Case study: Carbon markets & offsets integrity — a sector comparison with benchmark KPIs

In January 2025, the voluntary carbon market recorded its lowest transaction value in six years—just €535 million according to Ecosystem Marketplace—representing a 29% year-on-year decline even as credit retirements held steady at 176 million tonnes CO₂e. Yet this apparent contraction masks a profound structural transformation: low-integrity credit retirements dropped from 88% of market volume in 2020 to 47% in 2024, while carbon removal credits now command a 381% price premium over avoidance credits. For EU policy and compliance professionals navigating this bifurcated landscape, the challenge is no longer merely sourcing offsets but demonstrating that purchased credits meet the increasingly stringent integrity criteria demanded by regulators, investors, and civil society. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) issued its first Core Carbon Principles (CCP) labels in June 2024, establishing a threshold standard that will reshape corporate procurement strategies. Simultaneously, the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) entered its transitional phase with mandatory actual emissions reporting from July 2024, creating regulatory arbitrage opportunities between compliance and voluntary markets that sophisticated buyers are already exploiting. This case study examines the unit economics of carbon credit portfolios across sectors, benchmark KPIs for due diligence, and practical frameworks for integrating offset procurement into corporate climate strategies aligned with EU regulatory expectations.

Why It Matters

The voluntary carbon market's 2024 transaction value of €535 million–€1.4 billion (estimates vary by methodology) represents a fraction of the €7–35 billion projected by 2030 and €45–250 billion by 2050—figures that assume successful resolution of the market's credibility crisis. For EU compliance officers, the stakes extend beyond reputational risk: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) requires disclosure of offset usage within climate transition plans, while the EU Taxonomy's "do no significant harm" criteria implicitly penalise reliance on low-quality credits.

The integrity challenge centres on three technical concepts that determine whether a carbon credit represents genuine atmospheric benefit: additionality (would the emission reduction have occurred without carbon finance?), permanence (will stored carbon remain sequestered for climatically relevant timescales?), and robust quantification (are baseline and project emissions accurately measured?). The ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles codify these requirements into ten criteria spanning governance, emissions impact, and sustainable development. As of late 2024, only 12 methodologies across six carbon-crediting programmes had achieved CCP approval—covering landfill methane capture, ozone-depleting substance destruction, metered cookstoves, and select afforestation/reforestation approaches.

The market bifurcation has direct financial implications. Credits issued within the last five years trade at a 217% premium over older vintages, reflecting buyer preference for methodologies incorporating lessons from high-profile integrity failures. Meanwhile, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) allowance price—averaging €70–85/tCO₂ through 2024—establishes an implicit floor for compliance-grade credits, while CBAM certificate pricing will track EU ETS auctions from 2027. This price discovery mechanism creates arbitrage opportunities: corporates can potentially acquire high-integrity voluntary credits at €15–30/tCO₂ today, building portfolios that may appreciate as demand from CBAM-exposed supply chains intensifies.

For weighted average cost of capital (WACC) considerations, climate risk integration increasingly affects corporate borrowing costs. The European Central Bank's 2024 climate stress test found that banks with high-carbon loan portfolios face elevated capital requirements under NGFS scenarios, creating transmission mechanisms whereby offset portfolio quality influences access to capital. Companies demonstrating sophisticated carbon credit due diligence—including third-party ratings, registry verification, and alignment with Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) beyond-value-chain mitigation guidance—signal lower transition risk to lenders and investors.

Key Concepts

Additionality: The foundational criterion determining whether carbon credit revenues were necessary to enable the emission reduction or removal activity. The ICVCM Assessment Framework defines additionality as requiring that "GHG emission reductions or removals from the mitigation activity would not have occurred in the absence of the incentive created by carbon credit revenues." In practice, additionality testing involves financial analysis (would the project be profitable without carbon revenue?), barrier analysis (what non-financial obstacles did carbon finance overcome?), and common practice analysis (is the activity already widespread in the relevant jurisdiction?). The challenge lies in counterfactual reasoning: demonstrating what would have happened absent the intervention. Conservative methodologies apply discount factors—typically 10–30%—to account for additionality uncertainty, directly affecting credit unit economics. For portfolio construction, buyers should demand methodology-specific additionality scores from rating agencies such as Sylvera, BeZero Carbon, or Calyx Global, with A-rated credits typically achieving >85% additionality confidence.

