The VCMI Code (Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative Claims Code of Practice) is a voluntary global rulebook for companies that want to use carbon credits and make a credible public claim about that use.
Its purpose is straightforward. Carbon credits should sit alongside a company’s own emissions reductions, not provide a way around them. VCMI therefore looks at the company as well as the credits. Before a business can make one of its Carbon Integrity Claims, it has to show that it is measuring its emissions properly, has a science-aligned near-term target, is making progress towards that target and has the governance and policy position to support it.
That makes VCMI quite different from a normal carbon-credit buying decision. At its simplest, it asks two questions:
Has the company done enough internally to qualify for a claim?
And has it bought, retired and documented the right quantity of suitable credits to support that claim?
The current Claims Code is version 3.1, published in August 2025, supported by the Monitoring, Reporting & Assurance Framework v1.4. Companies that qualify can make one of three enterprise-wide claims: Carbon Integrity Silver, Gold or Platinum. Silver starts at credits equal to 10% of remaining emissions, Gold at 50%, and Platinum at 100%.
There is one important correction to many older summaries of the Code. A public commitment to reach net zero by 2050 is now recommended rather than required as a Foundational Criterion. The mandatory requirement is a science-aligned near-term emissions-reduction target that is consistent with reaching net zero no later than 2050.
For me, that is where the VCMI Code becomes useful. If a company asked us tomorrow for enough credits to support a Gold Claim, I would not start with a project list. I would start with its emissions inventory, its near-term target, what has actually happened to emissions since the base year and the year in which it wants to make the claim. Until those are settled, the number of credits is premature.
VCMI Claims Code requirements at a glance
A company has to work through four stages before VCMI will issue a Carbon Integrity Claim.
| VCMI step | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
| 1. Meet the Foundational Criteria | The company needs an annual public GHG inventory, a science-aligned near-term target, evidence of financial and governance progress, and Paris-aligned public-policy advocacy. |
| 2. Choose a VCMI Claim and show emissions progress | The company must demonstrate reductions against its base year and progress towards its near-term target. |
| 3. Use enough qualifying carbon credits | Silver, Gold and Platinum require different percentages of remaining emissions to be covered by eligible credits that are purchased and retired. |
| 4. Report, assure and verify the Claim | The company submits evidence under the MRA Framework and the Claim is independently verified. |
That order matters.
The VCMI Code does not say: buy credits, then work out what you can call them. It starts with whether the company itself is in a position to make the claim. View the publication.
What are the VCMI Foundational Criteria?
The current Code has four Foundational Criteria.
VCMI emissions reporting requirements
The company must maintain and publicly disclose an annual greenhouse-gas inventory.
That means company-wide Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and the relevant Scope 3 sources required by the applicable accounting framework. VCMI also requires limited third-party assurance of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the base year and the most recent reporting year.
This sounds like the least interesting part of the framework. In practice, it is the first place I would look for trouble.
The emissions figure later becomes the basis for calculating the credits needed for Silver, Gold or Platinum. If the organisational boundary is wrong, if important Scope 3 sources are missing, or if a base year has been recalculated without anyone understanding why, the Claim calculation is wrong before a carbon credit has been bought.
I would also want to know what is behind any large fall in reported emissions. A lower total can reflect real operational change, but it can also reflect a changed conversion factor, a disposal, an acquisition boundary change or a different estimation method. VCMI asks the company to demonstrate emissions progress, so it matters which of those explanations is true.
VCMI science-aligned near-term target requirements
The company must set and publicly disclose science-aligned near-term emissions-reduction targets that are consistent with reaching net zero no later than 2050.
The wording is worth getting right because it changed.
Under v3.1, VCMI encourages companies to make a public long-term net-zero commitment, but that commitment is no longer itself one of the four mandatory Foundational Criteria. The requirement is the science-aligned near-term target.
This is exactly the sort of change that can be missed if a company copies a two-year-old VCMI checklist into its procurement documents.
VCMI says near-term targets should come from a credible science-aligned target-setting framework, such as SBTi. From 2030 onwards, subsequent near-term targets must be set no more than five years apart.
VCMI governance and climate-finance requirements
A target on a website is not enough.
The company has to demonstrate progress on financial allocation, governance and strategy towards meeting the near-term target.
I think this is one of the better parts of VCMI because it pushes the discussion beyond target-setting. A company can announce a 2030 target in an afternoon. Whether capital expenditure, procurement, executive oversight and operating plans have started to move in the same direction is much harder to fake. An internal carbon price built into investment approvals is one way to show that they have.
If I were reviewing readiness for a Claim, this is where I would want Finance and the sustainability team in the same room. The carbon-credit budget is only one number. The more important question is whether the rest of the business is actually funding the reduction plan it says it has.
VCMI Paris-aligned public-policy advocacy requirements
The fourth criterion is easy to overlook.
The company must demonstrate that its public-policy advocacy supports the goals of the Paris Agreement and does not obstruct ambitious climate regulation.
VCMI requires a public statement explaining how advocacy activities are consistent with Paris goals. A company that does no advocacy has to say so publicly, and that includes activity through trade associations and other bodies.
