What Is the Voluntary Carbon Market, and Why in 2026 Is It Changing More Than Expected?

The Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) is the “outside the ETS” market where carbon offset credits are traded. An offset represents the reduction of one metric tonne of CO₂ or other greenhouse gases and is used by companies and other entities to compensate for emissions they cannot eliminate and to support claims such as “carbon neutral.” In the VCM there is no cap-and-trade with a finite number of allowances: it is a project-based market, where credits are generated by projects that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions. (Source: CarbonCredits.com)

In 2026, the central issue is not “how many credits,” but how credible they are. Ecosystem Marketplace describes a market in transition, with volumes at their lowest since 2018, greater focus on integrity, and lower liquidity. This changes how buying and selling happens: fewer spot purchases “from a catalogue,” more selection, and more contractual conditions. (Source: Ecosystem Marketplace)

The 2021–2024 confidence shock accelerated this shift. Challenges around additionality and permanence—especially in some nature-based categories—pushed many buyers away from credits perceived as “traditional avoidance” toward removals, longer durability, and more robust MRV (monitoring, reporting, verification).

A new “layer” of standards is another key piece. ICVCM introduced the Core Carbon Principles and the CCP label as a global threshold to distinguish high-integrity credits. In 2025, ICVCM reports over 51 million credits associated with CCP-approved methodologies—about 4% of 2024 volume—with a growing pipeline. (Source: ICVCM CCP Impact Report 2025)

In 2026, B2B buyers’ operational expectations are also changing. Demand tends to shift from “opportunistic” purchases to more centralized procurement, with offtake contracts, clauses for ex-post corrections, management of “vintage risk,” buffers, and reversals. For those tokenizing, this translates into tougher requirements around proof-of-retirement and data traceability across the entire chain.

“More than expected” because everything is happening at once. Market standards are changing (ICVCM), EU rules on claims are changing (Italy is subject to EU consumer and environmental marketing rules), and emerging markets are moving in ways that test liquidity and credit credibility.

Price bifurcation is the first trend to keep in mind. Ecosystem Marketplace points to a quality premium: credits with stricter requirements and a higher perceived integrity are separating from “commodity” credits. A concrete example in 2024 is the Landfill Gas category, with a +35% price increase between H1 and H2 2024 and 3.1 million credits traded (+149% YoY). (Source: Ecosystem Marketplace)

Removals and the “durability ladder” are the second trend. In market language, buyers increasingly distinguish between avoidance/abatement credits and removal credits. Removals include nature-based options and more “technical” approaches, and the key friction point is durability: long-term permanence (often described as 100+ years) versus shorter horizons. This is especially relevant for those with hard-to-abate residual emissions.

Offtakes and forwards are the third trend. Morgan Stanley, also using datasets such as cdr.fyi, highlights the role of offtake agreements and the topic of future corporate participants in voluntary markets. The practical message is simple: for premium credits, availability matters as much as price, and many buyers try to “lock in” supply and terms early. (Source: Morgan Stanley report)

Co-benefits remain important, but with more caution. Projects with impacts on communities, biodiversity, or water can see stronger demand, also because they are often linked to the SDGs. At the same time, attention is increasing on how these impacts are communicated, to avoid marketing that looks like double counting or over-promising. (Source: CarbonCredits.com for co-benefits and SDGs)

Digital MRV is the fifth trend. Remote sensing, registries, and audit trails are becoming central. And here one practical rule always applies: token ≠ credit. If a token represents a credit, it must preserve the serial number, standard, methodology, vintage, and status (issued/retired/cancelled) and prevent double spending.

EU 2040 and Tighter Emissions Rules: What Impact Will This Have on Offsets, Claims, and Corporate Strategies?

The EU context has become more binding. The 2040 climate target is -90% net emissions compared to 1990, as a stepping stone toward climate neutrality by 2050. The Commission published the recommendation on 6 February 2024. In 2026, the Council gave final approval on 5 March 2026. (Sources: European Commission; Council of the EU)

This increases pressure on companies: internal reductions first, then management of residual emissions. In practice, “abatement-first” strategies, work on Scope 1-2-3, and the use of offsets with a more cautious perimeter—especially when public claims are involved.

