Tencent, one of China’s largest technology firms, plans to form a carbon credit buyers’ alliance to help expand the supply of credits in the market. The company aims to launch this initiative by the end of 2025.
Carbon credits allow companies to offset greenhouse gas emissions by supporting projects that reduce or remove carbon. As firms face growing climate targets, the supply of high-quality carbon credits is becoming a key issue. Tencent’s initiative may help meet demand while improving market trust.
Tencent’s Scale and Market Muscle
Tencent is well placed to lead such an initiative. In 2024, the company reported revenue of RMB 660.3 billion (almost US$92 billion), up 8% year-on-year. Its gross profit rose by 19%.
With such scale and financial strength, Tencent has the capacity to invest in market mechanisms and alliances. Its size gives it market power. This can attract other corporations, project developers, and tech partners to join the alliance.
Tencent’s share price has shown a notable rise year‑to‑date, with a gain of around 50 % over the past 12 months. On a more recent weekly basis, the stock recorded a smaller uptick of approximately 2 % over the past five trading days.
What Tencent Aims to Achieve
The news was revealed by Ella Wang, a senior program director at Tencent’s Climate Innovation Hub, in an interview at the United Nations’ COP30 climate summit in Brazil.
The alliance will bring together corporations, investors, and carbon project developers. Tencent’s main aim is to make more carbon credits available for companies that want to reduce their net emissions. Many businesses now have a hard time finding certified credits. They especially seek high-quality ones from verified projects.
Tencent also plans to introduce digital tools to track carbon credit projects. These tools will make it easier for buyers to verify that credits are genuine and that projects deliver real environmental benefits.
The company envisions a market where credits are easier to trade and pricing is more predictable. The alliance can standardize processes and verification methods. This will help prevent disputes and reduce market confusion.
Moreover, the use of credible carbon credits is part of Tencent’s strategy to reach its carbon neutrality goal.
How the Alliance Will Work
Tencent expects its carbon credit alliance to bring together firms from the technology, manufacturing, and consumer sectors across Asia. The aim is to boost supply from Global South countries and to create a collective demand signal.
The company signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with GenZero. GenZero is a decarbonization investment platform owned by Temasek. Under this MoU, Tencent can offtake at least one million verified carbon credits over 15 years. This means at least one million tonnes of greenhouse gases will be avoided or removed.
Digital tools will play a key role. Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) technologies, possibly leveraging blockchain or advanced data, will help ensure that credits are real, measurable, and traceable. That helps raise trust in credits and the market. The alliance will also likely help:
- Support project developers to fund, certify, and issue credits.
- Ensure credits meet common quality standards.
- Create easier market access for buyers and sellers, reducing transaction costs and risks.
The Carbon Credit Market: China and Global Context
China’s carbon market is already big and growing. In 2021, the government started a national carbon trading system. This system includes key industries like power generation, cement, and steel. It allows companies to trade emission allowances and provides financial incentives to reduce pollution.
China’s national emissions trading system (ETS) includes over 5 billion metric tons of CO₂. This accounts for more than 40 percent of the country’s emissions.
Experts say that the use of digital tools and alliances like Tencent’s could help scale the market faster. Improved tracking and verification can make carbon trading more credible. Companies that were previously cautious may feel more confident in participating.
A recent study shows that China’s market contributes more than half of the global total among trading markets. The global voluntary carbon credit market is set to grow fast.
One estimate puts its value at $2.1 billion in 2025. It could reach $19.8 billion by 2035. Another forecast says the global carbon market could reach up to $250 billion by 2050 under the most favorable conditions.
Where Credits Fall Short and Prices Swing
The demand for verified, high-quality carbon credits currently appears to exceed supply in many markets. For example, when China reopened its voluntary carbon credit market in 2024, the price of the new China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) credits briefly rose to 107.36 yuan (≈USD 14.82) per ton and then fell to 72.81 yuan (≈USD 10).
These swings reflect a mismatch of demand and supply, as well as price uncertainty. On the compliance side, China’s ETS currently covers over 2,200 power plants and industrial firms. Analysts say that as the market grows in steel, cement, and aluminum, it could cover about 8 billion metric tons. This is over 60% of China’s emissions.
Given this, companies that need credits to meet their emissions targets may face a tight supply of trusted credits. Tencent’s buyers’ alliance could close the gap. It would pool demand, aid verification, and boost supply.
Why Corporations Are Joining
Companies are under increasing pressure to meet net-zero or carbon reduction goals. High-integrity carbon credits give them a way to offset unavoidable emissions. By joining Tencent’s alliance, firms can:
- get access to a larger pool of credits,
- reduce the risk of buying low-quality or unverifiable credits,
- shape market standards together with peers, and
- benefit from the credibility boost of a coordinated group.
For smaller companies, the alliance can help them get credits at a lower cost. It can also allow for shared purchasing. In turn, stronger credit supply and verification can boost companies’ confidence in meeting climate goals. This may also help attract investors, regulators, and customers.
What This Means Beyond China
If the alliance succeeds, it may influence carbon credit markets beyond China. A reliable mechanism in China for verified credits can:
- attract international buyers seeking high-quality credits,
- set an example for digital verification and collaboration in Asia and other emerging markets,
- encourage more supply from Global South countries by signalling demand, and
- potentially increase cross-border trade in credits as integrity improves.
Given that the global voluntary credit market is expected to grow strongly, improvements in supply, standards, and transparency matter. This initiative may help bridge the gap between compliance systems and voluntary offset markets.
Tencent’s Bold Step Forward
Tencent’s plan to form a carbon credit buyers’ alliance comes at a time when corporate demand for verified credits is rising, and the supply side still faces challenges. With remarkable revenue and financial results, Tencent has the capacity to lead such an initiative.
By pooling demand, supporting verification, and using digital tools, the alliance may help improve supply and market trust. For corporations, this offers a path to more reliable offsets and could serve as a model for boosting high-integrity credits.
How well the alliance deals with the challenges will shape its impact. But as an effort, this marks a meaningful step toward more organized, transparent, and scalable carbon credit markets in China and beyond.
The post Tencent to Form Carbon Credit Buyers’ Alliance: How Could it Transform China’s Carbon Market? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
- What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
- What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
- What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
- What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
- What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months 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”
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测