.svg)
Most carbon credit buyers face the same problem. They want to fund real climate action. They end up unsure if their credits deliver what they paid for.
The voluntary carbon market reached $2 billion in 2021, then dropped to $723 million by 2023. That collapse happened because buyers lost confidence. Projects overcredited their impact. Methodologies failed basic scrutiny. The result was predictable: companies got burned, then retreated.
This crisis stems from a data problem. Traditional carbon credit verification relies on outdated spreadsheets and sparse information. When a project developer submits a proposal, verifiers review perhaps 20 to 50 data points. That's not enough to catch overcrediting. It's certainly not enough to predict if a methodology will be invalidated next year.
Senken built the Sustainability Integrity Index to solve this. The SII evaluates carbon projects across 600+ data points. It applies AI-driven analysis that is continually updated with new research. Most importantly, it rejects 95% of projects that apply.
What Makes a Carbon Credit High Quality?
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) defines quality through ten Core Carbon Principles. These cover three domains: governance, emissions impact, and sustainable development.
Emissions impact matters most. A quality credit must prove additionality, meaning the project would not have happened without carbon finance. It must demonstrate permanence, either through guaranteed duration or robust reversal protection. It must quantify reductions conservatively to avoid overcrediting. And it must prevent double-counting.
The ICVCM set these standards in March 2023 after consulting 350 organisations. By June 2024, they approved just seven methodologies across five programs. Those approved projects represent 1.2% of all credits ever issued.
That rejection rate signals the problem's scale. Most existing carbon credits fail basic quality tests when subjected to rigorous analysis.
How Traditional Carbon Credit Verification Falls Short
Legacy verification depends on periodic audits and static documentation. A third-party verifier reviews a project's design document, checks a few site visits, and confirms the methodology matches registry requirements. The entire process might examine 30 data points.
This approach misses critical issues. It cannot detect when baseline scenarios use optimistic assumptions. It struggles to forecast reversal risks from political instability or changing land use. It fails to flag methodologies that regulators will soon invalidate.
Consider cookstove projects. Many earned credits under methodologies that assumed unrealistic baseline fuel consumption. When researchers examined actual usage patterns, they found overcrediting by factors of three to five. Those credits are now considered near-worthless, but millions were sold before the problem became obvious.
The same pattern repeats across renewable energy projects in China, REDD+ forestry in Southeast Asia, and improved forest management in North America. The methodologies passed initial verification. They failed deeper scrutiny.
The Sustainability Integrity Index Architecture
The SII takes a different approach. It analyses every project through 600+ distinct data points organised across the following criteria: additionality, quantification accuracy, permanence, co-benefits, reputational risk, and delivery risk.
The system starts with methodology screening. It automatically excludes project types with fundamental integrity issues. This immediately removes outdated cookstove programs, renewable energy projects in grid-connected markets, and methodologies facing regulatory invalidation.
For projects that pass initial screening, the SII applies machine learning models trained on peer-reviewed research. These models assess baseline scenarios against empirical data, evaluate monitoring protocols against best practices, and flag discrepancies in reported metrics.
The additionality assessment goes beyond standard tests. It examines project economics at registration date, compares similar projects that proceeded without carbon finance, and analyses regulatory environments that might mandate the activity anyway. Only projects that clearly require carbon revenue to overcome genuine barriers receive approval.
Permanence analysis incorporates geospatial data, political risk indices, and historical reversal rates for similar project types. Nature-based projects face especially rigorous scrutiny because they carry inherent reversal risks from fire, disease, and land-use change.
The co-benefits evaluation measures genuine impacts on biodiversity, community welfare, and ecosystem services. This goes beyond checking boxes on project design documents. The SII requires quantitative evidence of positive outcomes verified through independent monitoring.
ICVCM and CSRD Alignment: Future-Proof Compliance
The SII maintains full alignment with ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles. Every project approved through the SII meets or exceeds CCP criteria for governance, emissions impact, and sustainable development.
This matters for corporate buyers facing Europe's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. The CSRD, which took effect in January 2025 for large companies, requires detailed disclosure of carbon credit purchases. Companies must report credits separately from actual emissions reductions. They must demonstrate the credibility and integrity of purchased credits by referencing recognised quality standards.
The CSRD specifically mandates disclosure under ESRS E1-7 for GHG removals and mitigation projects financed through carbon credits. Companies must specify the amount in tonnes of CO2 equivalent, verify credits against recognised standards, disclose the percentage of reduction versus removal projects, and separate Paris Agreement-aligned credits.
Buying credits that fail these standards creates reporting problems and reputational risk. When regulators tighten rules, companies often must repurchase compliant credits to replace invalidated ones. This happened to corporations holding renewable energy credits from China when those methodologies lost recognition.
The SII prevents this scenario. By aligning with both ICVCM today and anticipating CSRD requirements, it ensures that credits remain valid as standards evolve. The less than 5% acceptance rate reflects a "better safe than sorry" policy. Senken would rather reject a borderline project than approve a credit that fails future scrutiny.
Why 600+ Data Points Matter for Carbon Credit Quality
Traditional verification reviews perhaps 50 data points. The SII examines 600+. That order of magnitude increase matters because carbon credit integrity depends on multiple factors that interact in complex ways.
Take a forestry project. Basic verification checks: Does the project area contain trees? Is there a baseline scenario? Does the methodology match registry requirements?
The SII asks different questions. What is the historical deforestation rate in this specific region? How does it compare to adjacent areas with similar characteristics but no carbon projects? What political economy factors drive land-use decisions here? Are those factors changing? What is the probability of reversal from fire given climate projections and historical data? Do buffer pool contributions adequately cover this risk? Are monitoring protocols sufficient to detect encroachment or degradation? Does the project demonstrate genuine community support beyond consent forms?
Answering these questions requires integrating data from satellite imagery, academic research, government statistics, commodity price trends, climate models, and independent field assessments. No human team can process this information consistently across thousands of projects. AI-driven analysis makes a comprehensive evaluation feasible at scale.
The result is higher confidence in credit quality. When the SII approves a project, buyers can trust the underlying climate impact because the assessment examined every angle where problems typically hide.
How to Choose High-Quality Carbon Credits
Corporate buyers should start by defining their procurement criteria. What matters most: pure carbon impact, biodiversity co-benefits, community development, permanence guarantees, or some combination?
Next, establish minimum quality thresholds. This means requiring ICVCM CCP alignment at a minimum. Better yet, require credits that pass more stringent analysis like the SII's 600-data point assessment.
Avoid credit types with systematic integrity problems. This includes renewable energy projects in most markets, certain cookstove programs, and methodologies facing regulatory challenges. The SII automatically excludes these, saving buyers from detailed research on each problem category.
Demand transparency. Quality credits come with comprehensive documentation: third-party verification reports, monitoring data, additionality assessments, and risk analysis. If a seller cannot provide this information readily, treat it as a red flag.
Consider permanence carefully. Removal projects that sequester carbon for centuries deserve premium pricing over avoidance projects or short-duration removals. The SII quantifies permanence risk explicitly, helping buyers match credits to their specific needs.
Finally, prepare for CSRD reporting requirements even if not immediately subject to the directive. The CSRD sets the global standard for carbon credit disclosure. Companies that voluntarily adopt these practices demonstrate commitment to genuine climate impact rather than mere offsetting claims.
The voluntary carbon market can channel billions toward climate solutions. But only if credits represent real, additional, permanent emissions reductions. The Sustainability Integrity Index exists to make that distinction clear.