The Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing recently published Voluntary Carbon Markets: Surveying Current and Future Corporate Participants, a comprehensive study exploring how global corporations engage with carbon markets.
The study surveyed 225 companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion, evenly distributed across North America, EMEA, and APAC. Respondents were categorized into three groups: current buyers of carbon credits or Environmental Attribute Certificates, future buyers, and non-buyers.
Here are the key findings from the report:
Internal decarbonization progress is the primary driver for current buyers.
For companies already participating in the market, future purchase volumes are primarily dictated by internal progress toward net-zero goals.
- Over 90% of current buyers plan to continue their purchases, with average volumes expected to rise from 91,000 tonnes today to approximately 150,000 tonnes by 2035.
- One-third of these companies identify progress on their own decarbonization strategy as the most influential factor for future volumes, more than double the number citing pricing.
- On average, current buyers expect to achieve 65% of their decarbonization from within their value chain, with carbon removals offsetting a residual 7% of emissions.
Future buyers face pricing and visibility challenges.
Companies planning to enter the market report significantly less certainty regarding their future needs.
- More than half of future buyers describe their visibility on future purchase volumes as low or very low.
- Almost a quarter (24%) cite pricing as the most influential factor in determining their future volumes.
- Despite lower visibility, future buyers expect their average purchase volumes to reach 60,000 tonnes by 2030, which is roughly on par with current buyers’ expectations for that period.
There are diverse motivations behind non-participation.
The 75 non-buyer companies surveyed represent a distinct group with specific strategic motivations for remaining outside of voluntary carbon markets.
- 39% of non-buyers expect to fully decarbonize within their own value chain, rendering voluntary carbon markets unnecessary for their strategy.
- Conversely, 31% of this group does not plan to set a net-zero target at all.
- For a small minority (7%), the primary barrier to entry is not strategic intent but the belief that reputational risk from project quality is too high.
- This group contains a higher concentration of healthcare companies and fewer energy companies compared to other buyer groups, suggesting a lower average carbon intensity.
Strategic benefits make navigating reputational and project risks worth it.
While carbon market participation is viewed as a material reputational risk, most companies believe the strategic benefits justify the exposure.
- Over 80% of current buyers see the benefits of carbon credits as probably or easily outweighing the risks.
- A diversified portfolio approach across different project types is the most common method for managing project-specific risks.
- Corporates report that they are most concerned about how investors perceive “claim risk” or the potential of reputational damage from how they communicate their use of credits, even though evidence suggests investors are generally supportive of credits as part of a broader strategy.
The regulatory and accounting landscapes are evolving.
The report highlights that the market is currently in a state of transition, influenced by shifting standards and compliance requirements.
- Approximately 60% of buyers favor the concept of the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles (CCP) label, though many note that the supply of labeled credits is currently limited.
- There is a notable shift toward direct offtake agreements for carbon removal, which saw market value grow from $2.6 billion in 2024 to over $7 billion through November 2025.
- Major frameworks, including the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and the GHG Protocol, are currently revising their guidance on carbon credits and Scope 2 accounting, which will likely influence future corporate behavior.
Invert Insights.
💡 To reduce claim-related risk, companies should embed carbon credit purchases within a broader internal decarbonization strategy. Given that investors are the most scrutinizing audience for public claims, companies should emphasize clear, transparent disclosure on how carbon credits are used to address residual emissions. Claim credibility can be further reinforced through a diversified portfolio approach to mitigate project-level risk and by aligning purchases with emerging integrity benchmarks, such as the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles.
💡 Not setting a formal climate goal creates significant reputational risk by positioning a brand as an outlier in an environment where climate action is increasingly viewed as a core business requirement rather than a discretionary effort. Without a public goal, these companies lack a platform to communicate how they are managing the financial and operational risks associated with a low-carbon transition. By delaying participation, non-buyers, many of whom have yet to establish a decarbonization strategy, also risk falling behind a market where established buyers are already securing direct offtake agreements and aligning with emerging high-integrity quality standards to mitigate long-term claim risk.
