Consulting giants EY, BCG, KPMG and Deloitte relied on the offsets, raising concerns about how corporate climate claims are being verified.
All the more reason to hire an in-house sustainability agent who understands carbon credits and sustainability. An investigation published today in the Wall Street Journal reveals that more than 140 corporations were allowed to claim carbon offsets credits from one of the world’s largest projects hosted by Verra in Brazil, despite the fact that the project was under investigation for claims regarding its legitimacy.
Related: Carbon capture technologies, markets and trends
Corporations such as BlackRock, Mastercard, and Phillip Morris International were allowed to retire and count these credits towards their emissions-reducing activities while the project was suspended. Evidence suggests that the project may have been illegitimate from its establishment, due to claims that it was located on public lands where it did not have a legal right to operate.
Additional research by Corporate Accountability released today reveals that over 70% of all carbon credits recently retired in Brazil are “problematic” and cannot be counted on to deliver their promised emissions reductions. If you are filing shareholder reports for ESG activities which include Brazil, dig deeper.
The researchers examined the top 50 carbon offset projects in Brazil between January 2024 and June 2025 — which are also among the largest projects globally — and found that millions of these problematic offsets were retired by multinational corporations and counted towards their emissions reductions despite not being likely to deliver.
“Carbon offsets have failed to lead to a decrease in global greenhouse gas emissions,” said Rachel Rose Jackson, Director of Climate Research and Policy at Corporate Accountability.
“Meanwhile, the claims of harm to communities and ecosystems caused by these projects continue to pile up. Yet again, the evidence suggests that those promoting and profiting off these projects cannot be counted on to help protect the planet. With life at stake, who is liable for the continued failures of these projects and the carbon market more broadly? And how many more times do we need to see evidence of their failure before we reorient towards more meaningful and proven solutions that reduce emissions and keep fossil fuels in the ground?”
The research in the new report from Corporate Accountability shows that 32 of the top 50 carbon offsets projects in Brazil are unlikely to reduce emissions. These projects retired 15.7 million carbon offsets credits between January 2024 and June 2025. This means that a substantial portion of the offsets from these projects that corporations were counting towards their emissions reductions were likely doing little to nothing to reduce emissions.
All of this while communities around the world face worsening floods, droughts, and extreme weather — as well as systemic violence fueled and enabled by some of the world’s largest corporate polluters in places like Palestine, Sudan, Venezuela, Iran and elsewhere.
Verra, the world’s largest carbon credit certifier, hosts 23 of the 32 problematic projects in Brazil, which accounts for 12.8 million carbon offsets credits retired between January 2024 and June 2025. Despite promises of reform amidst repeated integrity concerns, Verra appears to continue to host projects that are not proven to deliver real and lasting emissions reductions, says Corporate Accountability.
The Clean Development Mechanism hosts the remaining nine problematic projects, accounting for 2.9 million offsets retired during this period. The Clean Development Mechanism has a history of hosting projects that lack real emissions reductions and has been estimated to actually increase global emissions by 6.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide through approval of empty offsets, according to Corporate Accountability.
Corporate Accountability’s research also revealed that many major international corporations across sectors have retired offsets from these problematic Brazil-based projects. Petrobras retired nearly 200,000 credits from these problematic projects during the research period. Shell retired approximately 66,500 credits, and Equinor nearly 21,000. BlackRock retired 137,000 problematic credits from these projects.
Consulting firms also made significant use of these questionable offsets. EY retired nearly 179,000 credits from problematic Brazil projects. BCG retired around 90,000 credits. KPMG and Deloitte each retired around 5,500 credits. Other corporations using these problematic offsets include Barilla, Philip Morris, Uber, SWIFT, Mastercard, S&P Global, Engie, Yamaha Motor, and Dell.
The voluntary carbon market is predicted to grow significantly in coming years. Climate advocates, academics, communities, and experts are calling for immediate action to reverse the harms and failures of the carbon market, and to course-correct to real solutions that will put us on a proven pathway to Real Zero emissions.
Carlos Augusto Pantoja Ramos, a forestry engineer and PhD student at the Amazonian Institute of Family Agriculture at the Federal University of Pará in Brazil, has worked extensively with communities impacted by carbon offsets projects. He explained that it is not the communities near projects like Pacajaí that have benefitted from these projects.
“The attempt to capture public and common goods, such as land, by projects such as Pacajaí can intensify the concentration of income in the hands of a few corporations and institutional investors, deepening the severe social inequality in regions like the Amazon. This reveals disproportionate gain relationships between the parties involved, many of whom lack the structure and/or technical knowledge to assert their rights.”