I would not treat this as a communications box to tick at the end. If a company’s commercial or lobbying position cuts directly across its climate target, buying more carbon credits does not solve the contradiction.
That is precisely why VCMI puts the requirement before the credit calculation.
How do VCMI Silver, Gold and Platinum Claims work?
Once the company has met the Foundational Criteria and demonstrated progress towards its near-term target, the arithmetic becomes much simpler.
| VCMI Carbon Integrity Claim | Credits that must be purchased and retired |
|---|---|
| Silver | At least 10% and less than 50% of remaining emissions |
| Gold | At least 50% and less than 100% of remaining emissions |
| Platinum | At least 100% of remaining emissions |
For Silver and Gold, the percentage of remaining emissions covered by credits must increase in each subsequent Claim year.
Suppose a company has 10,000 tCO2e of remaining emissions in the year of the Claim.
Silver starts at 1,000 credits.
Gold starts at 5,000 credits.
Platinum requires at least 10,000 credits.
The calculation is not the difficult part. The difficult part is making sure the 10,000-tonne denominator is right, the company has qualified to make the Claim, the credits themselves meet the relevant quality rules and the evidence survives verification.
VCMI Silver Claims
Silver is the lowest of the three Carbon Integrity Claims, but I would not describe it as a light-touch option.
A company still has to satisfy the same Foundational Criteria, demonstrate emissions progress, use eligible credits, retire them, disclose the required evidence and pass verification.
The difference is the proportion of remaining emissions covered.
For a company with a very large Scope 3 footprint, even 10% can represent a substantial annual commitment. I would therefore cost the Claim over several years rather than treating the first year as the budget.
VCMI Gold Claims
Gold starts at 50% of remaining emissions.
At that point the credit purchase becomes materially important for most businesses.
If a company is considering Gold, I would model three things together: the expected fall in its own emissions, the rising percentage requirement for subsequent Claim years and the likely cost of eligible credits.
Those three numbers move independently.
If internal emissions fall quickly, the denominator shrinks. If the percentage covered rises, the required share grows. If the eligible-credit market tightens, the price can move as well.
A single-year estimate does not tell Finance very much.
VCMI Platinum Claims
Platinum requires credits equal to at least 100% of remaining emissions.
That does not mean the company’s Scope 1, 2 and 3 inventory becomes zero.
If a company reports 20,000 tCO2e of remaining emissions and retires 20,000 qualifying credits for a Platinum Claim, it still reports 20,000 tCO2e of emissions. The credits sit alongside that inventory as additional climate action.
This is a distinction I would make explicit in any board paper because “100%” is otherwise very easy to misread.
What does “remaining emissions” mean under VCMI?
VCMI defines remaining emissions as the emissions that remain in a given year as the company progresses towards its near- and long-term targets.
They are not the same as residual emissions at net zero.
That difference matters.
A company might still emit 100,000 tCO2e today while expecting to reduce almost all of that before its net-zero year. For a VCMI Claim today, the relevant figure is the emissions remaining now, not the much smaller amount it expects to be unable to remove from its value chain decades later.
SBTi uses residual emissions for that eventual remainder at net zero. Those emissions have a different role and ultimately have to be neutralised with removals.
I would keep the two terms separate in internal documents. They sound close enough that a spreadsheet or board presentation can easily blur them, but they can imply completely different quantities of carbon and completely different budgets.
Which carbon credits qualify for a VCMI Claim?
The quality rules are where VCMI connects to the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, or ICVCM.
VCMI’s long-term route is built around carbon credits that carry the Core Carbon Principles (CCP) label, along with qualifying credits under the Paris Agreement Article 6.4 mechanism.
There are still transitional options in 2026. That changes on the current timetable from 1 January 2027.
CCP-labelled carbon credits under VCMI
The distinction between a CCP-Eligible programme and a CCP-labelled credit is important.
ICVCM first assesses the carbon-crediting programme. It then assesses the relevant methodology or credit category. Programme approval does not automatically place the CCP label on every unit issued under that programme.
This is directly relevant to C Level.
In August 2026, Plan Vivo PV Climate became a CCP-Eligible carbon-crediting programme. The ICVCM decision applies where its conditions are met, including projects registered under Plan Vivo Project Requirements v5.7 or later and the use of accredited validation and verification bodies. Plan Vivo can now submit individual methodologies for the next stage of assessment.
That is significant progress.
It is not the same as saying that every Plan Vivo credit already carries a CCP label.
If a buyer intends to use a Plan Vivo unit for a VCMI Claim, I would check the status of the specific methodology and units rather than relying on programme-level approval. View the ICVCM decision.
Article 6.4 carbon credits under VCMI
VCMI also recognises qualifying credits under the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism established by Article 6.4.
The Code refers to Article 6.4 credits issued under methodologies approved by the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body.
A corresponding adjustment is a separate issue. VCMI requires companies to disclose whether one applies and, where they say it does, to evidence it. The Code does not turn the existence of a corresponding adjustment into a blanket requirement for every corporate VCMI Claim.
