VCMI Claims Code explained: how Carbon Integrity Claims work

The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) Claims Code is not a carbon-credit quality label. It is a framework for what companies can credibly say when they use carbon credits alongside emissions cuts.

Carbon markets have two integrity problems. The first is whether the credit is real, additional, durable and properly accounted for. The second is whether the buyer's public claim is honest.

Those are not the same question.

The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) and its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs) focus mainly on the first problem: the quality of the credit supply. VCMI focuses on the second problem: what a company can credibly claim after buying and retiring credits.

That distinction matters. A company can buy a stronger credit and still make a weak claim. It can also make a more careful claim with stronger evidence, even if the carbon market around it remains imperfect. VCMI exists because public climate claims need a rulebook, not just a receipt from a registry.

Quick answer

What VCMI is

VCMI was created to improve the integrity of corporate climate claims in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). Its work is aimed at companies that buy and retire carbon credits, and then want to say something publicly about what those credits mean.

That sounds narrow, but it is one of the hardest questions in the carbon market. Buying a credit is a transaction. Making a claim is a public statement. Regulators, customers, investors, campaign groups and competitors can all scrutinise that statement.

The VCMI Claims Code sets conditions for companies that want to make Carbon Integrity Claims. These claims are intended to recognise companies that are cutting emissions and using carbon credits beyond their own value-chain reductions. The logic is that credits can help finance mitigation outside a company's direct footprint, but they should not be used to hide weak progress inside the business.

In plain English, VCMI asks three questions:

What problem the Claims Code tries to solve

The voluntary carbon market has often been judged through the lens of credit quality. That makes sense. If a credit does not represent a real reduction or removal, the claim built on top of it is weak from the start.

But credit quality is only half the problem. The buyer's own wording can create a separate integrity risk.

A company may buy credits from a credible project, retire them properly and still overstate what that means. It might imply that a product has no climate impact. It might suggest that the company has neutralised emissions that it has not actually reduced. It might talk about being "carbon neutral" without explaining the role of credits, the remaining emissions, the quality of the credits or the company's own reduction plan.

That is why claims guidance matters. The market cannot rebuild trust if supply-side integrity improves while buyer-side language remains loose.

The useful distinction

ICVCM helps answer whether a credit category meets a quality benchmark. VCMI helps answer whether a company can make a credible claim after using credits. One is about the instrument. The other is about the statement.

VCMI vs ICVCM

VCMI and ICVCM are often mentioned together because both sit inside the carbon-market integrity debate. They are complementary, not interchangeable.

For a serious buyer, the practical implication is simple. Do not choose between the two. Use both lenses.

First, assess the credit. Is it additional? Is the baseline reasonable? Is the benefit permanent enough for the claim? Is leakage addressed? Is the credit properly tracked and retired? Is there an ICVCM signal, a credible registry trail, independent verification and project-level evidence?

Second, assess the claim. What exactly will the company say? Is the claim tied to the right emissions boundary? Does it imply more than the credit supports? Does the company have a transition plan? Are emissions reductions happening inside the value chain?

The strongest carbon market will need both filters. Better credits without better claims will still produce reputational risk. Better claims without better credits will still produce climate risk.

What Carbon Integrity Claims are

VCMI's Carbon Integrity Claims are intended to recognise companies that use high-quality carbon credits beyond their own emissions reductions. They are not the same as claiming that a company, product or service is carbon neutral.

The Claims Code has included Silver, Gold and Platinum claim levels. The higher levels are intended to reflect a greater level of action beyond value-chain mitigation, subject to meeting VCMI's requirements. The specific eligibility and claim requirements should always be checked against the current VCMI documents, because the framework can evolve.

The main point is not the label itself. The main point is the hierarchy behind it.

1. Measure and disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
2. Set and pursue credible emissions-reduction targets.
3. Use credits as an additional contribution, not as a replacement for reduction.
4. Retire credits transparently and keep evidence.
5. Use careful wording that does not overstate the climate benefit.

That hierarchy matters because it changes the buyer's question. The question is not simply "which credits should we buy?" It becomes "what climate claim are we entitled to make, and what evidence do we need before making it?"

What companies need before making a claim

A company considering a VCMI-style claim should treat it as a governance exercise, not a marketing exercise.

At minimum, the evidence file should cover emissions data, target setting, transition planning, credit procurement, retirement evidence and approval of the final claim language. The marketing team should not be the only owner of the process. Legal, sustainability, finance, procurement and risk teams all have a role.

Why Scope 3 is the pressure point

Scope 3 emissions are often where climate targets become hardest. They cover value-chain emissions, including suppliers, logistics, product use, investments and other indirect emissions outside a company's direct control.

That creates a real problem. Many companies have near-term Scope 3 targets, but do not yet have enough supplier data, product redesign, customer behaviour change or sector-wide infrastructure to reduce those emissions quickly. Some companies therefore want to use carbon credits while they work on the harder value-chain reductions.

VCMI's Scope 3 Action Code responds to this tension. It is aimed at companies that are addressing Scope 3 emissions gaps while still pursuing value-chain action. The important caveat is that using credits around Scope 3 should not become a way to abandon supplier engagement, product changes or business-model changes.

For readers, this is the most important practical issue. Scope 3 is where a lot of future corporate demand for carbon credits could sit, but it is also where claims can become most confusing. A company that funds mitigation outside its value chain may be doing something useful. That does not mean its value-chain emissions have disappeared.