Permanence: The duration for which sequestered carbon remains removed from the atmosphere, a critical distinction between biological removals (forests, soil carbon) and geological storage (direct air capture with sequestration, enhanced weathering). The ICVCM requires that "carbon credits shall only be issued for activities that... either (a) have a negligible or no risk of reversal of the mitigation outcomes for at least 100 years; or (b) have a robust plan... to monitor, mitigate and compensate for any reversals." Forest carbon projects face reversal risks from fire, disease, illegal logging, and policy changes—risks that have materialised in high-profile failures including California's forest buffer pool depletion following 2020–2021 wildfires. Engineering-based removals such as Climeworks' direct air capture or CarbonCure's concrete mineralisation offer geological permanence (>1,000 years) but at costs of €300–600/tCO₂ versus €10–50/tCO₂ for nature-based solutions. Portfolio construction must balance permanence guarantees against budget constraints, typically allocating 10–20% to high-permanence removals with the remainder in nature-based credits with robust buffer pool mechanisms.

Buyer Due Diligence: The verification process ensuring carbon credits meet organisational integrity standards before procurement. Due diligence extends beyond methodology review to encompass: (1) registry verification confirming unique serial numbers, absence of double-counting, and valid retirement status; (2) independent credit ratings from third-party agencies scoring credits A–D on additionality, permanence, and co-benefits; (3) project-level documentation including validation and verification reports, monitoring data, and grievance mechanisms; and (4) alignment with corporate disclosure requirements under CSRD, SEC climate rules, and voluntary frameworks such as VCMI Claims Code of Practice. The VCMI framework specifically requires that carbon credit claims are supplementary to validated internal decarbonisation efforts—credits cannot substitute for Scope 1 and 2 reductions. For EU-headquartered companies, due diligence must also address Article 6 implications: whether credits originate from countries with corresponding adjustment mechanisms preventing double-counting against Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Portfolio Construction: The strategic allocation of carbon credit procurement across project types, geographies, vintages, and permanence categories to optimise risk-adjusted climate impact per euro spent. Modern portfolio theory concepts apply: diversification across removal and avoidance credits, technology and nature-based approaches, and registry programmes reduces concentration risk. The unit economics vary dramatically—landfill methane capture trades at €8–15/tCO₂, improved cookstoves at €12–25/tCO₂, afforestation/reforestation at €15–40/tCO₂, biochar at €80–150/tCO₂, and direct air capture at €300–600/tCO₂. A balanced portfolio might allocate 50% to CCP-approved avoidance credits, 30% to nature-based removals with A-rated permanence provisions, and 20% to technology-based removals for permanence insurance. Vintage management is equally critical: forward purchasing (advance market commitments) secures supply and often achieves 20–40% discounts versus spot markets, while avoiding speculative accumulation of legacy credits facing devaluation risk.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

ICVCM Standardisation: The Core Carbon Principles have established a credible threshold standard that is gaining market traction. By requiring third-party validation across ten criteria, CCP labels provide procurement teams with auditable quality signals. CCP-eligible programmes (Verra, Gold Standard, ACR, CAR, ART, Isometric) already cover 98% of historical market volume, and the ongoing methodology assessment pipeline—27 categories under review as of late 2024—progressively expands the CCP-labelled supply pool.

Third-Party Rating Convergence: Credit rating agencies have achieved increasing consistency in their scoring methodologies. Analysis by Carbon Direct found that Sylvera, BeZero, and Calyx ratings converged to within one grade for 78% of assessed projects in 2024, up from 61% in 2022. This convergence enables procurement teams to establish rating thresholds (e.g., "minimum B+ across two agencies") as practical due diligence filters.

Corporate Advance Market Commitments: Microsoft's multi-year carbon removal purchases—including 3.5 million credits in January 2025 and 8 million removal credits from BTG Pactual TIG in April 2025—demonstrate that pre-purchase agreements can simultaneously secure supply, support project finance for novel removal technologies, and achieve price certainty. Frontier, the €1 billion+ advance market commitment coalition, has committed €500 million+ to early-stage removal projects, proving that demand aggregation can catalyse supply-side innovation.

