Companies are increasingly discovering that carbon credits cannot be left until the end of the reporting cycle.
What was once treated as a tactical, year-end purchase is turning into a supply-chain decision with real strategic consequences. As corporate climate targets draw nearer and integrity rules tighten, the pool of credits many buyers are willing to use has narrowed, and the best projects are being committed earlier.
Recent market analysis points to the same conclu...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
sion: buyers are sorting far more aggressively by quality, durability and reputational resilience. Fastmarkets said in February that demand had flattened in 2025 even as preferences shifted decisively towards higher-integrity credits. Sylvera’s April assessment likewise suggested a market increasingly split between sought-after premium supply and older, lower-quality credits that are falling out of favour.
That change is showing up in pricing too. Green Earth reported that retirements fell in the first quarter of 2026 while average prices edged higher, and TipRanks noted a widening premium for the highest-rated projects, with capital concentrating in the most credible supply. In other words, the issue is no longer simply whether a company can afford credits, but whether it can secure the type it is prepared to defend publicly.
The tightening is partly structural. Many of the projects now viewed as more credible take years to develop, and the supply of high-quality credits is not expanding quickly enough to meet future demand. Climate Impact Partners said in July that integrity frameworks, including the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles, are helping shape buying decisions, while more credits are being tagged and retired under those standards. That is improving clarity, but it is also drawing more buyers towards the same limited pool.
For some segments, the squeeze may be sharper still. Fastmarkets warned in March that the likely supply of CORSIA Phase 1 cookstove credits may be far smaller than currently assumed, due to authorisation bottlenecks, stricter biomass rules and rising host-country charges. Such constraints mean that waiting can turn into a costly gamble.
The result is that many companies are beginning to think about carbon credits more like fuel, electricity or other critical inputs. Spot purchases may still work for immediate needs, but forward offtake agreements and other financing structures are increasingly being used to secure future delivery and spread costs over time. The aim is not just to manage budget pressure, but to reduce the risk of being shut out of the market altogether.
Policy developments are also giving credits a clearer place in net-zero planning. Rather than being an awkward add-on, they are being positioned more explicitly as a tool for addressing residual emissions and supporting carbon removal, especially as interim targets become more common. That makes early procurement less optional and more part of mainstream climate planning.
The practical message is straightforward. Companies need a view on how many credits they are likely to need, what level of quality they will stand behind, and how much exposure they are willing to leave to a future market that may be tighter, pricier and less forgiving. The organisations moving first are not simply buying credits earlier; they are buying themselves more choice.
Source: Noah Wire Services
