Carbon credits are increasingly essential for investors and businesses aiming to reduce emissions. According to Abatable’s latest report, the voluntary carbon market (VCM) is growing rapidly, attracting $16.3 billion in funding in 2024.
This is 18 times higher than the total value of credit retirements, highlighting a shift toward long-term commitments rather than short-term carbon offset purchases. Compared to previous years, this represents a significant rise, underscoring the increasing role of carbon markets in corporate sustainability strategies.
Governments, companies, and investors are under pressure to integrate climate action into their operations. The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which places a tariff on carbon-intensive imports, is expected to drive higher demand for trusted carbon credits.
As regulations evolve globally, businesses that adopt high-quality carbon credits early may gain a competitive advantage. Let’s learn why and the key trends shaping the market.
Net Zero’s Secret Weapon: Why Corporations are Doubling Down on Carbon Credits
Companies are the biggest buyers of carbon credits, using them to compensate for emissions they cannot yet eliminate. Many of these emissions fall under Scope 3 emissions, which come from supply chains, transportation, and other indirect sources. Addressing Scope 3 emissions is one of the most difficult challenges for businesses pursuing net-zero goals, making carbon credits a crucial tool.
Among the sectors leading this shift, the aviation industry is significantly increasing its reliance on carbon credits. The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) could add demand for 135–182 million tons of credits by 2026. This is equal to 28-37% of the current voluntary market retirements.
This reflects airlines’ efforts to comply with stricter environmental standards while maintaining operations.
Major corporations are also making significant commitments. Microsoft has pledged to buy millions of tons of carbon removal credits as part of its long-term net-zero plan. Other companies, such as Google, Delta Air Lines, and Amazon, are investing in carbon credits to offset emissions from operations and supply chains. Amazon, for instance, is funding large-scale forest conservation projects to balance its growing carbon footprint.
Financial institutions are emerging as key players in the carbon market. Many banks and investment funds are creating carbon credit portfolios, viewing them as a new asset class with long-term growth potential.
According to Abatable’s report, institutional investors focusing on sustainability and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments are expected to increase their participation in the market.
The Shift to Carbon Removals
A major trend in 2024 is the increasing investment in carbon removal projects rather than avoidance-based credits. Investors prefer projects that remove CO₂ from the air, such as direct air capture (DAC) and afforestation, because they provide measurable and permanent carbon reductions.
Avoidance credits, such as forest conservation (REDD+), have faced pricing challenges. Older REDD+ credits have sold for lower prices, from $6.1 to $3.5 per ton due to concerns about their reliability.
However, newer REDD+ projects aligned with high-integrity standards are in higher demand. Investors are prioritizing credits that ensure long-term carbon storage rather than those that merely prevent emissions from increasing.
Another growing area is blue carbon credits, which come from coastal and marine ecosystems such as mangroves and seagrass. These environments store carbon at much higher rates than terrestrial forests and provide additional benefits like protecting biodiversity and supporting local communities.
For example, projects in Indonesia and Kenya are restoring degraded mangroves to generate blue carbon credits. Investors are increasingly interested in these projects due to their dual benefits of carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration.
Ensuring Quality and Trust in the Market
The credibility of carbon credits is critical for their success. New international standards, such as the Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) from the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (IC-VCM), are improving market transparency.
- In 2024, 50% of all retired credits met high-quality standards, up from 29% in 2021, demonstrating a move toward more trustworthy offsets.
CORSIA-eligible credits are also gaining popularity, particularly among airlines looking to meet strict environmental regulations. As more industries adopt these high-quality standards, the voluntary carbon market is expected to become more reliable and impactful.
Technology is playing a key role in improving market integrity. Blockchain-based carbon credit tracking and digital measurement, reporting, and verification (dMRV) tools are reducing the risks of fraud and double counting. These innovations allow real-time tracking of carbon credits, giving investors greater confidence in their authenticity and impact.
What’s Next for Carbon Pricing?
Despite strong demand, carbon credit prices fell in 2024 due to an oversupply of older credits. However, removal credits, especially for afforestation and biochar, remained valuable. Biochar credits, for instance, traded between $200 and $1,200 per ton, reflecting their high demand and limited supply.
Experts predict that high-quality credits will continue to trade at premium prices, while lower-quality credits may struggle to find buyers.
Abatable’s report predicts growth in the voluntary carbon market. This growth is fueled by corporate sustainability goals and compliance tools such as CBAM and CORSIA. Stricter regulations are coming. Businesses investing in reliable, high-integrity credits will better meet their sustainability goals. This will help them keep public trust.
Financial tools for carbon credits are also evolving. Forward contracts, pre-financing agreements, and credit insurance are making investments in carbon credits more secure. These financial products help project developers raise capital and provide investors with more certainty about future returns.
Forward price curves for carbon credits remain higher than today’s spot market prices, per Abatable report:
- REDD+ and Cookstove Credits: Expected to be issued under improved methodologies, these credits are priced between $11-$15 per tonne in forward markets, compared to $3-$6 per tonne in the spot market.
- Other Credit Types: Future vintages (2025-2029) for wetlands, improved forest management, afforestation, and reforestation projects are priced above $20 per tonne, reflecting a premium over current spot prices.
- Stable Pricing: Forward price curves suggest modest, incremental price increases over time, indicating long-term stability in the carbon credit market.
The Future of Carbon Investing
The voluntary carbon market is undergoing rapid change, with investment playing a central role in shaping its future. Companies and investors are focusing on high-quality carbon removal projects, while new standards and technologies are improving market transparency.
As the market evolves, investors may find opportunities in emerging sectors, particularly those prioritizing projects producing high-integrity carbon removal credits. Blue carbon, direct air capture, and afforestation are poised to attract more funding in the coming years.
The post Carbon Credits Surge: $16B Fuels 2024’s Race for High-Quality Offsets 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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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