The tightening of consumer-oriented claims is already on the calendar. The Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition directive entered into force in 2024, must be transposed by 27 March 2026, and will apply from 27 September 2026. The expected impact is direct: claims such as “carbon neutral” based on offsets become riskier to use in consumer-facing communications (including in Italy, where the directive will be implemented into national law). (Source: European Commission Energy)

A reality check is also needed: the Green Claims Directive was announced as withdrawn on 20 June 2025. So in 2026, claims compliance does not disappear, but shifts to other rules and national enforcement, as well as voluntary standards and good practices. (Source: EESC)

Operationally, many companies will move from offset claims to contribution claims, with communication policies shared between marketing and legal. And in procurement it becomes more natural to request credits with ICVCM CCP and audit-ready traceability.

Vietnam and Emerging Markets: What Does the “Reality Check” Teach Us About Liquidity, MRV, and Credit Credibility?

Vietnam is a useful case because it shows the gap between “having projects” and “having a market that works.” S&P Global describes a 2025–2027 pilot ETS for power, iron & steel, and cement, with allowance allocation for 2025–2026 emissions by the end of 2025. (Source: S&P Global)

The key data point for understanding the link between markets is the limit: in the pilot, companies can use offsets up to 30% of their obligation. This creates potential demand, but also highly regulated demand. (Source: S&P Global)

In emerging markets, the bottleneck is often MRV. Emissions inventories, plant-level data quality, availability of verifiers, and registry governance determine whether the market generates credits that are “usable” for international buyers or whether it remains a circuit with “paper credit” risk. And that risk shows up in price and acceptability.

Then there is the Article 6 topic. S&P Global cites the eligibility of credits aligned with Art. 6.2 / 6.4 and other international credits under Vietnamese requirements. Concepts such as corresponding adjustments and double-counting risk come into play here, as well as the difference between a “pure” VCM and units that resemble ITMOs. (Source: S&P Global)

The lesson for B2B is concrete: liquidity is not guaranteed. Without clear rules on eligible units, interoperable registries, and enforcement, the bid/ask spread stays high. For tokenization, the consequence is clear: you need registry-native integration, not just a marketplace.

How to Choose Credits and Projects in 2026 to Reduce Reputational Risk and Non-Compliance Risk?

The first line of defense is a procurement checklist. Start with standard, methodology, and version, because mismatches are a classic source of risk. Then move to MRV, additionality, leakage, permanence, and buffer. In the VCM, additionality is a basic requirement: the project must demonstrate that the reduction or removal would not have happened without the offset. (Source: CarbonCredits.com)

ICVCM can work as a practical filter. The CCP label is designed as an integrity threshold, and ICVCM publishes reference pages on the Core Carbon Principles and the status of assessments. In procurement you can translate this into a simple request: CCP-labeled credits or credits from eligible programs/methodologies. (Source: ICVCM Core Carbon Principles)

Reputational risk in 2026 is also claim risk. With EU consumer rules applying from 27 September 2026, it is worth separating internal use (internal carbon pricing, project financing) from external claims. And using “supporting climate action” or contribution language when appropriate (including for communications in Italy, where enforcement will be national). (Source: European Commission Energy)

On tokenization, the minimum requirements to avoid token-washing are clear: a 1:1 link to registry serials, proof of retirement, controls on fractionalization, KYC/AML on the marketplace side, and management of state changes as verifiable events.

A realistic B2B example is a mix: a share of nature-based credits with co-benefits for stakeholder engagement and a growing share of removals for residual emissions. In contracts, adding make-good clauses in case of invalidation or recall reduces risk.

What Scenarios to Expect Over the Next 12–24 Months (Opportunities, Risks, and Signals to Monitor)?

The base case is a smaller market but higher prices for premium credits. Ecosystem Marketplace talks about transition: volumes down, focus on quality and integrity, and dynamics that favor offtake and consolidation. (Source: Ecosystem Marketplace)

The bull case is durable removals. Here the point is not only demand, but MRV capability and risk management, including insurability and data quality.

The EU regulatory shock scenario concerns claims. From 27 September 2026, enforcement of the new rules can reduce the willingness to make “neutral” claims and shift budgets toward supply-chain decarbonization and contribution finance (including for EU-based companies operating in Italy). (Source: European Commission Energy)

The fragmentation scenario in emerging markets is well represented by Vietnam. The 30% offset limit, choices on eligible units, and alignment with Article 6 are signals to watch to understand whether “good” liquidity emerges or only demand on paper. (Source: S&P Global)

The practical KPIs to monitor remain few but useful: share of credits with an integrity label (CCP), retirement-to-issuance ratio, removals vs avoidance price differential, controversies and invalidations, bid/ask spread, and the evolution of EU policies on claims and the now-binding 2040 target. (Sources: ICVCM; Council of the EU)