By Rajesh Chhabara, Managing Director, CSRWorks International
Carbon removal is showing up more often in net-zero claims, supplier conversations, and climate disclosures. It is frequently presented as the solution when residual emissions are mentioned.
My view is simple: carbon removal can be useful, but only when it is governed with the same discipline boards apply to any material risk topic. The moment “removal” becomes a label used loosely, it shifts from climate solution to credibility risk.
That is exactly why boards should pay attention.
Used properly, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) describes a real climate service: taking carbon dioxide (CO₂) out of the atmosphere and storing it. Used loosely, it becomes a premium label that can mask weak measurement, short-lived storage, or governance gaps.
Executives do not need to become carbon technologists. Boards do need a decision-grade way to assess removal claims because reputational and disclosure risk now sits alongside climate risk.
This article offers a practical playbook: what the main removal methods are, where the risks sit, and the questions management should be ready to answer.
Removals vs offsets
The terms “removals” and “offsets” are frequently mixed, which creates confusion in procurement, disclosures, and communications. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is a physical outcome: carbon dioxide (CO₂) is removed from the air and stored. A carbon offset is a credit mechanism: it is a unit purchased to support a climate claim. Removal credits can be sold as offsets, but not all offsets are removals. Many offsets are based on avoided or reduced emissions, whereas removal credits represent CO₂ that has actually been taken out of the atmosphere and stored. The difference matters because claims that rely on removals are often judged more heavily on durability and verification.
Carbon removal in one sentence (and one warning)
CDR means removing CO₂ from the air and storing it.
The warning is equally simple. If storage is unclear, durability is short, MRV (measurement, reporting and verification) is weak, or reversal risk is unmanaged, it is not decision-grade removal.
MRV is how a removal is measured, documented, and independently checked so claims are credible and comparable.
The market reality: why boards are being pulled in
Three trends are pulling carbon removal into the boardroom: residual emissions remain in many transition plans, scrutiny of climate claims has tightened, and “removal” is increasingly used as a premium label even when durability and verification are weak.
The board-level issue is not which method is “best”, but whether the claim is defensible under scrutiny.
A simple framework: three buckets, four decision variables
Most carbon removal options fall into three buckets: nature-based approaches (forests, soils and coastal ecosystems), hybrid approaches (biochar and BECCS, meaning bioenergy with carbon capture and storage), and engineered or geochemical approaches (direct air carbon capture and storage, mineralisation and enhanced weathering, plus emerging ocean approaches).
Four decision variables matter across all methods: durability (years versus decades versus centuries), MRV (measurement, reporting and verification), reversal risk (the likelihood of re-release and who carries it), and safeguards (impacts on people and nature).
The main carbon removal methods, explained for executives
NATURE-BASED REMOVALS
Forests (reforestation, afforestation, and improved management): Trees store carbon in biomass and soils. The benefit is familiar and potentially scalable. The challenge is permanence. Forests can burn, degrade, or be cleared. High-quality programmes rely on long-term protection, monitoring, conservative accounting, and clear remedies for reversals.
Soil carbon:Improved land practices can increase soil organic carbon. It can also improve resilience and productivity. But soils change over time. Results can reverse if practices stop or climate conditions shift. MRV quality varies significantly and needs careful review.
Blue carbon:Ecosystems such as mangroves, saltmarshes, seagrasses often store carbon densely, especially in sediments. Done well, blue carbon can combine climate and biodiversity benefits. Done poorly, it can fail on community consent, land rights, or long-term protection, undermining both integrity and outcomes.
Executive point: nature-based approaches can be credible, but boards should treat permanence and safeguards as governance issues, not marketing add-ons.
HYBRID REMOVALS
Biochar:Biomass is converted into a more stable carbon form through controlled processing. Biochar can offer more durable storage than leaving biomass to decompose. Quality depends on feedstock sustainability, process control, and verification of stability.
BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage): Biomass captures CO₂ while growing. CO₂ is then captured during energy production and stored underground. Credibility hinges on sustainable biomass sourcing and lifecycle emissions. Poor governance can erase climate benefits and introduce significant land-use and biodiversity impacts.
Executive point: hybrid options often sit between nature and industrial solutions, but they rise or fall on supply chain governance.
ENGINEERED AND GEOCHEMICAL REMOVALS
DACCS: Machines capture CO₂ from ambient air and store it, usually underground. DACCS often offers clearer MRV, but it is energy-intensive and costly. The carbon benefit depends heavily on low-carbon energy and storage integrity.
Mineralisation and enhanced weathering: These approaches accelerate natural chemical reactions that lock CO₂ into stable carbonates. Durability can be very high. Key issues are lifecycle impacts (mining, grinding, transport), local environmental controls, and transparent MRV.
Ocean alkalinity enhancement (emerging): This aims to increase ocean CO₂ uptake by altering chemistry. It remains earlier-stage and requires careful monitoring and governance due to interactions with marine ecosystems.
Executive point: engineered options tend to score well on durability and measurability, but boards should test energy sources, lifecycle impacts, and storage verification.
Red flags and green flags for boards
Common red flags include a vague storage pathway (for example, “stored safely” with no further detail), MRV (measurement, reporting and verification) that is unclear, infrequent or fully modelled without validation, ambiguous reversal liability, and thin safeguards with no credible approach to land rights, biodiversity or community impacts.
Green flags include storage that is clearly specified and independently verifiable, MRV that is transparent about what is measured versus modelled, explicit reversal terms that spell out who carries risk and how replacement works, and safeguards that are embedded from the outset, including consent, tenure clarity, biodiversity and water protections, and grievance mechanisms.
What management teams should do next
What management teams should do next is straightforward. First, agree on definitions internally: what do you mean by “removal”, and what level of durability do you require for different uses? Second, put MRV (measurement, reporting and verification) expectations in writing by requiring disclosure of measurement methods, verification frequency, uncertainty, and limitations. Third, set a reversal and liability position by deciding what you will accept contractually and what happens if carbon is released or storage fails. Fourth, establish safeguards as procurement requirements so impacts on people and nature are treated as decision criteria, not afterthoughts. Finally, align removals to your decarbonisation plan, making it explicit that removals address residual emissions and do not replace internal reductions.
Treat carbon removal like any material risk topic
Carbon removal will continue to grow in importance, but the market will only mature if we stop rewarding vague promises. Boards should insist on decision-grade clarity on durability, MRV, liability, and safeguards, and position removals behind, not instead of, internal decarbonisation. If we want carbon removal to be a credible part of climate strategy, we should reward quality and walk away from claims that do not stand up to scrutiny.
