Sollten wir das falsche Erlebnis für Sie ausgewählt haben, ändern Sie es bitte oben.
Sustainability Briefing: The future of carbon markets
Are carbon markets at a turning point?
EU policy developments, Article 6 implementation and the recently released SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 are creating clearer demand signals for high-integrity credits, eligible market instruments and credible removals. But growth is not guaranteed: Markets will only scale if supply quality, accounting, claims guidance, registry transparency and buyer governance mature together. Used poorly, carbon markets can delay direct abatement and enable misleading claims: used well, they can mobilize finance for additional reductions, system-level mitigation and removals. This article explores where carbon markets can credibly support corporate climate strategies and where they cannot replace real-economy decarbonization.
Avoid, reduce, then compensate
The hierarchy is critical: Companies should first reduce emissions in their own operations and value chains. Where emissions arise from shared systems, activity-pool measures such as lower-carbon energy, materials or logistics may help. Carbon credits sit at a different level and shall not substitute for direct decarbonization.
Corporate climate action: reduce first, use market instruments carefully, and reserve carbon credits for defined claims. 1, 2 ,3
Demand growth with higher standards
Demand is becoming more structural, driven by sovereign Article 6 cooperation, corporate transition planning and sectoral schemes. More countries reference internationally transferred mitigation outcomes in their NDCs4, the EU’s proposed 2040 climate framework signals limited use of high-quality international credits5, and CORSIA creates sectoral demand in aviation6. Carbon markets are therefore moving from a voluntary sustainability niche into climate policy, capital allocation and proactive risk management.
The recent SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) V2.0 reinforces this shift from our view while keeping credits separate from target achievement. Companies should ideally first reduce emissions, then use eligible market instruments only where they are activity-linked, traceable and support system decarbonization. For the newly defined and later mandatory Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER), supported mitigation shall be ex-post, assured, conservatively quantified, additional, protected against leakage and reversal risks, transparently governed and kept separate from target progress as described in the standard. Credits used for OER shall also be retired when claimed, not double claimed, and not reused for post-2035 responsibility or net-zero neutralization.
This requires a precise classification. Emission-reduction credits may support contribution claims or eligible compliance uses, while avoidance credits face even stronger baseline and additionality scrutiny. Nature-based removals offer co-benefits but require permanence, reversal and land-rights checks. Durable removals are most relevant for residual-emissions neutralization. Article 6-authorized, CORSIA-eligible and EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Certification (CRCF)-certified units each follow distinct accounting and claims rules. Under the Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, setting rules for international cooperation through bilateral carbon trading, a central UN crediting mechanism, as well as non-market approaches, Article 6 authorization reduces double-counting risk but is not a full-integrity screen. Especially when considering Article 6.2: buyers still need due diligence, safeguards review, contractual protections and claims governance.
A new market architecture is taking shape based on three pillars
The voluntary carbon market has undergone a trust reset. Concerns around additionality, permanence, leakage, weak baselines, double counting and misleading claims have pushed standards and buyers toward stronger integrity rules. The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles benchmark high-integrity credits7, while the VCMI Claims Code guides credible claims beyond science-aligned emissions cuts.3
Article 6 is creating a second pillar: Article 6.2 enables country-to-country cooperation via internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, while Article 6.4 establishes the UN-supervised Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. The first approved Paris Agreement carbon market issuance in February 2026 marked a shift from rulemaking toward operational supply.9
Still, Article 6 authorization and corresponding adjustments are only accounting conditions. Buyers need due-diligence frameworks for baseline integrity, over-crediting, registry reliability, safeguards, reversal liability, contracts and claims: especially for forest and land-sector activities. The Article 6 framework could bridge international supply and European demand if it combines Paris Agreement accounting with integrity principles from voluntary and compliance markets. EU-level rules could reduce fragmentation and clarify criteria for origin, quality, acquisition and use.10
Alongside this, the EU CRCF framework is emerging as a quality infrastructure for adopting methodologies under the framework for permanent removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products11. Its overall relevance will depend on certification credibility and clarity on use cases, claims, duration and risk-sharing.
A three-pillar carbon market architecture is emerging within Europe
Quality and use-case clarity are becoming decisive
Carbon markets will depend less on volume and more on quality, claim integrity and suitability. Companies should not treat market instruments, credits, removals and offsets as interchangeable: Market instruments may support target implementation if activity-linked, credits may support contribution claims, and removals may be relevant for residual-emissions or OER claims as clarified in the CNZS V2.0.
Buyers, in our opinion, need to thoroughly test whether units are additional, conservatively quantified, independently verified, uniquely claimed, protected against double counting and matched to a permissible use case. For removals, durability, reversal risk, monitoring and liability matter. For nature-based units, safeguards, permanence, land rights and biodiversity impacts require attention.
The resulting use-case logic for different credit types is summarized in the following.2, 3, 6, 7
Companies need to match credit types to use cases
Where the market goes next and why early movement matters
Carbon markets have significant potential, but the next phase will be more selective. EU policy, Article 6, CORSIA, SBTi CNZS V2.0 and transition planning point toward rising demand for high-integrity credits, eligible market instruments and credible removals.
Growth will only be credible if supply quality, accounting, claims guidance, registry transparency and buyer governance mature together. Low-integrity credits and vague offsetting claims will remain under scrutiny, while high-integrity nature-based credits, methane abatement and durable removals may see stronger demand.
For companies, this creates a practical agenda. The winners are expected to be those that build the capabilities to decide when, where and how carbon markets can support their transition strategy:
- Define where credits, market instruments and removals fit and where they do not.
- Keep direct reductions and value-chain transformation first.
- Separate target implementation, BVCM, OER and neutralization claims.
- Set your ambition level and quality thresholds before procurement starts.
- Assess future removal needs and post-2035 responsibility sooner than later and learn during that process.
- Track SBTi, Article 6, EU and sectoral rules.
- Engage credible suppliers before high-integrity supply tightens.
The upcoming EU framework for high-quality international credits and possible use toward the EU’s 2040 target will be a key test. If narrow, transparent and integrity-led, it could scale Article 6 supply and climate-finance infrastructure. If perceived as weakening domestic action or relying on weak credits, it could deepen the market’s trust deficit.
Carbon markets are not returning as a license to offset. They are being rebuilt around integrity, transparency and disciplined claims. Companies need to understand where market instruments support real-economy decarbonization, where credits can finance credible climate action beyond the value chain, and how removals should be prepared for residual or ongoing emissions responsibility. Early movers that build governance, quality filters and supply strategies now will be better positioned as demand rises and credible supply tightens. The next step is a structured assessment of use cases, exposure, quality requirements and procurement options.
"Carbon markets are at the stage gate to fast-scale the transition - integrity will define their success. The organizations that act now will help shape the rules of the market, not just react to them."
Nicole Röttmer, Partner, Strategy, Risk & Transactions
Authors:
Frederic Wils, Senior Manager | Strategy, Risk & Transactions
Noah Winneberger, Manager | Strategy, Risk & Transactions
Read further Sustainability Briefings
Clean technologies and business models are expanding: an investment in the future. We keep you informed on the developments in a dynamic market.
Dr. Nicole Röttmer
