The rapid growth of the voluntary carbon market has resulted in a mismatch between supply of and demand for quality carbon credits. As the voluntary carbon market (VCM) matures, its focus is shifting towards measures of quality and integrity. It’s becoming clear, however, that “quality” and “integrity” mean different things in different contexts, and that standards and frameworks are needed to represent the broad spectrum of what defines a “good carbon credit.” “It used to be that we treated this market like a binary,” explained Spencer Meyer, Chief Ratings Officer at carbon ratings agency BeZero, speaking at a recent Sustainable Brands® (SB) webinar. “You either passed the test or you didn’t. … If you followed the methodology and you got verified by a standard, suddenly they were carbon credits.” Increasingly, however, carbon credit buyers are realizing that varying degrees of quality are acceptable for varying needs. To that end, Meyer recommended that corporate risk assessments view the carbon market in the same way they evaluate other material risks to make their sure credit procurement strategies rigorously align. Antje-Susan Metz, Business Development Manager at Deutsche Telekom, added that values-based brands work to understand the impact their credit purchases are making on the ground and integrate this work into branding and storytelling. “When you’re looking at quality through that impact lens, you’re going to focus on projects that have more meaningful co-benefits [apart from carbon removal],” she said. “Similarly, if you are focused on scaling new tech … that view of quality is going to be a bit different than what it looks like in a purely nature-based removal portfolio.” Kathy Kearns, CEO at CEEZER, emphasized the importance of proactive risk management in navigating the VCM. Notably, she said she has seen a shift from reactive to proactive risk assessment, as organizations increasingly recognize the need to... |