Companies expect to use carbon removal in the future, according to an interview series with corporate leaders. What will help them invest earlier?

A new set of interviews with corporate sustainability leaders across the United States and Europe shows that most expect carbon removal to play a role in addressing residual emissions. At the same time, few say they are ready to purchase credits today.

The Carbon Business Council commissioned research to speak with Fortune 1,000 companies who have a net zero pledge but have not yet purchased carbon removal. The findings are based on 25 in-depth interviews with sustainability leaders across sectors including retail, financial services, manufacturing, healthcare, construction, transportation, and real estate. Our goal is to understand what opportunities exist for carbon removal and what is holding buyers back.

The gap comes down to clarity, rather than interest. Standards, guidance, and regulations are still taking shape, making it harder for sustainability teams to build the internal case for investment. Many interviewees noted that clearer policy signals could help create the confidence needed to begin planning for future carbon removal use.

Below, we share their thoughts on where carbon removal enters the equation for them.

What companies need in order to invest

Across interviews, companies described what would make carbon removal easier to evaluate and justify internally.

Clearer policy

Respondents pointed to the importance of stable demand signals, such as public procurement programs or policy frameworks that clarify how carbon removal can be used in corporate claims. Companies are hesitant to purchase credits today if they cannot be confident those credits will be recognized under emerging disclosure rules or future policy frameworks.

Companies operating in Europe pointed to uncertainty around how carbon removal will be treated under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and Green Claims Directive. U.S. companies noted that federal policy direction remains limited, making voluntary frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative particularly influential in shaping decision-making.

Corporate leaders said that clearer policy guidance helps companies understand how carbon removal fits within credible climate strategies and how investments will be evaluated internally.

Real and verified climate impact

Potential buyers said they need confidence that a credit represents a real and lasting climate impact. Respondents consistently emphasized the importance of durability, independent verification, and transparent methodologies. Some had open questions about this, underscoring opportunities for increased education about carbon removal.

Companies are not looking for perfection, but they are looking for clarity. The current landscape of standards, registries, and methodologies can feel fragmented according to respondents, making it difficult for buyers to know what to trust. Several respondents said clearer definitions of what constitutes a credible carbon removal credit would make it easier to evaluate options and build internal confidence.

Justifying cost

Cost matters, but not in isolation. Carbon removal currently competes internally with more established climate investments that feel more predictable or familiar. Without policy drivers or established procurement norms, it can be difficult to justify the additional cost, particularly for companies operating under tight margins or strict return requirements.

Cost considerations are closely linked to policy and standards. When companies have clearer guidance on how carbon removal can be used and disclosed, they said it becomes easier to build the internal case for investment. Early demand signals can also help projects scale, which can help bring costs down over time.

Carbon removal tends to come after direct reductions

Most companies are currently focused on reducing emissions within their own operations and across their supply chains and purchased goods.

This includes improving energy efficiency, switching to renewable electricity, electrifying buildings and fleets, and working with suppliers to reduce the emissions associated with the products and materials they purchase. These actions are generally well understood, easier to measure, and often supported by existing policy or financial incentives.

Carbon removal is typically seen as relevant for emissions that remain after those efforts have been exhausted.

Several respondents indicated their organizations expect to consider carbon removal more actively in the 2030 to 2040 timeframe, once they have made greater progress on direct reductions.

This sequencing is logical, but it also raises practical questions about timing. Carbon removal projects often require long development timelines, significant upfront investment, and continued improvements in monitoring and verification systems.

If companies expect high-quality supply to be available later, earlier engagement may help ensure that supply develops in time to meet that need.

Reputational risk remains a major consideration

Confidence in quality is closely tied to reputational risk. Many respondents said they are aware of past controversies in carbon markets and are cautious about making claims that could later be challenged by regulators, investors, or civil society.

Several respondents emphasized that purchasing credits before demonstrating strong progress on direct emissions reductions could create reputational risk. Others noted that uncertainty about how claims can be communicated publicly creates hesitation, particularly in regions with increasing greenwashing scrutiny.

Clear claims guidance and strong verification systems were frequently cited as factors that would increase confidence in engaging with carbon removal.

Companies want to be able to explain what a credit does, how the impact is measured, and how it fits within a broader climate strategy.

Looking ahead

Most companies expect carbon removal to become part of their long-term approach to addressing emissions they cannot fully eliminate, but the key challenge is timing. The systems that support carbon removal, including project development, monitoring infrastructure, and verification standards, take time to build.

In the near term, companies can build internal understanding to ensure that high-quality supply is available when they need it for their climate transition plans.

Carbon removal is often described as a future tool. The research suggests the groundwork for that future may need to begin sooner. Many corporations are aware they will need to take action on carbon removal at some point, but they are waiting for clearer and more predictable policies in order to move forward.