Corporate Reputation Drives Offset Vetting
Paul Gambill, CEO of Nori, on tokenized projects for social good
This makes carbon buying behave less like ordinary procurement and more like crisis avoidance. Large companies are not just asking what a tonne costs, they are asking what happens if the underlying project fails and their climate claims get attacked. That pushes them toward consultants, brokers, and highly vetted suppliers, which raises transaction costs and narrows supply to projects with enough capital and connections to survive the diligence process.
-
In the legacy market, a buyer often touches a long chain, registry, validator, verifier, broker, then retirement. Nori describes that structure as expensive and opaque, while Patch describes buyers as holding real trust and liability risk if a credit later proves weak or a forest project burns down.
-
That risk changes who wins supply. Nori argues big enterprise buyers prefer old gatekeeper models, because outside diligence helps protect the brand if something goes wrong. The result is that well financed developers are more likely to get projects listed, while smaller projects face high upfront certification and verification costs.
-
It also explains why carbon accounting software and offset procurement split into different companies. Persefoni positions measurement and disclosure as a CFO workflow, and partnered rather than selling offsets itself to avoid conflict. Patch similarly built legal agreements and monitoring layers so buyers are not left exposed after purchase.
The market is moving toward tighter measurement, clearer project monitoring, and more software in the middle. As carbon claims face more scrutiny, the winning platforms will be the ones that make project quality legible, shift risk away from buyers, and widen access beyond the small circle of brokers, consultants, and incumbent registries.