Regulatory Clarity on Disclosure: The SEC's climate disclosure rules (despite litigation uncertainty) and CSRD's double materiality requirements are compelling standardised offset disclosure practices. Companies must now report offset usage within transition plans, distinguishing between avoidance and removal credits, disclosing prices paid, and explaining how offsets complement rather than replace direct reductions. This transparency is exposing low-integrity procurement practices to stakeholder scrutiny.

What Isn't Working

Methodology Rejection Controversies: The ICVCM's rejection of all legacy renewable energy methodologies created market disruption, stranding billions of credits from wind and solar projects that no longer meet additionality criteria. While scientifically justified—grid-connected renewables are increasingly cost-competitive without carbon finance—the transition has challenged corporate procurement strategies reliant on renewable energy credits. Approximately 43% of 2024 retirements still came from low-rated projects, indicating that buyer behaviour lags behind integrity standards.

Transparency Stagnation: Anonymous credit retirements reached 45% in 2024, unchanged from prior years despite market integrity initiatives. Without public disclosure of buyers and prices, market participants cannot benchmark procurement quality, and low-integrity credits continue finding anonymous offtakers. The VCMI's Claims Code of Practice requires retirement transparency for credible climate claims, but adoption remains voluntary.

REDD+ Integrity Challenges: Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) projects—historically the largest category by volume—continue facing credibility questions. Verra's VM0048 methodology achieved CCP approval, but legacy REDD+ credits from earlier methodologies carry elevated reversal and baseline inflation risks. The Science article findings (2023) suggesting that >90% of certain REDD+ credits were non-additional have not been fully rebutted, forcing buyers toward the more expensive jurisdictional REDD+ approaches that achieve corresponding adjustments under Article 6.

Article 6 Implementation Delays: COP29 in Baku finalised Article 6 rules governing international carbon credit trading, but implementation infrastructure—national registries, corresponding adjustment tracking, and bilateral agreement frameworks—remains incomplete. Without clarity on which voluntary credits can claim host country adjustment without double-counting against NDCs, procurement teams face regulatory uncertainty that discounts credit values.

Key Players

Established Leaders

Verra — The largest carbon credit registry, administering the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) with >1.8 billion credits issued historically. Verra achieved CCP eligibility for its programme and specific methodologies including VM0048 (jurisdictional REDD+) and landfill gas capture. Operates the consolidated REDD+ methodology and oversees the Climate, Community & Biodiversity (CCB) Standards for co-benefit certification. Annual verification volume exceeds 200 million credits.

Gold Standard — The premium voluntary standard requiring sustainable development co-benefits alongside emission reductions. Founded by WWF, Gold Standard achieved CCP eligibility and approval for its metered cookstove methodology. Particularly strong in household energy access projects across Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with average credit prices 30–50% above Verra equivalents. Registry volume approximately 250 million credits historically.

South Pole — The largest carbon project developer and credit retailer globally, operating >700 projects across 50+ countries. Provides end-to-end services from project development through credit sales, with particular strength in nature-based solutions and community energy access. Annual credit sales exceed 50 million tonnes CO₂e. Headquartered in Zurich with significant EU policy engagement.

Sylvera — The leading carbon credit rating agency, providing project-level scores on additionality, permanence, and co-benefits. Sylvera's ratings are increasingly specified in corporate procurement policies as minimum quality thresholds. The platform covers >10,000 projects across registries, with automated satellite monitoring for nature-based solutions. Raised €50 million in Series B funding (2023).

MSCI Carbon Markets — Provides carbon credit pricing indices and market analytics used for portfolio valuation, disclosure, and benchmarking. The MSCI Voluntary Carbon Credit Index tracks credit prices across categories, enabling mark-to-market portfolio accounting. Integration with MSCI ESG ratings influences institutional investor evaluation of corporate offset strategies.

Emerging Startups

Isometric — Registry and verification platform specifically designed for engineered carbon removals (direct air capture, enhanced weathering, biochar, ocean alkalinity enhancement). Isometric's registry achieved CCP eligibility, providing scientific review processes tailored to novel removal technologies. Notable for publishing detailed lifecycle assessments and methodology documentation. Partnership with Stripe Climate for removal credit procurement.

Pachama — Technology platform using satellite imagery, LiDAR, and machine learning to monitor forest carbon projects. Provides independent above-ground biomass estimates that complement project developer claims, enabling buyer due diligence for nature-based solutions. Platform monitors >50 million hectares across verified projects. Raised €65 million Series C (2023) with deployment across major corporate buyers.

