This is because biogenic carbon from sustainable biomass is part of a natural cycle.
3. Supporting Sustainable Development
The collaboration between Ørsted and Microsoft is crucial for advancing the ‘Ørsted Kalundborg CO2 Hub’, especially since bioenergy-based carbon capture and storage technology is still emerging. The project, which received a subsidy from the Danish Energy Agency, included anticipated revenue from carbon removal certificates in its investment decision. This competitive pricing was a key factor in the subsidy award.
4. Importance of BECCS for Climate Goals
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has highlighted the importance of carbon removal technologies like BECCS for limiting global warming. Projects such as the ‘Ørsted Kalundborg CO2 Hub’ are essential for helping companies like Microsoft achieve their sustainability targets and contribute to global climate goals.
Is Microsoft Leading the Charge Toward a Carbon-Neutral Future?
Decoding its carbon emissions and net-zero plans
In 2023, Microsoft expanded its renewable energy assets to over 19.8 gigawatts (GW), incorporating projects across 21 countries. Additionally, last year the company secured contracts for 5,015,019 MTs of carbon removal to be retired over the next 15 years. Its net-zero plans focus on three primary areas:
- Reducing carbon emissions
- Increasing the use of carbon-free electricity
- Removing carbon
The company’s latest ESG report suggests that the pathway to becoming carbon-negative has the following milestones:
Reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions
Microsoft aims to nearly eliminate its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by increasing energy efficiency, decarbonizing its operations, and achieving 100% renewable energy by 2025. It achieved a 6% reduction in its Scope 1 and 2 emissions from the 2020 base year by advancing clean energy procurement, implementing green tariff programs, and using unbundled renewable energy certificates
Reducing Scope 3 Emissions
Microsoft’s Scope 3 emissions account for more than 96% of its total emissions. Most of these emissions come from purchased goods and services, capital goods, downstream, and the use of sold products downstream. By 2030, Microsoft aims to cut its Scope 3 emissions by 50% from the 2020 baseline.
Although Scope 3 emissions have surged by 30.9% since 2020, Microsoft remains committed to expanding clean energy purchases across its supply chain. It aims to invest in the decarbonization of hard-to-abate industries like steel, concrete, and other materials used in its data centers.
Tracking progress toward carbon negative by 2030
Microsoft’s overall emissions increased by 29.1% in FY23 from the base year. Additionally, it retired 605,354 MTs of carbon removal as part of its net zero goals.

Can Ørsted’s Bold Strategies Propel Us to a Carbon-Free Future? Find Out…
Ørsted has committed to achieving net-zero emissions across its value chain by 2040, aiming to reduce emissions through various initiatives, including renewable energy projects, energy efficiency measures, and engaging stakeholders in sustainable practices.
The company reports its greenhouse gas emissions under three categories: Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3, as defined by the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol.
Reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions
Ørsted significantly reduced its Scope 1 emissions by transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like wind and biomass. For Scope 2 emissions, Ørsted focused on increasing energy efficiency and sourcing renewable energy to reduce the emissions from purchased electricity and heat.
- Scope 1 and 2 emissions: FY2023 was 38g CO2e/kWh
Reducing Scope 3 Emissions
To address Scope 3 emissions, Ørsted engages with suppliers, optimizes logistics, and promotes sustainable practices across its value chain, targeting emissions from fuel production and transportation, manufacturing of wind turbine components, business travel, and the use of sold products.
- Scope 3 emissions: FY2023 was 80g CO2e/kW
The image depicting Ørsted’s installed renewable capacity and GHG emissions intensity
source: Ørsted
Key sustainability targets
- Scope 1-2 emissions intensity: 98 % reduction by 2025 and 99 % reduction by 2030 (from 2006)
- Scope 1-3 emissions intensity (excl. natural gas sales): 77 % reduction by 2030, and 99 % reduction by 2040 (from 2018)
- Scope 3 emissions (from natural gas sales): 67 % reduction by 2030, and 90 % reduction by 2040 (from 2018)
Top Clean Energy and Decarbonization Projects
Microsoft:
The company invests in renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, and implements energy efficiency measures across its operations. Like its partnership with Ørsted, and other CDR projects alike to offset emissions and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Through these efforts, Microsoft aims to become carbon-negative by 2030, addressing both its direct emissions and those across its entire value chain.
Some remarkable decarbonization achievements of Microsoft include:
- Microsoft to Buy Carbon Removal Credits from CarbonCapture (carboncredits.com)
- Microsoft and Stockholm Exergi Strike Historic Deal for 3.33 MTs of Carbon Removal • Carbon Credits
- Microsoft Teams Up with Aker Carbon Capture and CO280 to Boost CDRs • Carbon Credits
- Microsoft to Purchase 95,000 Biochar Carbon Removal Credits from The Next 150 • Carbon Credits
Orsted:
Ørsted is leading the way in clean energy and decarbonization. It is transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. The company majorly focuses on:
- Large-scale offshore wind farms
- Onshore wind energy
- Bioenergy carbon capture and storage projects.
- Solar power and grid stabilization
These initiatives aim to reduce and remove CO2 emissions, contributing to Ørsted’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions across its value chain by 2040. Thus, Ørsted is making significant strides in combating climate change and promoting sustainable energy solutions through these projects.
Ørsted’s Global Footprint
source: Ørsted
Notably, Ole Thomsen, Senior Vice President and Head of Ørsted’s Bioenergy business has commented:
“This expanded collaboration with Microsoft is a testament to our shared vision for a sustainable future. By combining Ørsted’s expertise in bioenergy carbon capture and storage with Microsoft’s commitment to reducing its carbon footprint, we’re showcasing how strategic relations can accelerate the transition to a greener economy.”
The post Ørsted Secures Major Carbon Removal Deal with Microsoft appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
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.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
![]()
-
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

