“Over the years we’ve invested significantly in our field data team - focusing on producing trusted ratings. While this ensures the accuracy of our Ratings, it doesn’t allow the scale across the thousands of projects that buyers are considering.”
For more information on carbon credit procurement trends, read our "Key Takeaways for 2025" article. We share five, data-backed tips to improve your procurement strategy.
One more thing: Connect to Supply customers also get access to the rest of Sylvera's tools. That means you can easily see project ratings and evaluate an individual project's strengths, procure quality carbon credits, and even monitor project activity (particularly if you’ve invested at the pre-issuance stage.)
Book a free demo of Sylvera to see our platform's procurement and reporting features in action.
For low-carbon materials producers, there is a significant commercial opportunity. The world's largest companies are shifting how they think about emissions. They’re not just buying carbon credits to compensate, but are looking further upstream, directly into the materials supply chain, seeking out lower-carbon cement, steel, and other construction inputs. And they are using Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs) to do so.
But for many on both sides of that transaction, the fundamentals of how EACs actually work, and what underpins their value, remain unclear. For producers in particular, proving their own carbon intensity to the market, and then understanding the most viable and valuable monetisation pathways is both a challenge and an opportunity.
We explored this in depth in a recent conversation with CURA, a leader in lower-carbon cement production.
Panellists:
- Shona Crawford-Smith, GM Carbon Differentiated Commodities, Sylvera
- Phil De Luna, Co-Founder & CTO, CURA
- Erin Bobicki, Co-Founder & CEO, CURA
- Allister Furey, Co-Founder & CEO, Sylvera
A shift in how companies manage their carbon footprint
For years, the dominant model for corporate carbon management was: measure emissions, buy offsets, claim net zero.
Many of the major buyers made their initial net-zero commitments before the AI-driven data centre boom, which saw growth in both energy consumption and physical infrastructure build. Therefore, balancing their emissions and climate commitments is getting much harder, and where those emissions are coming from is also changing.
Microsoft's total carbon emissions rose over 30% between 2020 and 2024, driven primarily by data centre construction. That creates a direct tension with public net-zero commitments. It's pushing the most sophisticated buyers to prioritise genuine emissions reductions in their supply chains.
The mitigation hierarchy reflects this logic: avoid, reduce in own operations, reduce in the value chain, then compensate with offsets. Carbon credits remain an important part of the toolkit, but they sit at the end of that hierarchy, not the beginning.
Microsoft, Meta, and the new procurement reality
The clearest early evidence of this shift comes from the technology sector.
Microsoft has signed EAC-based agreements for low-carbon cement and steel. One for physical supply and one for EACs tied to production.
Meta has issued its third annual Value Chain Interventions RFP, explicitly targeting lower-carbon cement and steel.
Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft are all members of both the Sustainable Concrete Buyers Alliance (SCoBA) and the Sustainable Steel Buyers Platform.
These are structured procurement programmes with defined carbon intensity thresholds, formal evaluation criteria, and long-term offtake commitments. There looks to be a significant shift in strategy for corporations like Microsoft and others, moving from removals purchases into EACs to help decarbonise their actual emissions.
Essentially, these companies are choosing to invest their money where they can get the clearest returns right now. Where their emissions are coming from is changing, and that's where EACs can be very effective.
What are EACs? And how do they compare to carbon credits?
Despite the growing interest, EACs remain widely misunderstood. Here’s an explanation.
You may be aware of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). These are a way of decoupling the delivery of power from the delivery of the low-carbon attributes of that power. Essentially, you need a way of allocating who took delivery of the lowest carbon intensity power, and who's paying for the extra. The main characteristic is that the user of those certificates can internalise that in their carbon accounting.
EACs work on the same principle, for materials. They separate the environmental attribute from the physical product through a mechanism known as book-and-claim. This is particularly important for bulky commodities like cement and steel, which have a limited distribution radius around their point of manufacture. For example, a buyer in New York cannot easily take delivery of low-carbon cement from a Canadian facility. But they can purchase the EAC, internalising the carbon benefit in their accounting regardless of geography.
The critical difference from carbon credits is the accounting treatment. Carbon credits don't have a formal role under GHG accounting. For EACs, under SBTi guidance for example, there is a specific allowance under Scope 3 (unlike carbon credits).
This matters for buyers operating under net-zero frameworks and Scope 3 reduction targets. EACs offer a route to demonstrated supply chain decarbonisation that carbon credits currently cannot.
EACs Market Insights Survey
We've launched the first dedicated market survey on Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs).
If you’re a producer, buyer, or investor working in any commodity market, your input will help shape the direction of this market, and respondents will receive a full report.
