We believe carbon credit ratings should be guided by science, not financial interest. For the market to grow, it must be built on a bedrock of trust and confidence. That means there should be no question about our incentives as we evaluate projects. That is why, since our founding, we have had strict rules and governance in place to prevent conflicts of interest.
We don’t design projects or consult for the projects we rate. If we helped shape or made recommendations to a project and then rated it, we would be judging our own work, and our ratings would stop being an independent check that buyers can rely on.
Uniquely among the major carbon rating agencies, our rating frameworks are approved by independent panels of external experts in greenhouse gas accounting, Sustainable Development Goals, and environmental and social risk, not by Calyx Global. Our analysts apply those frameworks, but the panels decide how credits are assessed and scored, so commercial interests can’t shape the rules we rate by.
Panel members are not Calyx Global staff. Each signs a conflict of interest policy, discloses any actual or perceived conflict and recuses themselves from any panel decision it affects. See the current panel members.
No fee is set, adjusted or refunded based on the rating we assign. A client who is unhappy with a rating gets no refund or credit.
Until recently, Calyx Global had not charged developers to rate their projects. As the EU ESG Ratings Regulation brings formal oversight to carbon credit ratings, we are piloting a small number of developer-paid ratings with trusted partners. These ratings follow the same frameworks, fee criteria and conflict of interest controls as every other rating we issue. Read why we’re piloting this approach.
Our role is that of a neutral observer. We’re here to provide a clear, unbiased picture of quality in carbon markets, not make money from transacting credits.
We publish rating, supply and pricing data so buyers can make informed choices about the highest-quality credits available to them. We never profit from transactions. This means buyers know they are getting our unbiased view of credit quality.
Every rating agency faces potential conflicts of interest. We are paid by clients who care about—and may be financially affected by—the ratings we give. Being independent doesn’t mean these pressures don’t exist. It means identifying them openly and putting controls in place so they can’t affect our ratings. Below are the main areas where conflicts could arise in our work, and how we manage each one.
Area
Potential risk
How we manage it
Ratings approach
Potential risk
Commercial interests could shape how our rating approaches are designed and what each rating means.
How we manage it
Our GHG, SDG and ESR rating frameworks are approved by independent panels of external experts, not by Calyx Global or its staff. For these ratings, we don’t decide how credits are assessed or which rating matches a given level of quality. We apply approaches approved by the panels, whose members sign conflict of interest attestations. Our estimated ratings use the same frameworks, risk factors and rating scale, with a separate rule-based estimation method developed by our R&A team. Our R&A Directors approve each version of the estimation model before release. Our carbon crediting program rating frameworks are also approved by independent panels of external experts.
Client influence on ratings
Potential risk
Some of our clients have a financial interest in the projects we rate, and we depend on their revenue. Staff could feel pressure to give those clients’ projects better ratings. The most serious risk comes from developer-paid ratings, as all developers want the best possible rating. This occurs less frequently with other clients, although some may have a financial interest in a higher rating.
How we manage it
How we rate is decided by our independent panels, resulting in very limited ability to maneuver within the panel-approved ratings frameworks. We keep commercial discussions separate from rating decisions. Anyone who negotiates the fee for a rating takes no part in producing, reviewing or approving it. In addition, we earn the same whatever rating we give: fees are agreed before the rating starts and never depend on the outcome. A developer unhappy with its rating gets no refund or credit, and a rating is only revised under our published update and review processes.
Staff compensation
Potential risk
If rating staff were rewarded for revenue or client retention, they could have a reason to favor clients’ projects.
How we manage it
Compensation for rating staff is based on role, experience, market rates and the quality of their analysis, not on revenue, sales or client retention.
Advice on projects
Potential risk
If we advised on how to improve a project and later rated it, we could be judging the results of our own advice.
How we manage it
Calyx Global does not provide recommendations on how to improve projects. Our ratings and assessments flag gaps but do not make recommendations.
Supply listings (SupplyBridge)
Potential risk
We publish listings shared with us by developers and other sellers. If we profited from these listings or any resulting transactions, or favored certain sellers, we could have a reason to rate their projects more favorably.
How we manage it
We provide this information purely as a service to our customers. Sellers list for free, and we receive no commission or other payment linked to any listing, introduction or sale. Any seller can list on the same terms, and we don’t favor one seller or project over another. If a buyer asks, we may share a seller’s contact details or introduce them by email, and we have no further involvement after that.
Staff interests and outside roles
Potential risk
Staff may own interests in, have worked for, or hold roles with developers, programs or other market organizations, which could bias their judgment on a related rating.
How we manage it
Staff declare their interests when they join, every year and whenever their circumstances change, so conflicts are identified before a rating starts. Our oversight function reviews each declaration and removes staff from any rating where a conflict exists, including where they worked with the developer or program in the past 12 months. Rating staff can’t buy or sell shares or other financial instruments of the developers or programs they rate.
Our revenue comes mainly from subscriptions to our ratings platform, and from ratings and research commissioned by carbon credit buyers and intermediaries and, in a limited pilot, developers. See our funders and investors, and how we set fees, our business model and our ownership structure in our regulatory disclosures.
Questions or concerns about a rating? See our feedback and complaints process.