Why VCMI does not make a weak net zero plan credible

The biggest misuse of carbon credits is treating them as a shortcut around emissions reduction. VCMI does not solve that problem by letting companies buy a better label. It tries to reduce that risk by putting credits inside a broader claims framework.

A weak plan remains weak if the company is not reducing material emissions, has poor data, relies heavily on future offsets, ignores Scope 3, or uses vague language around carbon neutrality. A VCMI-style claim cannot turn that into a credible transition strategy.

This is where the buyer's discipline matters. A climate claim should tell readers what has been reduced, what remains, what credits were used, what those credits represent and what the company will do next. If the claim only tells readers that credits were bought, it is probably not enough.

How VCMI fits with Article 6, CORSIA and ICVCM

VCMI sits inside a wider integrity stack. It is not the only layer companies need to understand.

The overlap can matter. A company may want credits that are CCP-labelled, Article 6-authorised and suitable for a VCMI-style claim. An airline may also need to check eligibility under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), which is administered through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

But the layers are not interchangeable. Article 6 authorisation does not automatically prove project quality. A CCP label does not automatically approve a marketing claim. A VCMI claim does not automatically make a credit eligible for CORSIA. Each layer answers a different question.

What buyers should check before relying on a claim

If a company says it has made a Carbon Integrity Claim or is following VCMI guidance, the reader should still ask follow-up questions.

• Which claim is being made, and for which time period?
• What emissions boundary does the claim cover?
• What Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions were disclosed?
• What reductions happened inside the company's value chain?
• Which credits were retired, and where can the registry records be checked?
• What project types, vintages, methodologies and countries are involved?
• Does the claim depend on credits that also need host-country authorisation?
• Has the claim been independently assured?
• Does the wording avoid implying that the company's emissions no longer matter?

These questions are not hostile. They are the normal evidence questions that a more mature carbon market should be able to answer.

Common mistakes

Using VCMI as a quality label for credits

VCMI is a claims framework. It does not remove the need to assess the carbon credits themselves.

Assuming credits can replace emissions cuts

Credits may finance mitigation outside a company's value chain, but they should not be used to avoid reducing the company's own material emissions.

Making product-level neutrality claims too casually

Product-level claims can be particularly risky because they are easy for consumers to misunderstand. If credits are used, the wording needs to explain the boundary and remaining emissions clearly.

Ignoring Scope 3 uncertainty

Many companies have incomplete Scope 3 data. That does not mean they should do nothing, but it does mean claims should be carefully caveated and supported by a clear plan to improve data and reduce value-chain emissions.

Treating voluntary credits as a single asset class

Durable removals, avoided-deforestation credits, cookstove credits, soil carbon credits and renewable energy credits can have very different risk profiles. A claim is only as strong as the evidence behind the credits used.

Why this matters for investors and procurement teams

VCMI is not just a sustainability-team issue. It matters for investors, lenders, procurement teams and boards because carbon-credit claims can affect reputation, reporting quality, supplier selection and climate-risk assessment.

For investors, the useful question is not whether a company has bought credits. It is whether the purchase sits inside a credible transition plan. A large credit purchase can be a sign of serious beyond-value-chain finance. It can also be a sign that the company is trying to protect a headline target while operational emissions remain stubbornly high.

For procurement teams, VCMI-style discipline can help set supplier expectations. A supplier that makes a climate claim should be able to explain its emissions boundary, reduction plan and retirement evidence. If it cannot, the claim may not be useful in a buyer's own climate reporting.

For carbon-market developers, the claims layer matters because buyer confidence affects demand. If companies are afraid to make claims, even good credits may struggle to attract mainstream demand. Clearer claims rules can therefore support the market, but only if buyers use them honestly. That is also why market-building purchases, such as Frontier carbon removal, should be separated from claims based on delivered and retired credits.

FAQ

Is VCMI mandatory?

No. VCMI is a voluntary claims framework. However, it may influence buyer expectations, corporate climate practice and how stakeholders judge voluntary carbon-credit claims.

Does VCMI approve carbon credit projects?

No. VCMI focuses on claims made by companies. Project-level quality still needs to be assessed through standards, registries, independent verification, ICVCM status and project-specific due diligence.

Can a company use VCMI and ICVCM together?

Yes. That is often the most sensible approach. ICVCM helps with credit quality. VCMI helps with claim wording and buyer-side integrity.

Does VCMI replace the Science Based Targets initiative?

No. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a target-setting body. VCMI is a claims framework for voluntary carbon-credit use. Companies may need to understand both, but they do different jobs.

Does a VCMI-style claim mean a company is net zero?

No. Net zero has its own target-setting, reduction and residual-emissions logic. A VCMI-style claim should not be read as proof that a company has reached net zero.

Bottom line

VCMI matters because the voluntary carbon market cannot rebuild trust with better credits alone. It also needs better claims.

ICVCM helps improve the supply-side integrity conversation. VCMI helps improve the buyer-side claims conversation. The difference is not academic. It is the difference between asking whether a credit is stronger and asking whether a public climate statement is fair.

The more mature market will be the one where both questions are asked before the press release goes out.

Useful source links

• VCMI: Claims Code of Practice
• VCMI: Scope 3 Action Code of Practice
• ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles
• ICVCM: Assessment status
• UK Green Claims Code
• ICAO: CORSIA overview