Credit where it’s due? Xylo co-founder says Seabin’s new microplastics scheme deserves a second look

Seabin recently announced its microplastics credits program. But Xylo Systems co-founder and CEO Camille Goldstone-Henry writes “credits” is not accurate terminology and mislabeling subscription services as credits could undermine trust in sustainability efforts.

Every word counts in the fight for nature regeneration. That’s why Seabin‘s recent announcement of a “microplastics credits program” raises red flags. This initiative, aimed at combating plastic pollution, is commendable. However, calling it a “credits program” is a misstep that could have dangerous consequences for the nature market.

Credits, in the environmental lexicon, refer to quantifiable, regulated entities, particularly within carbon offset markets. What Seabin proposes— a subscription model supporting pollution cleanup — is not that. This isn’t pedantry; it’s about preventing confusion. Misleading terminology can undermine trust in genuine sustainability efforts and give greenwashing a foothold.

Let’s take an example from the carbon credits arena: a recent investigation into the Verra carbon standard found most credits purchased are ‘phantom credits’ and may worsen global warming. The cause of the problem here? Lack of scientific rigour in their methodology of calculating a credit. When we aren’t transparent, credit programs can lead to unintended, detrimental impacts. For example, a business can achieve net zero entirely through purchasing offsets and without any other reduction measures. Hence it is possible that emitters engage in offsets to reduce costs of complying with other forms of mitigation, continuing business-as-usual.

The conversation between Seabin co-founder Pete Ceglinskiand myself on their LinkedIn announcement illustrated the issue. Pete’s focus on terminology, or “background chatter”, misses a critical point: clarity in communication is key to meaningful environmental action. Dismissing concerns over word choice overlooks the power of language to shape perceptions. If this is the discourse, how can the market trust nature credits will eventually lead to healthier ecosystems?

Conversation between Seabin co-founder Pete Ceglinski and myself on their LinkedIn announcement. Source: LinkedIn

Conversation between Seabin co-founder Pete Ceglinski and myself on their LinkedIn announcement. Source: LinkedIn

Nature initiatives require public trust to succeed. This trust is built on transparency and accuracy in how we describe our efforts. Using terms like “credits” inaccurately not only confuses but also detracts from the legitimacy of established environmental credit mechanisms. To effectively quantify a credit, Seabin would need to measure the volume of microplastics their devices remove from marine environments (which they already do) and translate this into a quantifiable enhancement of local biodiversity or improvement in water quality. As the co-founder of a company that quantifies biodiversity, how exactly Seabin are quantifying the enhancement of oceans to establish this credit?

As builders of the nature market, Seabin, Xylo Systems and all other nature startups have a responsibility to guide consumers in this space. If builders can’t be straightforward about what we are offering, how can we hope to advance the cause of nature regeneration through innovative business models?

While I have been a longtime admirer and enthusiastic supporter of Seabin’s goal to tackle microplastic pollution, this is one product that raises concerns.

Let’s call a spade a spade and a subscription a subscription — not a credit.

Camille Goldstone-Henry is the co-founder and CEO of Xylo Systems.

This article was first published on LinkedIn.