Why carbon removal investment is a strategic priority

Corporate sustainability has entered a more challenging era. Where sustainability used to be about bold targets and high-level goals, 2026 is shaping up to be a year focused on practical results, risk management and integration with core business priorities. Many companies are already adjusting how they talk about sustainability. As Solitaire Townsend recently noted, the conversation is shifting away from idealistic narratives and towards language rooted in resilience, risk, and long-term value.

Instead of positioning carbon removal as a discretionary climate project, it seems more and more sustainability teams are reframing it as a core element of risk management and future-proofing. For many of us, this shift can feel counterproductive as it moves the conversation away from climate ambition and towards business risk. But the action itself remains just as meaningful — and that is an important point to hold on to.

There is also a clear upside. This framing makes it easier for finance and leadership teams to see carbon removal as a long-term business priority, rather than a peripheral cost. In doing so, it helps sustainability teams make a stronger, more credible investment case.

In this environment, carbon removal is not just another climate initiative. It is a strategic tool that connects sustainability goals with business reality.

What makes carbon removal budgeting challenging

Even when the strategic case is clear, securing budget for carbon removal is still often difficult. Sustainability teams face real, practical barriers when they bring CDR proposals to finance and leadership teams.

• Volatile carbon credit pricing: Carbon credit prices can change significantly over time, making long-term budget forecasting difficult. Many markets operate on spot prices, meaning prices available today may not reflect future costs.
• Difficulty quantifying climate ROI: Carbon removal does not generate a traditional financial return. Its value shows up in reduced risk, stronger credibility, and future readiness, which are harder to translate into standard return on investment (ROI) metrics.
• Competing internal budget priorities: Sustainability teams are often competing with growth, technology, and operational projects for limited funds. Carbon removal can feel abstract to teams focused on short-term financial performance.
• Knowledge gaps among decision-makers: Many executives still do not clearly distinguish between emissions reductions, offsets, and removals. Without this understanding, it is difficult to justify why quality and durability matter, or why carbon removal commands a higher price.

How to build a compelling investment case for carbon removal

This is where framing really matters. A strong internal investment case for carbon removal is less about climate ideals and more about business relevance. As with any communication, the starting point is the audience in front of you and what resonates with them.

1. Frame carbon removal as risk mitigation

Position carbon removal as a way to manage risk. This includes regulatory risk, reputational risk, and long-term financial exposure. Investing in high-quality CDR reduces the chance of future compliance costs, public criticism, or being locked into low-quality solutions that do not stand up to scrutiny. Addressing the fear of greenwashing also matters significantly to leadership. Sharpening data and having transparent progresses around investments are means to avoid greenwashing.

2. Quantify the cost of inaction

Doing nothing also has a cost. Volatile carbon prices, stricter regulations, and loss of stakeholder trust can all carry financial consequences. Comparing the cost of carbon removal today with potential future penalties or lost opportunities helps shift the conversation.

3. Connect investment to regulatory readiness

Disclosure frameworks and climate reporting requirements are evolving quickly and we’ve seen lots of updates in just recent monts to standards like SBTi and CSRD. Early investment in carbon removal helps organisations build systems, data, and processes that will be needed as expectations tighten. This reduces last-minute compliance risk.

4. Benchmark against industry peers

Showing what peers or industry leaders are doing creates urgency. Carbon removal is increasingly part of credible climate strategies across sectors. Falling behind peers can carry reputational and commercial risks.

5. Translate climate impact into business language

Internal conversations land better when they focus on risk exposure, brand value, and stakeholder confidence rather than tonnes of CO₂ alone. Climate outcomes matter, but business language helps decision-makers connect the dots.

Climate language vs business language

Climate language: “We need to neutralise residual emissions.”

Business language: “We need to reduce long-term regulatory and reputational risk.”

Climate language: “This project removes carbon permanently."

Business language: “This investment reduces exposure to future climate liabilities.”

Budget strategies that work for carbon removal procurement

Once approval is secured, the next challenge is structuring the budget in a way that works over time.

Scenario-based budget planning

This approach models different future scenarios, such as low, medium, and high carbon price pathways. It helps teams prepare for volatility and shows leadership that uncertainty has been considered, not ignored.

Multi-year commitment structures

Multi-year agreements can provide price stability and supply certainty. They also demonstrate long-term commitment, which strengthens credibility with stakeholders and project developers alike.

