MethodologyContact usSupportLogin
“It has, in a very short period of time, already received a good amount of support… I think it comes with the understanding that this is [what is] needed for the market,” Avzaradel Szklo said.
VCMI published its updated Claims Code of Practice in late April 2025, along with its Scope 3 Action Code of Practice, which aims to build integrity in voluntary carbon markets (VCM) through providing clarity, transparency and consistency on commitments and claims.
The guidance sets out a four-stage process for participants looking to make a claim under the Code: comply with foundational criteria, select a VCMI claim to make, meet required use and quality thresholds, and obtain third-party verification on the claim.
Support for VCMI’s guidance has come from various different sources, including the governments of Peru, Panama, the UK, France and Singapore, according to VCMI.
In addition, companies are also supporting VCMI’s Claims Code, with the intention that it be used across a wide base.
“The Code of Practice is for global acceptance, so by definition it is to be used by any companies, in any sector, in any place,” Avzaradel Szklo told Fastmarkets.
One of the main principles that has guided the work is “radical transparency” within the VCM, because 95% of information VCMI requires from companies needs to be publicly disclosed, not just submitted to VCMI.
“It was interesting to see the reaction from the market because we ask companies to directly disclose [information]. But the market also expected that from VCMI,” she said.
“We are also working to very soon launch a dashboard which is going to transparently disclose all the information pertaining to the carbon credits that are purchased [when making VCMI claims],” she added.
Within the Claims Code of Practice, VCMI supported the use of Article 6 credits as well as the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles (CCP).
ICVCM’s 10 CCPs aim to ensure integrity in the VCM across governance, emissions impact and sustainable development.
“We’ve copied and pasted every single one of the 10 CCPs into the VCMI Claims Code of Practice so that corporate buyers of high-quality carbon credits have all the information in one place,” Avzaradel Szklo told Fastmarkets.
“And they really understand what we mean by high quality,” she said. “[ICVCM’s] work has been fundamental in establishing quality standards within [the] VCM.”
“One of the issues that we used to hear about two to three years ago was lack of common understanding on what high quality would mean. And we don’t hear that anymore,” she added.
From January 1, 2026, VCMI will require companies to retire CCP-approved or Article 6.4 credits when making claims. Until the earliest of either this date or when these credits become widely available, VCMI offers companies the option to purchase and retire Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) eligible credits from methodologies not yet assessed by the ICVCM, or disclose how due diligence processes align with all 10 CCPs.
But the question remains what will happen if the transition to CCP approval takes longer than anticipated. But VCMI noted that ICVCM has already assessed methodologies covering 40% of credits in the market, marking a transition.
“I believe ICVCM has assessed methodologies covering 40% of carbon credits in the market. So, it is a transition phase as we see it,” Avzaradel Szklo said. “Some of the methodologies are being updated so that [they] can be submitted and approved by the ICVCM. They’re working strongly to make that transition possible in the market.”
As it stands, methodologies such as Verra’s new REDD+ (VM0048) and ARR (VM0047) have been CCP-approved, but credits have yet to be issued under either. Certain cookstove methodologies have also been CCP-approved, but given some added criteria placed on their approval, registries have yet to tag any cookstove credits as CCP-approved.
But while projects begin to issue under these new methodologies, it will increase the available supply of CCP-tagged credits. So far around 55 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) of CCP-tagged credits have been issued, with the majority coming from Landfill Gas, methane and ozone depleting substance projects.
“Companies are already looking for purchasing CCP labeled credits, so we [are] already seeing that sign in the market of quality and I think that that is important to be recognized,” she added.
VCMI also noted that the Code of Practice is designed to complement the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), an organization that enables companies to set science-based emission reduction targets.
“We do recognize, and we put that up front in our Claims Code of Practice, the fact that each one of these standards and institutions play a significant role in the market, so SBTi stands as the target-setting organization,” Avzaradel Szklo told Fastmarkets.
“What we see, however, is that between when a company sets a target […] SBTi is not following closely what’s taking place. And that’s where VCMI comes into play in a complementary role to SBTi, [as] companies make claims every single year so that we can keep track and make progress,” she said.
“Action is much better than inaction at the moment . What we see is that 47% of companies that have already set science-based targets are not making enough progress to meet those targets. So, we need to follow up on that very closely and not just wait until the target end year,” she added.
As part of the Claims Code of Practice, companies have the option of selecting one of three VCMI claims to make: Silver, Gold or Platinum.
Silver requires the purchase and retirement of high-quality carbon credits equal to or greater than 10% and less than 50% of a company’s remaining emissions once it has demonstrated progress towards near-term emission reduction targets; Gold is 50-100%; and Platinum is 100% or more.
“Companies that can do Platinum are going directly for Platinum, and they make the effort to do that, which is a good thing,” Avzaradel Szklo said.
“It shows that the branding aspect of it, which has always been the main business case, is still there and that’s important also for us to understand how the market is working, and it is providing an incentive for companies to take that further step,” she said.
“If they’re willing to do that extra effort in order to make a Platinum claim when they could be doing a Gold claim, for instance, that’s very valuable,” she added.
Consulting group Bain & Company were the first organization to make a claim against the Code in February 2024, achieving Platinum status.
All claims under the Code require the purchase of carbon credits representing mitigation, which can be either emission reductions or removals, achieved outside the value chain of the company.
“Carbon removals are essential, but [they] definitely should not undermine reduction and avoidance credits. So what we have flagged in the Claims Code of Practice [is that] we need all the tools in the basket that we can use,” Avzaradel Szklo told Fastmarkets.
“For residual emissions, when we’re talking about long term and reaching net-zero, the acceptance is for removal credits – for carbon dioxide removal – to take place. But for those projects to have an adequate climate flow throughout time, we cannot just wait until 2050 to make that happen, that has already to start happening right now,” she said.
“But for the near-term emission reduction targets, I think there’s common sense that reductions are also to be considered because of all the other technologies that can leverage mitigation immediately,” she added.
For in-depth coverage of these stories and access to regular updates, sign up for our free Fastmarkets Carbon Newsletter.