How to navigate all those certifications in the voluntary carbon market

Buyers in the voluntary carbon market often find it challenging to differentiate between higher- and lower-quality credits. One cause might be the range of organizations issuing carbon credits: According to a count released this week, at least 66 entities are currently doing so.

The list includes well-established players that helped build the market, including Verra and Gold Standard, alongside notable new entries, such as Puro and Isometric, as well as a long tail of smaller and lesser-known issuers. The field is crowded in part because it’s unregulated; any organization can create standards and issue credits. The result is a confusing field of issuers that at first glance appear similar, but in practice operate to very different levels of rigor.

Sixty-six certifications actually represent a slowdown in growth, according to data from Hamerkop Climate Impacts, the climate consultancy behind the count. New certifications surged after 2020 as an increasing number of companies set net-zero targets and specialist issuers sprung up to focus on carbon removal, nature-based solutions and other niches. The past two years have been relatively quiet by comparison.

Launches of new carbon credit certifications

Source: Hamerkop Climate Impacts

“The slowdown in new launches in 2024 and 2025 reflects a shift in market conditions,” said Olivier Levallois, Hamerkop’s founding director. “Confidence in the voluntary carbon market has been affected by scrutiny around credit quality. As a result, the market has become more cautious, and the business case for launching new standards has weakened.”

Navigating the market

To navigate this confusing territory, Levallois suggests the following:

  • Caution is warranted. Watch for standards that lack a clear track record, including those that have been operational for several years but have seen limited uptake or issuance. This can indicate challenges around market acceptance or robustness.
  • Governance is critical. Standards that are closely linked to project developers or commercial interests may raise questions about conflicts of interest.
  • Transparency is key. Check that methodologies, validation processes and issuance data are publicly available and subject to scrutiny.
  • Not all new or small standards should be dismissed. Some are gaining tr

Read More