At Klimate, lots of our customers take this approach that shows a commitment to combat climate change but also shows strategic business thinking. One example is Jubel, a UK-based beer brand, that wanted to secure preferential pricing among other goals. A three-year carbon removal strategy gave them that exact solution.

Timing procurement right with the help of a partner

Early commitments can secure better pricing and access to supply, while waiting can preserve flexibility. Each approach has trade-offs. The right balance depends on risk tolerance, budget cycles, and climate targets. Another pathway is to join forces with a partner that takes care of procurement for you and has negotiated the best prices on your behalf.

Why a portfolio approach strengthens your investment case

A portfolio approach means investing across multiple carbon removal methods rather than relying on a single solution. This mirrors how financial portfolios manage risk.

Balancing cost and permanence

Some methods, such as nature-based solutions, tend to be lower cost but store carbon for shorter periods. Engineered solutions are typically more expensive but offer longer-lasting storage. A mix allows teams to balance affordability and durability.

Spreading risk across removal methods

Relying on one method increases exposure if that approach underperforms or faces supply constraints. Diversification reduces this risk and aligns with emerging best practice.

Aligning solutions with corporate values

Different removal methods come with different co-benefits. Some support biodiversity and local livelihoods, while others showcase technological innovation. A portfolio can reflect what matters most to your organisation and stakeholders.

How to ensure quality in carbon removal investments

Quality is central to any credible investment case. Without it, carbon removal risks becoming a cost without value.

• Permanence and durability: Permanence refers to how long removed carbon stays stored. Longer storage periods reduce the risk that carbon returns to the atmosphere and strengthen climate claims.
• Additionality and real impact: Additionality asks whether the removal would have happened without your investment. High-quality projects depend on carbon finance to exist and deliver real impact.
• Transparent monitoring and verification: Robust Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems and independent verification build confidence in reported outcomes.
• Co-benefits beyond carbon: Environmental and social co-benefits, such as biodiversity gains or community income, add value and strengthen internal and external support.

Making carbon removal part of how the business operates

Securing budget once is hard. Securing it year after year is harder. The teams that manage it tend to focus less on perfect arguments and more on trust, consistency, and internal relationships. They take time to build executive support, not by overwhelming leaders with detail, but by helping them understand why carbon removal matters in the first place. They report progress clearly and regularly, using simple signals that link back to business priorities rather than treating carbon removal as a standalone climate initiative.

Over time, carbon removal stops being a special request and starts showing up in planning cycles, targets, and internal KPIs. In my experience, that shift is often what turns one-off approvals into something more durable.

Having the right partners can also make a difference. When procurement, reporting, and quality assurance are handled transparently, it reduces internal friction and gives finance and leadership teams confidence that the investment is well managed.

Turning commitment into something the business recognises as value

A strong investment case for carbon removal is less about making the perfect climate argument and more about showing how the decision holds up in the real world. It combines clear thinking on risk, confidence in quality, and a practical approach to budgeting that acknowledges uncertainty rather than ignoring it. It also recognises the wider context companies are operating in — changing regulation, tighter scrutiny, and an increasingly complex global environment. Climate action does not sit outside these pressures. It is shaped by them.

If we strip it back, the question of how sustainability teams can ensure budgets for carbon removal and how to make the investment case in-house often comes down to one thing: learning when to speak the language of climate ambition, and when to speak the language of the business.

FAQs about carbon removal investment

How much of my sustainability budget should go to carbon removal?

There is no universal rule. Leading frameworks suggest allocating a meaningful portion after prioritising direct emissions reductions, based on residual emissions and climate targets.

What is the difference between carbon offsets and carbon removal?

Carbon offsets typically avoid or reduce emissions elsewhere, while carbon removal actively extracts CO₂ from the atmosphere and stores it. Removal is essential for addressing residual emissions. Dive deeper into this topic here.

When is the best time to lock in carbon removal commitments?

Early procurement can secure favourable pricing and signal leadership, but the right timing depends on budget cycles and risk tolerance. Scenario planning helps guide the decision.

How do I respond when leadership says carbon removal is too expensive?

Reframe the discussion around risk. Compare today’s cost with future regulatory penalties, reputational damage, or stranded assets. Position carbon removal as insurance, not just an expense.