Why 92% of Nature Projects Fail Quality Standards: Earthly on Rigor, Transparency, and the Integrity Gap
What makes a nature project actually work? Earthly has screened over 1,000 projects and found that 92% fail basic quality standards. The companies that pass share something in common: strong community co-design and secure land rights.
In this “Member Spotlight: Ask the Nature Tech Expert” interview, Earthly's team explains why carbon can't be separated from biodiversity and social equity, how they use satellite imagery to test project claims against observable reality, and why tangible connection to local projects changes how businesses approach nature investment. The conversation covers their 160+ indicator screening framework, lessons from launching the UK's first voluntary biodiversity credit, what's broken in current MRV systems, and how global standardization efforts are evolving post-COP16.
Read on to learn why Earthly rejects 92% of projects, what that reveals about the market, and how they're helping over 700 companies move from simple offsetting to defensible nature portfolios.
Image Credits: Unsplash
About Earthly and Its Mission
Q. Can you introduce Earthly and explain how your work helps companies invest in high-quality nature projects with confidence?
Earthly is a strategic climate & nature partner for businesses that demand a higher standard of environmental impact. We help over 700 organisations, including Deloitte, CaixaBank and S&P Global to find, screen and invest in the world’s highest-integrity nature-based solutions. Our mission is to accelerate investment into these solutions to help close the $700 billion annual funding gap to nature.
We address market complexity and greenwashing risks by acting as a rigorous validator. Our work allows companies to move beyond simple offsetting to build science-aligned, defensible nature portfolios that deliver measurable climate, biodiversity, and social impact.
Q. You’ve described Earthly as combining elements of a marketplace, a ratings platform, and a registry. What inspired that model, and how does it fill the trust gap you saw in nature-based solutions?
The model was inspired by a fundamental "flight to quality" in the voluntary carbon market. We recognised a significant integrity gap where traditional verification processes often failed to deliver promised benefits, leading to systemic overcrediting and a loss of stakeholder trust.
By integrating a nature-based marketplace with our own holistic scoring framework and a transparent registry for emerging products like Voluntary Biodiversity Credits, we provide a fully integrated solution. This model fills the trust gap by replacing opaque, developer-led assertions with a single, radically transparent assessment that prioritises certainty of impact over transactional ease.
Q. Earthly evaluates projects using over 100 indicators across climate, biodiversity, and community impact. Why is it important to look beyond carbon, and what have you learned from assessing hundreds of projects around the world?
Looking beyond carbon is essential because nature-based solutions are complex ecosystems where carbon, biodiversity and social equity are inextricably linked. Research suggests that over 40% of nature-based projects lack sufficient evidence of measurable outcomes when assessed purely on carbon metrics.
Through assessing hundreds of projects, we have learned that those with strong community co-design and secure land rights are significantly more resilient and likely to deliver durable, long-term carbon storage. This is why our Keystone 3.0 framework (that screens 160+ indicators) treats carbon, biodiversity, and people as three equally weighted pillars to ensure a project’s long-term success.
Q. You mentioned that only a small fraction of the projects you review meet your minimum quality standards. What does that reveal about the current state of the market, and how are you trying to shift it toward higher integrity?
Our screening data shows that 92% of over 1,000 projects screened fail to meet our minimum standards. This reveals a market still saturated with low-integrity supply that often overlooks local social realities or ecological suitability.
Earthly is shifting the market by setting a new integrity standard for excellence. By rejecting the vast majority of projects and only directing capital to the highest-integrity opportunities, we incentivise developers to adopt best practices like dynamic baselines, satellite-backed accounting, and radical transparency in their impact reporting.
Image Credits: Earthly
Innovation, Credibility, and Market Insights
Q. You recently launched the UK’s first voluntary biodiversity credit. What motivated that step, and what have you learned from bringing biodiversity into the investment conversation?
We were motivated by the urgent reality that more than half of the world’s GDP relies heavily on natural resources, yet biodiversity loss could cost the global economy $10 trillion by 2050. Businesses need scalable, market-driven mechanisms to fund restoration efforts independent of mandatory regulations.
In launching our Voluntary Biodiversity Credits with the South Downs National Park, we learned that businesses are eager to go beyond carbon to fund tangible, local nature recovery. We found that fractionalising these compliance BNG units into 9 sq/m credits makes biodiversity investment accessible to any company at an affordable price point, turning global goals into local, visitable impact.
Q. Technology plays a growing role in verifying impact. How is Earthly using data and MRV tools to improve accuracy, transparency, and scalability?
Earthly employs a comprehensive data stack, leveraging Google Earth Engine for geospatial analysis and partnering with independent assessors like BeZero to cross-validate project performance. Our assessment uses a dual-score system that measures both project maturity and the confidence we have in the evidence provided.
We use satellite-derived imagery to test project claims against observable reality rather than static assumptions. By weighting confidence heavily, rewarding independent verification over simple developer claims, we ensure our data is accurate, transparent, and capable of scaling across diverse ecosystems.
Q. You mentioned how challenging it can be to navigate the expanding field of MRV providers. What would make it easier for platforms like Earthly to identify and work with the right technology partners?
The primary challenge is the current technological concentration on forestry. To scale effectively, we need interoperable data standards for beyond forestry sectors, such as soil carbon, biochar, and blue carbon.
