Every major corporation has a net zero target. Very few have a credible plan to reach it. This guide explains what net zero really means, why most corporate carbon strategies fall short, and how verified biochar carbon credits offer one of the most durable removal pathways available today.
In boardrooms across South Africa and the world, net zero has become a near-universal commitment. The language is everywhere: sustainability reports, investor decks, ESG frameworks, annual general meetings. But strip away the vocabulary, and an uncomfortable reality surfaces.
Most corporate net zero strategies are built on a foundation of optimism, not verified carbon removal. And as regulators, investors, and the public grow more sophisticated about the difference, the gap between a net zero announcement and a net zero outcome is becoming dangerously visible.
B10 Biochar exists at the intersection of those two things — the ambition and the mechanism. This is what we know about making net zero real.
What net zero actually means
Net zero means that the total greenhouse gases a company emits into the atmosphere are balanced by an equivalent amount being removed from it — so the net effect on atmospheric CO₂ is zero.
It does not mean a company stops emitting entirely. For most businesses, zero emissions is decades away at best, and physically impossible in some sectors. Net zero acknowledges that reality and creates a framework: reduce what you can, remove what you can’t.
Carbon neutral typically means offsetting emissions through credits — including cheap, low-quality avoidance credits. Net zero, properly defined under frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), requires deep emissions reductions first, with high-quality, permanent carbon removal to neutralise residual emissions. They are not the same thing, and conflating them is one of the most common sources of greenwashing risk.
Emissions reductions required before offsetting under SBTi Net Zero Standard
Global net zero target year under the Paris Agreement
Annual CDR needed by 2050 to stay within 1.5°C — most not yet being delivered
Carbon permanence of high-quality biochar in soil
Why most corporate net zero targets fall short
The gap between a net zero announcement and a verified net zero outcome is large — and growing. Here is where most corporate strategies break down.
Targets set without a removal plan
Many organisations set 2040 or 2050 net zero targets with no concrete plan for the carbon removal component. Reduction roadmaps exist; removal strategies rarely do. The assumption — often implicit — is that technology will catch up, or that cheap offsets will fill the gap. Neither is a sound basis for a regulatory or investor disclosure.
Over-reliance on avoidance credits
The majority of the voluntary carbon market is built on avoidance credits: protecting a forest that might have been cut down, or funding a cleaner cookstove project. These have value, but they do not remove carbon that is already in the atmosphere. They prevent future emissions, not historical ones. Using them to claim net zero is increasingly scrutinised and, in some jurisdictions, being challenged legally.
Permanence assumptions that don’t hold
A tree planted today as a carbon offset can burn down in five years. A reforestation project in one climate zone can be wiped out by drought, disease, or land-use change. When the permanence of the underlying removal cannot be guaranteed, the integrity of the credit collapses.
“There have been too many examples of greenwashing which have damaged the reputation of our industry. We hold ourselves to the highest standards — and we expect our partners to demand these standards as well.” — B10 Biochar founding team
Reduction vs. removal: why you need both
A credible net zero strategy has two distinct legs, and both matter.
The first is emissions reduction: switching to renewable energy, electrifying fleets, improving supply chain efficiency, redesigning products for lower carbon intensity. This is the primary work of decarbonisation, and no serious net zero framework allows companies to skip it.
The second is carbon dioxide removal (CDR): physically pulling CO₂ that is already in the atmosphere back out and storing it durably. This is what handles the residual emissions that cannot yet be eliminated — the last 5–15% that even the most ambitious reduction programme cannot reach.
Most companies have invested heavily in the first leg. Very few have a credible second leg. That is the gap biochar carbon credits are designed to fill.
Not all carbon credits are equal
The voluntary carbon market contains a wide range of credit types, and the differences in quality, permanence, and regulatory acceptability are significant. Understanding these differences is essential for any corporate sustainability team.
REDD+ forestry, avoided deforestation. Prevents future emissions but does not remove existing CO₂. Permanence is fragile. Under increasing regulatory scrutiny.
Reforestation, afforestation, soil carbon. Removes CO₂ but permanence depends on land use, climate, and management. Non-permanent under most accounting standards.
Direct Air Capture (DAC), BECCS. Highly permanent but currently expensive at scale — $300–$1,000+ per tonne. Supply severely constrained.
Permanent carbon storage for hundreds to thousands of years. Verifiable, traceable, co-beneficial for soil and communities. Cost-effective at scale relative to DAC.
Why Biochar Carbon Credits are Different
Biochar occupies a rare position in the carbon removal landscape: it is genuinely permanent, independently verifiable, scalable from today, and produces co-benefits that extend well beyond carbon accounting.