EACs and CDR: competitive or additive?
A common question is whether EACs are competitive with investment in CDR credits, or truly additive. Particularly following the recent stories around Microsoft’s potential change in carbon strategy.
The consensus from our experts is clear: they are additive, but in a world of constrained budgets, sequencing matters.
So, the world still needs CDR, because there's a delay in temperature rise from emissions. Even if we stopped emitting today, temperatures would continue to rise. But corporations are being selective in where they invest their climate budgets, and where they can make the most impact on reducing emissions. So EACs are additive to CDR investment.
There are different levers to pull. You couldn't, within the next six months, bring global cement production emissions down by a factor of ten. Nor has CDR yet scaled to the gigaton levels needed globally. Each approach has their place.
The implication for producers of carbon credits is important: high-integrity CDR remains in demand, but the bar for how buyers integrate it into their climate strategy is rising. Companies want to demonstrate they are reducing supply chain emissions first. EACs are not a threat to that market, but they are changing the context in which it operates.
What this means for producers of lower-carbon materials
For producers of lower-carbon cement, steel, and other construction materials, the implications are significant.
Demand is becoming more structured. Corporate buyers are moving toward formal procurement programmes with defined thresholds. Producers who can demonstrate performance against those thresholds are better positioned to secure long-term agreements.
Being able to evidence carbon intensity is non-negotiable. Self-reported figures, however accurate, are not sufficient. The shift in commercial conversations that CURA experienced - from "we claim" to "this has been independently confirmed, here's the report, it's in our data room" - illustrates the difference independent validation makes.
Multiple monetisation routes are available. And understanding which to prioritise is a strategic decision. Sylvera's work with CURA started with a long list of eight potential mechanisms before downselecting to EACs, EU ETS, and CBAM for deeper analysis, with up to €409M in value identified in the highest pathway.
The window for early-mover advantage is open. The market for carbon-differentiated construction materials is at an early stage. Producers who establish credible carbon intensity data and build relationships with large procurement programmes now are better placed as demand scales, and as the infrastructure that underpins EAC markets matures.
From conversation to commercial reality: CURA
The discussion follows Sylvera’s work supporting CURA.
CURA's electrochemical technology enables production of low-carbon cement with 85% lower emissions than conventional production. But having transformative technology is only half the story. To unlock capital and close commercial deals, CURA needed to prove their advantage independently, understand what it was worth, and navigate a monetisation landscape that most producers find overwhelming.
Sylvera worked with CURA across three areas.
Independent LCA validation. Sylvera stress-tested CURA's lifecycle assessment to confirm 85% emission reductions at full deployment — independently verified, data-room ready, and benchmarked against 3,000+ global cement facilities. CURA was confirmed in the top 0.1% of cement producers worldwide by carbon intensity.
Mechanism mapping and financial modelling. Sylvera conducted a broad evaluation of eight potential monetisation pathways before downselecting to the three most relevant: EACs, EU ETS, and CBAM. Bespoke financial models were built for each, identifying up to €409M in net present value through the optimal pathway.
Ongoing market intelligence. Through Sylvera's Commodity Insights platform, CURA has continuous access to live benchmarking against global cement facilities, mechanism tracking, and scenario modelling as their commercial strategy evolves.
The result was a shift in how CURA could show up commercially - not with claims, but with solid evidence.
What the lower-carbon materials market needs to scale
A decarbonised energy system as the foundation. Ultimately, a low-carbon commodity has to be low-carbon. Crucially, that depends on access to clean, affordable electricity. Accelerating renewable energy deployment will underpin this.
Credible data and certification infrastructure. Standardised carbon intensity measurement, independent verification, and robust EAC certification are the pieces that make markets function with confidence. Progress is being made, but producers who wait for the market to be fully built before engaging are likely to find themselves behind it.
Economics that work. Lower-carbon production needs to be cost-competitive on its own terms. The financial upside has to be real, whether through avoided carbon costs, mechanism revenues, or both.
Sylvera works with producers of lower-carbon commodities to independently validate carbon intensity claims, map mechanism eligibility, and provide the ongoing market intelligence needed to navigate this evolving landscape. To find out more or to explore Sylvera's commodity data, try our platform for free, or speak to our team.
EACs Market Insights Survey
We've launched the first dedicated market survey on Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs).
If you’re a producer, buyer, or investor working in any commodity market, your input will help shape the direction of this market, and respondents will receive a full report.
🎬 Unlocking Value in Lower-Carbon Cement | Sylvera & CURA
Catch up with the full discussion here:
.png)
.png)
.png)