It would be significantly easier to work with technology partners if there were standardised metrics that align with global disclosure frameworks like the TNFD. This would allow us to integrate multi-vector data covering biodiversity, water, and carbon into a single, cohesive rating for our clients.
Q. You’re also part of the International Advisory Panel for Biodiversity Credits. From that perspective, how do you see global efforts toward standardization evolving?
We see a clear evolution toward verified outcomes and equitable benefit-sharing. Following COP16, global efforts are focusing on radical transparency and the promotion of Indigenous participation in decision-making processes.
Standardisation is moving away from fragmented, local metrics toward a unified baseline for investor-focused sustainability reporting. This shift is being further accelerated by the rollout of mandatory international standards that require companies to disclose their true impact on nature.
Corporate Engagement and Behaviour Change
Q. You’ve worked with over 700 companies so far, from Deloitte to smaller purpose-driven brands. How are you seeing business attitudes toward nature investment change?
Business attitudes are shifting from a "quantity-focused" to a "quality-focused" mindset. Leading companies like Deloitte, who were one of our main clients in 2025, now demand defensible data to meet tightening ESG expectations. We are seeing a surge in demand for holistic portfolios that combine nature-based removals with durable, long-term impact stories that can survive a rigorous audit.
Q. You often encourage companies to support local biodiversity projects they can visit and see for themselves. What impact does that tangible connection have on credibility and long-term engagement?
Tangibility is a powerful antidote to greenwashing risk. When a company’s workforce can visit a restoration site, like a peatland project in the UK, it transforms climate action from a technical accounting function into a core brand identity. This tangible connection increases long-term engagement and supports authenticity, as it allows businesses to see the physical results of their investment in specific habitats and species.
Q. You also help companies align projects with their values, for example, around gender equality or community health. Why does that kind of alignment matter for meaningful corporate action?
Value alignment ensures that nature investment serves a company's broader mission. For example, our work with King Games (Candy Crush) focused on projects that prioritise female empowerment. This matters because it enables a company to tell a compelling story that resonates with its specific audience, making climate action a central, communicable pillar of their brand rather than just a balance sheet entry.
Collaboration and the Nature Tech Ecosystem
Q. Earthly collaborates with networks like the World Economic Forum’s Uplink and the International Advisory Panel for Biodiversity Credits. How have these collaborations helped strengthen your approach or reach?
These collaborations provide important scientific validation and market credibility for us. Winning the World Economic Forum’s NatureTech Challenge recognised our potential to impact biodiversity and people at scale. These networks allow us to align our assessment methodology with the latest global integrity standards and ensure our approach remains at the forefront of the nature tech movement.
Q. What kinds of partnerships would you like to explore within the Nature Tech Collective, whether with MRV providers, data platforms, or other rating and verification systems?
We’re always keen to look for potential partners using eDNA and bioacoustics to track species recovery. And we’re interested in collaborating with insurance specialists to develop risk-mitigation features that address permanence and delivery risks for nature-based credits.
Q. How do you see the relationship between data providers, project developers, and rating platforms evolving as the market matures?
We expect a shift toward a more integrated, full-stack ecosystem. Platforms like Earthly will increasingly embed data directly from tech providers to offer continuous monitoring of project performance. Project developers will move away from manual, infrequent audits toward Digital MRV, providing the data-rich transparency that sophisticated enterprise buyers now demand to justify their sustainability investments.
Reflections and Lessons Learned
Q. What’s been the most surprising or rewarding part of building a company that sits at the intersection of science, technology, and corporate sustainability?
The most rewarding part has been seeing global leaders like Deloitte commit to high-integrity nature investment as a strategic pillar. It is surprising how quickly the tonne is a tonne mindset is fading in favour of a demand for holistic impact stories that prove a positive contribution to both the planet and its people.
Q. What challenges have you faced in balancing scientific rigor with the need for simplicity and usability?
The primary challenge is distilling over 160 indicators into a single, intuitive user experience. We solve this through our Holistic Impact Dashboard, which transforms complex datasets into clear visualisations of carbon, biodiversity, and social co-benefits. This allows a buyer to understand project quality at a glance via the Earthly Rating, while giving sustainability teams the granular evidence they need for reporting.
Q. What advice would you share with others working to build transparency and trust in emerging nature markets?
My advice is to focus on the integrity gap that currently exists. In a market reeling from scandals, transparency is your greatest competitive advantage. Do not just claim quality, publish your methodology and your data publicly. Building trust through verifiable data will always outlast the short-term gains of high-volume, low-integrity transactions.
Earthly's advice to others building transparency in nature markets: focus on the integrity gap. In a market dealing with scandals, transparency is your competitive advantage. Don't just claim quality, publish your methodology and data publicly. The company is looking for partnerships with MRV providers using eDNA and bioacoustics to track species recovery, and insurance specialists developing risk mitigation for nature-based credits. As Digital MRV replaces manual audits and enterprise buyers demand data-rich transparency, Earthly sees the ecosystem moving toward integrated, full-stack solutions. Learn more at earthly.org, follow them on LinkedIn, or connect directly with co-founders Olly Bolton and Lorenzo Curci.
