Assessing and comparing carbon credit rating agencies Report

The report evaluates the methodologies of four carbon credit rating agencies (BeZero, Calyx, Renoster, and Sylvera) to determine if they deliver on claims of increasing market transparency and integrity. Using the Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI) as a benchmark, the analysis finds that Calyx employs the most stringent approach, while BeZero and Sylvera are rated as adequate. Renoster's data-centric, algorithmic approach is deemed incomparable to the others. Key findings highlight significant differences in how agencies treat additionality as a limiting factor, the inclusion of leakage in overall scores, and the transparency of their rating justifications. The report recommends greater alignment with financial rating standards, mandatory inclusion of leakage in final scores, and increased public disclosure of project-specific frameworks.

• Calyx is identified as having the most stringent approach for both cross-sectoral and REDD avoided deforestation (AD) assessments.
• BeZero and Sylvera are rated as having 'adequate' cross-sectoral and REDD AD rating approaches, while Calyx is rated as 'rigorous'.
• Renoster's methodology differs fundamentally from other agencies by prioritizing algorithmic analysis over qualitative assessment and excluding leakage from its overall rating score.
• There is significant variation in how agencies use additionality as a limiting factor for the final rating; Calyx and Renoster apply it strictly, whereas BeZero and Sylvera allow for higher overall ratings than the additionality score in some cases.
• Transparency regarding rating justifications is limited; BeZero is the only agency that makes all its ratings publicly available, while Calyx and Sylvera only provide a fraction of their ratings on the Net Zero Marketplace, often using a reduced scale.
• Calyx and Sylvera apply a rigorous 100-year permanence benchmark for monitoring and compensation in nature-based solutions (NbS) projects, which exceeds the requirements of most carbon-crediting programmes.
• Sylvera is the only agency among those assessed that explicitly includes a safeguards assessment against negative impacts within its co-benefit score.
• The report concludes that carbon credit rating agencies lack the regulation and oversight found in financial rating agencies, suggesting that guidelines from IOSCO or ESMA could serve as a blueprint for the industry.

APA

Wawrzynowicz, I., Krey, M., & Samaniego, X. (2023). Assessing and comparing carbon credit rating agencies Report. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PCG_CMW_rating_agencies_final_report_.pdf

Chicago

Wawrzynowicz, Ingrid, Matthias Krey, and Ximena Samaniego. Assessing and comparing carbon credit rating agencies Report. Carbon Market Watch, 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PCG_CMW_rating_agencies_final_report_.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wawrzynowicz |first1=Ingrid |last2=Krey |first2=Matthias |last3=Samaniego |first3=Ximena |title=Assessing and comparing carbon credit rating agencies Report |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=11 September 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PCG_CMW_rating_agencies_final_report_.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wawrzynowicz2023assessing, author = {Wawrzynowicz, Ingrid and Krey, Matthias and Samaniego, Ximena}, title = {{Assessing and comparing carbon credit rating agencies Report}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = sep, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PCG_CMW_rating_agencies_final_report_.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }