Building Integrity, Innovation and Institutionalisation

Carbon Credits 2025 Recap

On 11 September 2025, Future of Finance hosted Carbon Credits 2025: Building Integrity, Innovation and Institutionalisation, bringing together market leaders, policymakers, and standard-setters to examine the future of the voluntary carbon market. Discussions centred on the rapid evolution of legal and compliance frameworks, the fragmented regulatory landscape, and the growing influence of Article 6 and the ICVCM. Speakers highlighted the political and structural barriers to harmonisation and stressed that coordinated governance and clearer standards are essential for scale, integrity, and investor confidence.

See Event Page ↗

Jump to Gallery ↓

With thanks to:

The Event in Numbers

4

Panel Sessions

17

Speakers

150+

Registered Delagates

130+

Represented Companies

Key Takeaways

Keynote

1. Stronger transparency in carbon markets is essential to counter greenwashing and rebuild confidence among investors and buyers. 2. Governments can reduce risks for buyers and support market growth by setting clear regulations, tax incentives, and stable policy frameworks. 3. Positioning carbon credits within established capital market structures (e.g., securitisation and tokenisation) can provide discipline, liquidity, ownership rights and investor protection. 4. Digital tools - from blockchain to IoT- enhance verification and traceability, boosting confidence and even price premiums for high-quality credits. 5. Properly structured carbon credit systems can cut decarbonisation costs in developed markets while funding clean energy and adaptation in emerging economies. 6. Different regions are testing approaches (UAE, Singapore, US, UK), but convergence and consistency are needed for credibility. 7. Some advocate market-driven pricing; others argue for government-set benchmarks to ensure integrity and avoid undervaluation.

How can we restore trust in carbon markets by addressing greenwashing, project validation, and post-trade efficiencies?

PANEL 1

1. Cross-sector partnerships among developers, financiers, technology providers, and regulators are essential to build trust, scale markets, and ensure accountability. Strong institutional partners bring reputational weight, while smaller innovators drive on-the-ground carbon capture. 2. Unlike most carbon players, regulated banks provide stability, balance sheet backing, safeguarding carbon credits and ensuring secure settlement between project developers and buyers. 3. Carbon markets need independent, accountable governance, standardised contracts, and clear regulatory frameworks are essential to scale with integrity. This needs to supported by technology. 4. Technology tools like digital MRV, IoT, satellites, and AI make carbon tracking/reporting clearer and cheaper. 5. From bank-issued notes to outcome-based bonds, collaborative financing models are channelling scalable capital into carbon projects. 6. Registries and standards must play separate roles. Registries should focus on record-keeping, while standards bodies should handle governance, methodologies, and accountability. 7. While digitalisation is growing, indigenous and community-based expertise is critical for project credibility, implementation, and ensuring fair benefit-sharing.

What role do partnerships play in a Carbon Ecosystem? How do they reshape market transparency and efficiency? How can we best utilise AI and data-driven verification to improve the credibility of carbon offset projects?

PANEL 2

1. Without clear economic drivers for buyers, carbon credits will struggle to achieve scale or price stability. Frameworks like CORSIA may help, but adoption and enforcement remain uncertain. 2. There’s no universally accepted definition of what a carbon credit represents. Fungibility, transparency, and legal certainty are still evolving. 3. Some see carbon credits as closer to commodities, while others see them as project finance or bonds, given the uniqueness of each credit. Both models may need to coexist to serve different market needs. 4. Weak verification standards and fragmented registries have undermined trust. Stronger oversight and reliable data (e.g., satellites, weather data) are essential for credibility and investor confidence. 5. Most trading remains OTC, limiting price discovery. Exchanges, futures, and derivatives could improve liquidity and transparency, but require credible benchmarks and consistent methodologies. 6. Banks, exchanges, and rating agencies can drive market structure and innovation, but regulators must avoid replicating outdated models that stifle efficiency. Clear taxonomy is needed as soon as possible. 7. Global variations in subsidies distort markets. Many financiers assess projects on long-term viability without subsidies, given their uncertainty and inconsistency across jurisdictions. 8. Corporates and airlines, the ultimate buyers, remain cautious. Treasurers are reluctant to commit when buying credits, which is further slowing adoption.

What will it take for carbon credits to become a standardised asset class for institutional investors given current and potential future pricing and liquidity?

PANEL 3

1. The UK now recognises credits as intangible property, with similar moves under review in the US and Brazil, opening the door for accounting treatment as assets rather than costs. 2. Legal clarity remains fragmented. Divergent approaches across jurisdictions (e.g. personal/ intangible property in Australia, tradable instruments in the US, frameworks in Brazil) hinder standardisation of contracts and collateral use. 3. How credits are treated in insolvency and across registries is still uncertain, raising risks for insurers, financiers, and corporates alike. 4. Market participants are moving from “marketing-driven” offsets toward structured, asset-backed strategies, with higher expectations on project governance and risk management. 5. Panelists agreed that stronger policy and regulations are needed to reduce fraud, create value, and encourage corporates to treat credits as balance sheet assets. 6. A single global framework is unlikely soon; regional mechanisms (e.g. Singapore’s tax scheme, Article 6-linked markets, EU/UK frameworks) are expected to drive nearer-term integration and demand signals.

What will the evolving legal and compliance landscape for voluntary markets look like? How best to overcome the political and structural barriers to standardisation?

PANEL 4

PANEL 5