Lune — API-first carbon credit procurement platform enabling businesses to embed offset purchasing into products and services. Provides pre-vetted credit portfolios meeting specified integrity criteria, reducing procurement complexity for non-specialist buyers. Integration partnerships with payment platforms (Stripe, Checkout.com) and e-commerce systems. London-headquartered with EU regulatory expertise.

CarbonCure Technologies — Concrete technology company that mineralises CO₂ into concrete during mixing, providing permanent carbon storage in building materials. Credits verified under VCS and eligible for procurement by construction sector buyers facing CBAM exposure. Technology deployed in >700 concrete plants, with carbon credits representing ancillary revenue alongside primary technology licensing.

BeZero Carbon — Carbon credit rating agency competing with Sylvera, providing independent project scores and portfolio analytics. BeZero's proprietary BeZero Carbon Rating covers 300+ methodologies and 15,000+ projects, with particular depth in REDD+ and improved forest management. European operations support CSRD-aligned disclosure requirements.

Key Investors & Funders

Breakthrough Energy Ventures — Bill Gates-backed climate technology fund with significant carbon removal investments including Climeworks, Carbon Engineering, and Heirloom Carbon. Portfolio approach spans both supply-side (removal technologies) and demand-side (offset market infrastructure) investments. Fund III closed at €1 billion (2024), with carbon markets explicitly identified as investment priority.

Generation Investment Management — Sustainable investment firm co-founded by Al Gore, with public equity, private equity, and venture capital strategies. Generation's climate solutions fund has backed carbon market infrastructure including project developers and verification technology. Assets under management exceed €30 billion with systematic ESG integration.

European Investment Bank — The EU's development finance institution, providing catalytic capital for carbon market development particularly in Global South project development. EIB's carbon pricing instruments support Article 6 pilot projects and result-based climate finance mechanisms. Blended finance structures de-risk early-stage project development.

Bezos Earth Fund — €10 billion philanthropic commitment to climate and nature, with significant allocation to nature-based carbon removal research and demonstration. Funding supports scientific infrastructure for permanence monitoring and additionality verification. Notable grants to academic institutions developing carbon credit quality assessment frameworks.

Examples

1. Microsoft's Carbon Removal Portfolio — Scaling High-Integrity Procurement

Microsoft's carbon negative commitment (removing more carbon than emitted by 2030) has made it the voluntary market's most sophisticated procurement organisation. In 2024, Microsoft's internal carbon fee of €30/tCO₂ generated approximately €100 million annually for removal credit purchases, deployed across 26 supplier projects spanning biochar, direct air capture, forestry, and soil carbon.

The procurement approach demonstrates portfolio construction principles. Microsoft published detailed scoring criteria across additionality (30% weighting), durability/permanence (25%), verification (20%), scalability (15%), and co-benefits (10%). Only suppliers achieving weighted scores above 0.7 qualify for consideration; actual contracts require site-specific due diligence including satellite monitoring agreements and annual verification.

Unit economics reveal the premium for permanence: Microsoft paid average prices of €300–400/tCO₂ for direct air capture (Climeworks, Heirloom), €100–150/tCO₂ for biochar (Charm Industrial), and €15–40/tCO₂ for enhanced forestry with extended rotation periods. The portfolio averaged €150/tCO₂—far above market spot prices but reflecting genuine removal with permanence guarantees exceeding 100 years.

For EU compliance teams, Microsoft's approach provides a template: internal carbon pricing creates procurement budget, published criteria establish auditable standards, third-party monitoring enables verification, and diversified sourcing manages supply risk. The commitment to €1.5 billion+ through 2030 demonstrates that high-integrity procurement is economically viable for organisations with genuine climate commitments.

2. EU CBAM Transitional Phase — Carbon Market Convergence

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism's October 2023 launch created immediate demand for carbon accounting infrastructure across EU import supply chains. CBAM covers cement, iron and steel, aluminium, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen—sectors representing >50% of EU ETS covered emissions but historically minimal voluntary market participation.

From July 2024, importers were required to report actual emissions data rather than default values, with at least 80% of embedded emissions verified from production facilities. This requirement pushed carbon accounting down supply chains into geographies with limited measurement infrastructure. Turkish steel producers, Ukrainian fertilizer manufacturers, and Indian aluminium smelters scrambled to implement facility-level monitoring—creating consulting opportunities for European MRV providers and technology vendors.