Permanence that is physically demonstrable
The oldest known charcoal from a fireplace was discovered at Wonderwerk Cave in South Africa, dating back approximately one million years. That charcoal — structurally intact — is the most tangible proof of concept in the carbon removal industry. High-quality biochar produced through controlled pyrolysis is expected to remain stable in soil for hundreds to thousands of years under normal conditions.
Full lifecycle traceability
B10 uses mobile technology to track the complete lifecycle of every batch of carbon — from the source biomass, through the pyrolysis process, to the point of soil application. This chain of custody is what makes the credits genuinely verifiable, not just claimed. The Cula platform integration means every tonne of CO₂ removed is GPS-located, time-stamped, and batch-documented.
Co-benefits that compound the value
Unlike DAC or geological storage, biochar delivers additional value beyond the carbon number. Applied to agricultural land, it improves water retention, enhances soil microbial activity, increases crop yields, and reduces the need for synthetic fertilisers. For corporations buying credits, this means the social and environmental co-benefits of the underlying project are real and documentable — which matters increasingly for ESG reporting.
Scalable from existing waste streams
B10’s feedstock is waste biomass — forestry residues, agricultural waste, wood chips — that would otherwise burn or decay and release its carbon. This means production does not compete with food systems or require new land. As waste biomass supply grows with the bioeconomy, so does the potential scale of removal.
How B10 delivers verified carbon removal for corporate partners
We work with your sustainability team to understand your residual emissions profile, your reporting framework (SBTi, GHG Protocol, local regulations), and the volume of verified removal you need.
We match your requirements to B10 production capacity. Credits are structured with full documentation of feedstock origin, pyrolysis conditions, carbon content, and soil application location.
Every batch is tracked from biomass collection to soil application using our mobile platform. You receive verifiable chain-of-custody documentation for every tonne of CO₂ removed.
Protecting your organisation from greenwashing risk
Regulators in the EU, UK, US, and increasingly South Africa are tightening standards around corporate climate claims. The EU Green Claims Directive, the UK’s ASA guidance on environmental advertising, and the SEC’s climate disclosure rules all point in the same direction:
Substantiation requirements for net zero claims are rising sharply.
Corporations that have built Net Zero narratives on low-quality avoidance credits face material reputational and legal exposure.
The safest position for any corporate sustainability team is to ensure that every carbon credit in their portfolio is:
Frequently asked questions: net zero and biochar carbon credits
What is the difference between net zero and carbon neutral?
Carbon neutral typically means offsetting all current emissions through any type of credit, including low-quality avoidance credits. Net zero, under frameworks like SBTi, requires deep emissions reductions first — typically 90%+ — with only high-quality, permanent removal credits used to neutralise residual emissions. The bar for net zero is significantly higher, and the regulatory and reputational risk of conflating the two is growing.
Can biochar carbon credits be used under SBTi's Net Zero Standard?
Biochar is recognised as a carbon dioxide removal technology under leading voluntary carbon frameworks. Its applicability under specific corporate standards depends on the verification methodology used and the quality of documentation. B10 structures its credits to meet the highest available verification standards and can advise your sustainability team on applicability to your specific reporting framework.
How does B10 verify that the carbon removal is real?
Every batch of biochar produced by B10 is tracked from feedstock collection through pyrolysis to soil application using mobile lifecycle tracking technology. The carbon content of each batch is lab-tested. The application site is GPS-located and time-stamped. This produces a documented chain of custody for each tonne of CO₂ removed — not a modelled estimate, but a verified record.
What volume of credits can B10 supply?
B10’s 2026 production target is 10 000 MT of CO₂ removal, based on our first plant. We plan to double this in 2027, with further scaling beyond that. Our first production site alone has enough land to support plants capable of removing 75 000 MT per annum — and we are already identifying additional sites for expansion.
Corporate partners are encouraged to engage early to secure forward capacity, as demand for high-quality removal credits significantly outpaces supply globally.
Does purchasing biochar carbon credits from B10 deliver any additional benefits?
Yes — and this is one of biochar’s distinguishing features as a credit type. Beyond the carbon removal, B10’s operations create local employment in high-unemployment communities, donate biochar to subsistence farmers for soil improvement, and reduce open burning of waste biomass which improves local air quality. These co-benefits are documented and available for inclusion in corporate ESG and sustainability reporting.
How is biochar different from tree planting as a carbon offset?
Tree planting stores carbon in living biomass — which can be released back into the atmosphere if the tree burns, dies, or is cut down. This makes the permanence conditional and the credit fragile. Biochar converts that same carbon into a physically stable form that persists in soil for hundreds to thousands of years regardless of what happens to the surrounding landscape. The removal is permanent by nature, not by management commitment.
Ready to build a Net Zero strategy that holds up to scrutiny?
B10 works with corporate sustainability teams to structure verified biochar carbon removal — documented, traceable, and built for the regulatory environment ahead. Let’s talk about what your organisation needs.
