What Does the New VCMI Code Mean for Carbon Credit Usage?
The carbon credit/carbon offset market has been a topic of both celebration and contention. Purchasing carbon credits can fund climate benefit projects like reforestation that ultimately help the world mitigate climate change. Yet the lack of global regulatory clarity has coincided with confusion, risk, and sometimes even deception within the voluntary carbon market.
However, new rules and universal best practices are emerging in ways that will:
- Improve quality within voluntary carbon markets
- Increase businesses’ confidence in funding climate benefit projects
- Bring clarity to consumers and other stakeholders around companies’ sustainability credentials
One of the most significant developments in this area has been the June 2023 release of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) Claims Code of Practice. While not a panacea, this code is an important step forward toward companies being able to reliably use carbon credits in ways that are aligned with scientific best practices.
What Is the VCMI Claims Code of Practice?
Following a provisional release last year, the VCMI’s new Claims of Code of Practice specifies how businesses can make trustworthy claims related to the use of carbon credits in ways that are aligned with the Paris Agreement.
The code includes four steps to make VCMI Claims:
1) Comply with VCMI foundational criteria
To start, businesses that voluntarily comply with the code need to meet foundational criteria, such as setting science-based near-term emissions reduction targets, along with publicly committing to reaching net zero by 2050.
However, reducing emissions and reaching net zero isn’t just a matter of buying carbon credits to offset emissions. While there’s flexibility in terms of which net zero framework to use, companies have to disclose “globally recognized sustainability frameworks or guidance” they’re using, VCMI explains.
Under the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), for example, carbon credits don’t count as reductions in terms of reaching near-term targets. SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard also says that most companies need to cut 90% or more of emissions, and then use permanent carbon removal and storage to offset residual emissions.
2) Choose a VCMI Claim
After meeting foundational criteria, businesses can make one of three VCMI Claims. The three levels correspond to companies purchasing and retiring high-quality carbon credits equal to the following percentages of their remaining emissions for the most recent reporting year:
- VCMI Platinum: 100% or more
- VCMI Gold: 60% to < 100%
- VCMI Silver: 20% to < 60%
Again, these credits are not a substitute for emissions reductions; they must be used “to finance additional climate mitigation” while the company also works toward meeting near-term emissions reduction targets, as VCMI explains.
3) Meet Carbon Credit Usage and Quality Requirements
When using carbon credits to make VCMI Claims, companies also need to follow certain requirements. For one, carbon credits will need to be CCP-approved when available, meaning they meet the standards of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles.
Companies also have to disclose details about the carbon credits they use, like project IDs and methodologies.
4) Get Third-Party Assurance
Lastly, companies will need to get independent, third-party assurance that they’re meeting the requirements for making VCMI claims. This assurance will need to adhere to the VCMI Monitoring Reporting & Assurance (MRA) Framework, which is set to be published in November 2023.

What Are the Benefits of Making a VCMI Claim?
By following these rules and making VCMI claims, your business can communicate to stakeholders that you’re using carbon credits and working toward net zero in a way that’s aligned with reaching the Paris Agreement goals.
Rather than stating that your business is carbon neutral solely by way of carbon offsets, for example, you might state that your business is VCMI Platinum, signifying that you’re funding climate benefit projects while working toward science-based emissions reductions.
Taking this approach, rooted in climate science, can help win over doubters who are put off by low-quality carbon credits plaguing the voluntary carbon market.
Bad actors can sour the market, but new standards, like those set by the VCMI and ICVCM, are helping to change stakeholder perceptions while supporting important goals, like trying to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Part of the debate over carbon credits is that some stakeholders see global climate regulation as the only way forward. If countries and companies were aggressively regulated and taxed in order to meet the Paris Agreement goals, then the carbon credit market as we know it might not be necessary.
The reality, however, is that we’re closing in on a decade passing since the Paris Agreement. The climate picture is arguably bleaker than it was then, as evidenced by the most recent IPCC report. The political will to meet these goals in their entirety just doesn’t seem to be there, so supplements like funding climate benefit projects to meet VCMI Claims should be taken seriously.
What Will Happen to Carbon Markets Going Forward?
The new VCMI rules are an important step for carbon markets, and other organizations are also moving forward with related rules around carbon credits and climate claims.
For example, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is cracking down on fraud in carbon markets, such as double counting and fraudulent statements about carbon credit terms.
While that might sound negative for carbon markets at first glance, going after bad actors could help bring confidence back to high-quality carbon credits. Highly regulated securities like publicly traded stocks give investors confidence that they’re getting what they pay for when they buy shares, and ideally the same should happen in carbon markets.
New disclosure standards from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) should also help. As part of these standards (which regulatory agencies around the world could use as a model for future regulation), companies need to disclose how carbon credits fit into any net greenhouse gas emissions targets.

So, these types of frameworks could bring further confidence to carbon markets, as consumers, investors, and others will be able to more clearly understand how carbon credits fit into a company’s operations.
Rather than assuming a company is green washing when using terms like carbon neutral, for example, they will be able to make more informed judgments.
If a business has not been able to cut emissions significantly but still invests heavily in climate benefit projects, that does not mean the business is inherently sustainable. But stakeholders at least have the clarity to decide whether they want to engage with that business vs. others that might be polluting without also giving back as much to climate mitigation efforts.
Meanwhile, businesses that can both cut emissions and fund climate benefit projects, like those that make VCMI claims, can stand out from competitors that lack the same veracity of their sustainability efforts.
Some of these rules and standards will take time to solidify, but businesses that want to get a head start on measuring, managing, and marketing their carbon footprint strategies can do so through Terrapass and our vetted, high-quality partners.
Brought to you by terrapass.com
Featured image:
The post What Does the New VCMI Code Mean for Carbon Credit Usage? appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Want a simpler way to buy carbon credits? Discover our carbon marketplace
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.
![]()
Carbon Footprint
Climate-Linked Supply Chain Risk Is Already in Your P&L
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.
Carbon Footprint
Where should an SME start with a carbon action plan?
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