The market arbitrage implications are significant. CBAM certificate prices will track EU ETS auctions (€70–85/tCO₂ through 2024), while production facilities can claim credits for carbon prices paid domestically. Countries implementing carbon pricing—India, Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil—may enable their exporters to reduce CBAM liabilities by demonstrating domestic carbon cost internalisation. This creates policy pressure for carbon market proliferation: the "Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets" launched at COP30 aims to harmonise standards across jurisdictions.

For voluntary market participants, CBAM exposure of supply chain partners creates procurement opportunities. Forward-thinking corporates are using voluntary credits to demonstrate supplier engagement on decarbonisation—even where credits cannot directly offset CBAM liabilities—as evidence of transition planning for CSRD disclosure purposes. The convergence of compliance and voluntary markets is accelerating, with high-integrity voluntary credits potentially qualifying under future Article 6 bilateral agreements.

3. Swiss Re's Internal Carbon Levy — Insurer Risk Management

Swiss Re implemented an internal carbon levy in 2021, reaching €200/tCO₂ by 2030 with 2024 prices at €120/tCO₂. The reinsurance giant's approach explicitly links carbon pricing to underwriting risk: facilities and supply chains with lower carbon intensity receive preferential procurement treatment, while the levy funds a removal credit portfolio targeting net zero operational emissions.

The procurement strategy emphasises quality over volume. Swiss Re's 2024 retirement report disclosed average prices of €85/tCO₂—approximately 300% above market benchmarks—reflecting exclusive procurement of A-rated credits with third-party verification. The portfolio allocated 40% to engineered removals (biochar, enhanced weathering), 35% to high-integrity afforestation/reforestation with 40-year monitoring commitments, and 25% to community cookstove projects meeting Gold Standard requirements.

The WACC implications are explicit in Swiss Re's strategy. As a major reinsurer, the company's climate risk expertise informs its view that high-carbon portfolios face elevated capital costs under emerging prudential regulation. By demonstrating sophisticated carbon management—internal pricing, high-integrity procurement, transparent disclosure—Swiss Re signals lower transition risk to rating agencies and regulators. The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) has explicitly endorsed internal carbon pricing as evidence of climate risk management capability.

For EU compliance teams, Swiss Re's approach illustrates the linkage between offset quality and financial performance. Carbon credit procurement is not merely CSR expenditure but risk management investment with quantifiable capital cost implications under emerging regulatory frameworks.

Action Checklist

• Establish internal carbon pricing at €50–100/tCO₂ minimum: Create ring-fenced procurement budgets indexed to emissions, generating predictable demand for offset purchasing and creating internal incentives for direct reduction. Benchmark against EU ETS prices (€70–85/tCO₂) and anticipated CBAM certificate costs.

• Develop procurement criteria aligned with ICVCM Core Carbon Principles: Require CCP labels or equivalent third-party ratings (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx minimum B+) for all credit purchases. Document methodology review, additionality assessment, and permanence provisions for CSRD disclosure.

• Implement portfolio construction across permanence categories: Allocate 50% to CCP-approved avoidance credits, 30% to nature-based removals with A-rated permanence buffers, and 20% to technology-based removals (biochar, DAC) for permanence insurance. Diversify across registries and geographies.

• Verify registry records before retirement: Confirm unique serial numbers, absence of prior retirements, methodology version, validation/verification dates, and buffer pool status. Screenshot registry records as audit evidence.

• Integrate offset disclosure into CSRD transition planning: Report credit usage distinguishing avoidance versus removal, disclose prices paid, explain complementarity with direct reduction targets, and align with VCMI Claims Code of Practice for "Carbon Integrity" or "Net Zero Aligned" claims.

• Assess supply chain CBAM exposure and corresponding adjustment implications: For suppliers in CBAM-covered sectors, evaluate whether voluntary credit procurement can support transition planning disclosure even where credits cannot offset compliance liabilities. Monitor Article 6 bilateral agreement developments.

FAQ

Q: How should EU compliance teams evaluate whether carbon credits meet CSRD disclosure requirements for offset usage?

