4 ways Wren funds better projects with BeZero-powered workflows

Wren is a climate platform that helps individuals, businesses, and philanthropists fund high-quality carbon projects. The team evaluates hundreds of projects each year and selects only those that meet its strict criteria for measurability, additionality, and lasting impact. 

We spoke with Sophie Westover, Head of Climate at Wren, about how she uses BeZero’s ratings and analytics platform across project sourcing, due diligence, and carbon portfolio strategy workflows. 

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

1. Setting and enforcing a quality threshold

We've made 'BBB' or above our internal bar for any project Wren funds. Not every project in our portfolio has a BeZero Carbon Rating, but for those that do, that threshold is a condition of investment. We check the platform regularly to track new ratings and re-evaluations of existing projects, so if something we're funding is downgraded, we know about it, and we act on it.

Ratings only have value if you're willing to make decisions based on them. We've exited projects following downgrades. We also pay attention to reaffirmed ratings: a project that has maintained a 'BBB' rating across multiple consecutive re-evaluations has remained a cornerstone of our portfolio since 2023. Reaffirmed ratings carry real weight for us. They're a signal that quality isn't a one-time assessment but something that holds up to scrutiny over time.

2. Turning sceptical buyers into confident ones

A lot of the buyers we work with are hesitant. They've heard the criticism of carbon markets, they're not sure what to trust, and they're understandably cautious about putting their name to a purchase that might look bad further down the line. Ratings are powerful in those conversations because they're third-party data. I can point to them and say: this isn't just our opinion, it's the view of independent experts who've done the technical work.

The platform’s analytics features take that further. I can pull up a chart showing where Wren's portfolio sits across the ratings distribution relative to everything BeZero has rated. Or I can filter by methodology and show a buyer where projects using the same approach rank against their peers. Recently, I was working with a particularly hesitant buyer, and I genuinely think the reason we closed the deal was because I was able to show them rating trends across a specific project type, pulled directly from BeZero's platform. It gave the conversation an evidence base that went well beyond our own word.

There's also something to be said for the combination of early commitment and a subsequent rating. We purchased from one project before it received a rating, and when it later came out with a strong result, being able to say 'we backed this before the rating, and here's what independent analysis now says about it' becomes a compelling data point for buyers.

3. Sharpening portfolio strategy with market intelligence

We recently ran a significant portfolio strategy exercise, evaluating more than 30 project types. It was probably the most intensive way we've used BeZero’s platform. We were trying to answer some hard questions about where Wren should be allocating its funding: which sub-sectors are producing high-quality credits consistently, and where does our capital have the most catalytic impact?

We started by looking at which project types were most popular among corporate buyers and which sub-sectors consistently generated strong ratings. Then we went deeper, trying to understand, for each sub-sector: if Wren withdrew its purchase, would someone else fill the gap? Where is this solution on the adoption lifecycle, and are we investing at the point of maximum leverage? Have early projects in a given category demonstrably reduced risk perception or cost of capital for the projects that followed?

To answer those questions, we pulled data directly from BeZero: the number of buyers active in each sub-sector, credit retirement data, available inventory, the number of registered projects, rating trends over time, and project start dates. We used the platform as a market intelligence tool, not just a quality filter.

Reading through both ex post and ex ante ratings was particularly valuable. The investment analyses in those ratings aggregate detailed financial and policy context that isn't easy to find elsewhere. I extracted that data and used Claude to help me build financial models and policy risk reviews for specific sub-sectors and geographies. It gave us a much richer picture of where credit finance actually matters for project viability, and where policy risk is a real exposure.

That intelligence-gathering doesn't stop once a portfolio decision is made. Carbon markets are complex and constantly in flux. One of the ways I keep on top of it is by reading market updates and sector analyses hosted on the platform. The reports and webinars are full of valuable insight, and if I ever need to deep-dive on a specific project or topic, BeZero’s analysts are always happy to explain their work.

4. Making project-level calls: entries, exits and reviews

BeZero’s ratings often have material influence over decisions to enter, exit or maintain positions in projects. One example on the entry side involves a clean cooking developer in East Africa. I was sceptical of the cookstove sector generally. When the developer approached us, I told them directly: if you can show me an 'A' BeZero Carbon Rating, I'll consider buying from you. About a year later, they received it. That rating directly led to our signing a multi-year offtake agreement.

A second project from the same developer received a ‘AA.pre’ ex ante rating, which further validated the decision. The developer told us a few months ago that they're now negotiating a long-term forward offtake with a prominent carbon buyer covering all of their emission reductions through 2030 — something they said would not have been possible without Wren's early support. The rating is what opened the door.

Ratings have had a similar effect across a set of ozone-depleting substance (ODS) destruction projects we support. The ratings — 'A' or higher — bolstered our confidence in the ACR ODS destruction protocols and will likely increase the allocation of funding we direct to those projects as a result.

On the exit side, we had a nature-based project that we'd been funding when it held a 'BBB' rating. After it got downgraded to 'BB', the rating change directly informed our decision to discontinue funding. 

A separate downgrade — a project that fell from 'AA' to 'BB' — triggered a re-evaluation of a different project from the same developer that we were due to contract next. We made clear that we'd likely exit unless we could determine that the quality issues identified in the downgraded project were absent from their other work. The rating on one project was enough to prompt a review of the next.

You can learn more about Wren here. If you’re active in carbon credit development, due diligence, or procurement, get in touch to see how BeZero’s ratings platform can fit into your workflows.