The voluntary carbon market (VCM) enters 2026 with stronger foundations than a year ago. Despite political headwinds in 2025, investment, contracting, and integrity standards advanced.
According to Abatable’s 2026 market report, forward carbon credit contracts rose 58% year-on-year to $5.8 billion in 2025. This surge shows that buyers are locking in future supply rather than relying on spot purchases.
Funding for carbon credit projects reached $15.8 billion in 2025, even after a slowdown in engineered removal investments. Notably, nature-based funding hit a record $9 billion, signaling strong demand for high-integrity supply.
At the same time, compliance markets are reshaping demand patterns. CORSIA, the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, is set to create an extra 78 million tonnes of demand by 2026. This is in addition to the 58 million tonnes needed for 2024 emissions.
But the most significant structural shift may come from Japan.
GX-ETS: From Voluntary Signal to Compliance Engine
Japan’s new GX-ETS (Green Transformation Emissions Trading Scheme) becomes mandatory in April 2026. The Asian country emits roughly 1 billion tonnes of CO₂ per year. The GX-ETS will initially cover 500–600 million tonnes annually, more than half of national emissions.
- Between 300 and 400 companies will be regulated under the scheme.
Companies will be allowed to meet up to 10% of their compliance obligations using carbon credits. That creates potential demand of 50–60 million tonnes of credits per year.
For comparison, total voluntary carbon market retirements across major registries were 163 million tonnes in 2025. Japan alone could represent roughly one-third of that volume in compliance-driven demand.
This is not incremental; it is structural.
Convergence in Practice: J-Credits and JCM
Japan’s design shows how compliance and voluntary systems are merging. Companies can use two credit routes under GX-ETS:
- J-Credits – Japan’s domestic carbon credit scheme
- Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) – An Article 6.2 international crediting system with 29 partner countries
J-Credits cover nature-based solutions, renewable energy, and industrial efficiency. Engineered removals such as BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) and DAC(direct air capture) are expected to be added in future phases.
The JCM focuses largely on avoidance projects, including renewable energy and efficiency measures. This structure links Japan’s domestic compliance market directly to international carbon trading under the Paris Agreement. It effectively blends compliance demand with voluntary market infrastructure.
Why This Matters for the VCM: From Optional Offsets to Structured Demand
The voluntary market has long relied on corporate net-zero commitments. Yet, that driver is evolving.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) remains the most influential corporate demand-side framework. Its new Corporate Net Zero Standard V2 draft introduces the concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER). Companies may be recognized for addressing ongoing emissions using carbon credits.
This shifts the narrative. Credits are no longer seen only as optional compensation tools. They may become structured components of transition plans.
Meanwhile, integrity has become central.
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) has approved 40 CCP methodologies across eight programs. CCP-approved methods might create 865 million more credits by 2035. That’s a ninefold rise from current levels.
Even so, CCP-eligible credits are projected to represent only 12.7% of cumulative voluntary supply by 2035. In this context, Japan’s GX-ETS creates guaranteed, regulated demand for credits that meet compliance rules.
This may increase price discipline and quality screening.
Asia Emerges as the Carbon Pricing Growth Hub
Japan is not acting alone. China is expanding its national ETS and moving toward absolute emissions caps. India plans to launch its Carbon Credit Trading Scheme in mid-2026.
Across Asia, carbon pricing systems now cover hundreds of millions of tonnes of emissions. Globally, carbon pricing instruments cover about 28% of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Bank.
Japan’s GX-ETS will become Asia’s second-largest carbon market.
This regional shift is important. Asia makes up a big part of global emissions and industrial output. When compliance systems in big economies allow some use of carbon credits, they connect voluntary methods to formal rules.
Several other Asian countries already run, or are building, carbon pricing systems.
South Korea operates the Korea Emissions Trading System (K-ETS), launched in 2015. It is one of the largest ETS programs in the region. The International Energy Agency reports that K-ETS includes nearly 80% of Korea’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions. It also targets around 800 of the country’s largest emitters.
Singapore uses a national carbon tax instead of an ETS. The National Environment Agency says Singapore raised its carbon tax to S$25 per tonne in 2024 and 2025, and it will rise to S$45 per tonne in 2026 and 2027. Starting in 2024, Singapore allowed companies to offset up to 5% of taxable emissions. They can use eligible international carbon credits for this.
Indonesia has moved into carbon trading through a formal exchange. The Indonesia Stock Exchange’s carbon platform, IDXCarbon, launched in September 2023, after the country’s financial regulator granted the operator a license. Indonesia’s wider system is expected to evolve into a hybrid model that links trading with a carbon tax-style backstop.
Vietnam has also set a clear roadmap. The International Carbon Action Partnership states that Vietnam updated its carbon market rules in June 2025. It also mandated a pilot ETS starting in August 2025. A fully functioning carbon market is expected by 2029.
These programs show how carbon markets are spreading across Asia through different policy designs. Some countries use cap-and-trade systems. Others use carbon taxes with limited credit use. These models can boost cross-border linkages over time. As Article 6 systems grow, buyers will look for credits that fit both voluntary and compliance needs.
Tightening Supply, Rising Quality Premiums
Supply dynamics are also shifting. Following the 2021 issuance peak, the 2025 supply continued to decline. The net surplus of credits fell to Abatable’s 2026 market report, down from 123 million in 2024.
Avoidance projects still dominate supply. Cookstoves, industrial efficiency, renewable energy, and REDD+ accounted for 222 million tonnes, or 83% of supply in 2025.
Notably, forward pricing data show buyers paying premiums for higher-integrity methodologies, especially CCP-approved projects. Meanwhile, engineered removals remain scarce and expensive. Biochar leads in engineered supply offers. Other removal types mainly use forward contracts for trading.
As compliance markets such as GX-ETS and CORSIA expand, demand for eligible units may tighten supply and lift prices. For CORSIA alone, total First Phase demand is projected at 200–220 million tonnes.
Adding potential GX-ETS demand of 50–60 million tonnes per year changes the scale of market expectations.
2026: A Structural Realignment, Compliance and VCM Begin to Merge
The convergence between compliance and voluntary markets is no longer theoretical. Japan’s GX-ETS demonstrates a model where:
- A large national ETS covers over half of emissions
- Companies can use carbon credits for 10% of compliance
- Domestic and international credit systems integrate
- Integrity standards increasingly define eligibility
This integration creates predictable demand. It may also reduce reputational risk for buyers. Credits used in compliance systems face higher scrutiny.
For voluntary buyers, this strengthens signals around quality and durability, while for project developers, it offers more stable forward revenue. For policymakers, it creates flexibility without abandoning emissions caps.
The VCM deployed 55 million tonnes of high-quality credits through Abatable’s platform alone, across more than 200 companies
In 2026, the market looks more institutional. Forward contracting is rising, integrity standards are tightening, and compliance systems are opening to credit use.
Japan’s GX-ETS may prove to be the clearest sign yet that carbon markets are moving toward structured integration. If 2025 was about resilience, 2026 may be about alignment. And Japan is leading that shift.
- READ MORE: The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond?
The post 2026 Could Redefine Voluntary and Compliance Carbon Market Convergence, with Japan Leading the Way appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits