High Integrity Carbon Credit Rating
A rigorous scientific rating framework that evaluates carbon credit integrity by assessing additionality, permanence, leakage risk, methodological strength, MRV quality, environmental safeguards, and community benefits. This ensures that funders, governments and climate stakeholders can rely on the quality and impact of every assessed project.
Our rating uses a six-point scale, from AAA to B, to turn complex technical assessments into a clear, comparable signal. We score each project across all seven criteria, and its rating reflects both its current strength and its resilience to risk over time.
AAA, AA and A are our highest tiers. AAA denotes exceptional integrity, with best-in-class performance on every criterion. AA signals very high integrity with minor, well-managed limitations, while A reflects strong integrity with some limitations that are closely monitored.
BBB, BB and B indicate progressively higher risk. BBB meets all core requirements, with moderate risks that are transparently disclosed. BB shows meaningful weaknesses that require active mitigation. B reflects material concerns that could affect credit quality and delivery of impact.
Ratings are reviewed periodically and may change as project performance evolves, helping buyers allocate capital with confidence.
Rating Scale Summary
Exceptional integrity.
Best-in-class across all seven criteria.
Very high integrity.
Minor limitations, well managed.
Strong integrity.
Some limitations, closely monitored.
Sound integrity. Core requirements met, moderate risks disclosed.
Meaningful weaknesses.
Active mitigation required.
Material concerns.
Credit quality and impact at risk.
The Seven Criteria
A credit has integrity only if the emission reduction would not have happened without carbon finance. We test whether the project goes beyond legal requirements, common practice and business-as-usual, and whether carbon revenue was decisive in making it happen. Projects that cannot demonstrate this do not progress.
Climate benefits must last. We assess how long carbon is stored or emissions avoided, the risk of reversal from fire, pests, land-use change, policy shifts or poor management, and whether buffer pools, insurance or other safeguards cover any loss.
Reducing emissions in one place must not simply move them to another. We examine whether project activities displace harmful practices outside the project boundary, how that risk is quantified, and what measures are in place to prevent and account for it.
The quality of a credit is only as strong as the method behind it. We review the scientific basis of the methodology, the conservativeness of its baselines and assumptions, how uncertainty is handled, and whether it reflects current best practice and peer-reviewed evidence.
Robust measurement, reporting and verification turns a claim into a credible result. We assess data quality, monitoring frequency, the use of remote sensing and field measurements, and the independence and rigour of third-party verification.
Climate projects must not harm the environment. We evaluate impacts on biodiversity, water, soil and ecosystems, and check that projects identify risks, apply mitigation measures and meet recognised environmental standards.
Lasting impact depends on the people closest to a project. We assess whether local and Indigenous communities gave free, prior and informed consent, share fairly in the benefits, have access to grievance mechanisms, and see their rights and livelihoods respected.
How We Rate
Every project follows the same structured, evidence-based process, so ratings are consistent and comparable across project types, sectors and regions.
Document and data review
We collect project design documents, methodologies, monitoring reports, verification statements and supporting datasets.
Aggregation and rating
Criterion scores are combined into an overall rating from AAA to B. Serious weakness in a critical criterion can limit the final rating, regardless of strength elsewhere.
Criterion-by-criterion assessment
Specialists score the project against each of the seven criteria using defined indicators and scoring bands.
Quality review
Each rating is reviewed by a second assessor before release.
Risk analysis
We identify material risks, test how they might evolve over time, and consider the strength of mitigation measures in place.
Ongoing surveillance
Ratings are reviewed periodically and updated if project performance, evidence or risk changes.
Frequently Asked Questions
It is a scientific assessment of the quality of a carbon credit project, expressed on a scale from AAA to B. It helps buyers, funders and governments understand how reliable a credit’s climate impact is.
AAA, AA and A indicate exceptional to strong integrity. BBB, BB and B indicate progressively higher risk, from moderate risks that are disclosed and managed through to material concerns that could affect credit quality and impact.
Corporate buyers, investors, project developers, governments, development finance institutions and other stakeholders who need confidence in the credits they buy, fund or regulate.
Not automatically. The rating measures integrity, not price. Many buyers will choose to pay a premium for higher-rated credits, but pricing is set by the market.
Yes. Ratings are reviewed periodically and may be upgraded, downgraded or withdrawn as new data, monitoring results or risks emerge.
Contact the Synsta team. We will confirm the scope, the information required and the timeline for assessment.