A: CSRD requires disclosure of how carbon credits complement rather than substitute for direct emission reductions. Credits must be reported separately from Scope 1/2/3 emissions, with clear distinction between avoidance and removal categories. For credible disclosure, procurement should align with the VCMI Claims Code of Practice, which requires: (1) achievement of near-term SBTi-validated reduction targets before making climate contribution claims; (2) procurement of credits meeting CCP or equivalent standards; (3) transparent disclosure of credit type, volume, price, and registry retirement evidence; and (4) third-party verification of claims. Auditors will increasingly scrutinise offset quality—A/B rated credits with documented additionality and permanence provisions satisfy disclosure requirements, while D-rated or unrated credits invite stakeholder and regulator challenge.

Q: What unit economics benchmarks should procurement teams use when constructing carbon credit portfolios?

A: Current market pricing (2024–2025) establishes reference ranges: landfill methane capture €8–15/tCO₂, improved cookstoves €12–25/tCO₂, afforestation/reforestation €15–40/tCO₂, avoided deforestation (jurisdictional REDD+) €10–25/tCO₂, biochar €80–150/tCO₂, enhanced weathering €80–200/tCO₂, and direct air capture €300–600/tCO₂. CCP-labelled credits command 30–50% premiums over equivalent unlabelled credits; A-rated credits trade at 50–100% premiums over C-rated credits from the same methodology. For budget planning, assume blended portfolio costs of €40–80/tCO₂ for compliance-grade procurement—significantly above historical market averages but necessary for integrity. Forward purchase agreements (3–5 year commitments) typically achieve 20–40% discounts versus spot prices while securing supply.

Q: How do SEC climate disclosure rules affect carbon credit procurement strategies for EU subsidiaries of US-listed companies?

A: The SEC's final climate disclosure rules (adopted March 2024, with phased implementation despite litigation) require disclosure of material climate-related expenditures including offset purchases within transition plans. For EU subsidiaries, this creates dual reporting requirements: SEC mandates for the consolidated US parent and CSRD mandates for EU operations. Alignment strategies should: (1) procure credits meeting both ICVCM CCP standards (CSRD-aligned) and CFTC guidance for carbon credit derivatives (SEC-aligned); (2) maintain consistent methodology for distinguishing avoidance versus removal credits across reporting frameworks; (3) document price discovery and valuation approaches for credit portfolio accounting; and (4) ensure registry retirement evidence is audit-ready for both SOX and CSRD assurance requirements. Procurement teams should work with external auditors to establish materiality thresholds for credit disclosure and consistent classification across jurisdictions.

Q: What role do voluntary carbon credits play in CBAM compliance, and how might this evolve under Article 6?

A: Currently, voluntary carbon credits cannot directly offset CBAM liabilities—only carbon prices paid under compliance mechanisms in the country of production qualify for CBAM adjustment. However, voluntary credits serve strategic purposes: (1) demonstrating supply chain decarbonisation engagement for CSRD transition plan disclosure; (2) potentially qualifying under future Article 6.2 bilateral agreements if corresponding adjustments are secured from host country NDCs; and (3) building procurement infrastructure and supplier relationships that can transition to compliance-grade mechanisms as they emerge. COP29's Article 6 rulebook finalisation enables bilateral carbon credit trading between countries, and several EU trading partners (Switzerland, Japan, Korea) are developing corresponding adjustment frameworks. Credits generated under Article 6.4 (successor to CDM) will eventually qualify for compliance purposes, creating optionality value for early procurement relationships with project developers operating in Article 6.4 pipelines.

Sources

• Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market. (2024). "Core Carbon Principles, Assessment Framework and Assessment Procedure, Version 2." ICVCM, January 2024.

• Ecosystem Marketplace. (2025). "State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2025: Meeting the Moment." Forest Trends.

• European Commission. (2024). "Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Implementing Regulation and Transitional Phase Reporting Requirements." EU 2023/956 consolidated version.

• Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative. (2024). "Claims Code of Practice: Version 2." VCMI.

• U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2024). "Voluntary Carbon Markets Joint Policy Statement and Principles." May 28, 2024.

• Sylvera. (2024). "The State of Carbon Credit Quality: 2024 Market Report." London: Sylvera.

• BeZero Carbon. (2024). "Carbon Credit Ratings Methodology: Version 4.0." London: BeZero Carbon.

• West, T.A.P., et al. (2023). "Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation." Science, 381(6660), 873-877.