.svg)
Most companies buy the cheapest carbon credits available and move on. Bayer retired 706,000 tonnes across 22 projects in 15+ countries in 2024. The approach behind that number is worth a closer look.
This is the second edition of The Carbon Audit, a series scoring corporate carbon credit portfolios across five dimensions: type of credits, project quality, spread of risk, ambition and strategy, and openness. Each company is assessed against the same criteria, using registry records, independent ratings from BeZero Carbon and Sylvera, and public sustainability disclosures.
CHECK24 scored 1.8 in the first edition: two projects, no removal credits, no strategy. Bayer scores 4.5.
57% Removal Credits
The average corporate buyer purchases 100% avoidance credits. No removal. No permanent storage.
Bayer's 2024 portfolio is 57% removal. It spans all four tiers of the Oxford Offsetting Principles: emission avoidance (REDD+), nature-based removal (afforestation, peatland restoration), and permanent technological removal (biochar, 1,000+ year storage). That is the direction SBTi and climate science are pushing toward. Bayer is already there.
Strong Flagships, Weak Fills
The best projects in Bayer's portfolio are among the best in the voluntary carbon market. Katingan Peatland in Indonesia holds AA ratings from both BeZero and Sylvera. Bayer retired 150,000 credits from Katingan in 2024. The Novocarbo biochar project in Germany, permanent engineered removal, holds a BeZero A.
The rest of the portfolio tells a different story. Four projects in Uruguay, Sierra Leone, Colombia, and Brazil sit at BeZero B. They account for roughly 57% of 2024 volume (excluding Bayer's own farming program). These are the credits that fill out the portfolio after the flagship allocations. Not bad, but clearly the area with the most room to improve.
This is a common pattern. Even sophisticated buyers struggle to maintain quality across their full volume. The flagship picks get attention; the remaining tonnes get less scrutiny.
22 Projects, 15+ Countries
Bayer's diversification is hard to fault. REDD+, afforestation, reforestation, peatland restoration, regenerative agriculture, soil carbon, bamboo, biochar, improved forest management. South America, Africa, Southeast Asia, Europe, North America. Nature-based and engineered.
No single project, geography, or standard dominates. If one project fails or gets downgraded, the portfolio holds. Most corporate buyers concentrate their volume in one or two project types. Bayer does not.
Both Buyer and Issuer
Through the ForGround program, Bayer issues carbon credits from regenerative farming: over 125,000 tonnes from cover cropping and reduced tillage. Being on both sides of the market (buying and issuing) means Bayer understands credit economics, verification, and project development in a way most buyers do not.
The broader climate strategy supports this. SBTi-validated targets: 42% absolute Scope 1 and 2 reduction by 2029, aligned with 1.5 degrees. Net zero by 2050. EUR 500M committed to renewables and efficiency. CDP "A" for climate and water. Carbon credits cover residual emissions that cannot be eliminated yet, not the whole footprint. That distinction matters.
What They Publish, and What They Don't
Bayer released a 27-page offsetting document listing every project ID, volume per year, methodology, seller, and SDG alignment. Most companies will not even name their projects. This is among the most detailed corporate offsetting disclosures publicly available.
What is missing: prices paid per credit (an industry-wide gap), biochar volumes (not broken out, so the permanent removal share is hard to quantify), specific vintage details, and any acknowledgment of past projects that were downgraded. Bayer moved away from projects like Kariba and Rio Anapu after they received lower ratings, but has not publicly addressed the change.
The Scorecard
What This Means
Bayer's portfolio has clear weaknesses: the B-rated fills, the undisclosed biochar volumes, the silence on past downgrades. But the overall approach (diversify, shift toward removal, build your own carbon program, publish everything) is what a real carbon credit strategy looks like.
The gap between CHECK24 at 1.8 and Bayer at 4.5 is not about budget. It is about whether carbon credits are a procurement checkbox or a strategic investment. The registries are public, the rating agencies are publishing, and the data exists to assess any corporate portfolio. This series uses it.
Analysis based on Bayer's offsetting publication, Verra and Gold Standard registry records, BeZero Carbon and Sylvera ratings, CDP submissions, and Bayer's sustainability reports.