I would therefore resist suppliers using “correspondingly adjusted” as a general shorthand for “better”. It answers a specific accounting question.
VCMI transitional carbon-credit rules in 2026
While CCP-labelled and Article 6.4 supply builds, VCMI allows interim routes up to the end of 2026.
The Code includes a CORSIA route for credits approved for specified compliance periods, and a due-diligence route under which the buyer publicly states that its process aligns with all ten ICVCM Core Carbon Principles. Credits from methodologies that ICVCM assessments have already rejected or excluded cannot be used under either route.
That transitional flexibility should not be mistaken for a permanent rule.
The current Code states that from 1 January 2027, all credits purchased and retired for a VCMI Claim must be CCP-labelled or qualifying Article 6.4 credits. VCMI reserves the right to change that date if market availability changes.
What changes for VCMI Claims on 1 January 2027?
This is the part of the Code I would pay closest attention to in late 2026.
A company buying credits for immediate retirement may only need to solve the 2026 eligibility question.
A company signing a three-year agreement does not have that luxury.
If we were helping a client procure credits across 2026, 2027 and 2028, I would want the supply agreement to distinguish the vintages and expected Claim years clearly. I would also want an answer to what happens if a methodology expected to qualify does not receive the necessary approval.
At minimum, I would want to know:
- which units are intended for the 2026 Claim;
- which units will be retired from 2027 onwards;
- what their expected CCP or Article 6.4 route is;
- whether replacement units are available if that route fails;
- who carries the additional cost if the replacement is more expensive.
The Code itself acknowledges the impact of this transition on long-term contracts.
“High integrity” is not precise enough for a procurement specification here. The unit has to be suitable for the Claim in the year it will actually be used.
What evidence does a VCMI Claim require?
This is where the framework becomes much more concrete.
VCMI requires information on the credits that support a Claim, including:
- the number of credits purchased and retired;
- the carbon-crediting programme;
- project name and project ID;
- retirement serial number and retirement date;
- issuing registry;
- host country;
- vintage;
- methodology;
- project type;
- corresponding-adjustment status;
- relevant additional social or environmental certification.
I would turn that list directly into a supplier evidence requirement.
The worst time to discover that nobody saved the registry details is when the annual report is being signed off.
VCMI registry and retirement evidence
The registry record is particularly useful because it cuts through a lot of marketing language.
Suppose a project page says the project will generate two million tonnes over its lifetime. That may be true.
Suppose the registry shows 40,000 current issued units. That may also be true.
If the company is making a Claim this year, those numbers cannot simply be used interchangeably.
The same applies to retirement. Buying 10,000 credits and retiring 10,000 credits are two different events. For a VCMI Claim, the retirement evidence is part of the case.
When I look at a carbon purchase, I want the evidence trail to survive the people who made the purchase. Someone coming to the file two years later should be able to see what was bought, what was retired, which project and methodology it came from, and which Claim it supported.
That is a much better test of procurement quality than the appearance of the certificate.
VCMI third-party verification under the MRA Framework
The Monitoring, Reporting & Assurance Framework v1.4 sets out what companies have to report and how the evidence is checked.
VCMI requires limited assurance of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions for the base year and most recent reporting year. Companies then submit the required information and evidence through the VCMI Claims Reporting Platform.
The selected Claim undergoes independent third-party verification.
If the verifier confirms that the requirements have been met, VCMI can issue the Claim and the accompanying branding assets and guidance.
I would treat the verifier as the final check, not the person who is supposed to assemble the case.
If the evidence only starts coming together after the verifier asks for it, procurement and reporting have already been run in the wrong order. View the framework.
VCMI vs ICVCM vs SBTi: what does each framework do?
These acronyms are close enough to create genuine confusion.
They do different jobs.
| Framework | What it deals with |
|---|---|
| GHG Protocol | How the company measures and reports its greenhouse-gas inventory |
| SBTi | The company’s emissions-reduction pathway and net-zero targets |
| ICVCM | The integrity of carbon-crediting programmes, methodologies and credit categories |
| VCMI | How the company uses carbon credits alongside its reductions and what enterprise-wide Claim it can make |
The shorthand I use is:
SBTi looks at the pathway. ICVCM looks at the credit. VCMI looks at the company’s use of the credit and the claim.
That is not the formal wording of any of the frameworks, but it helps keep the jobs separate.
A good carbon credit does not automatically produce a good corporate claim. Equally, a well drafted claim cannot rescue a poor credit.
That is why VCMI and ICVCM fit together rather than replacing each other.
How does the VCMI Scope 3 Action Code differ?
The VCMI Scope 3 Action Code of Practice is separate from Silver, Gold and Platinum.
It was launched in April 2025 for companies that face genuine barriers to reducing Scope 3 quickly enough to remain on their science-aligned pathway.
VCMI defines the Scope 3 emissions gap as the difference between a company’s actual Scope 3 emissions in the latest reporting year and where those emissions should be if the business were on track for its near-term target.
The company has to disclose the gap, explain the barriers, set out what it is doing to remove them and retire high-quality credits equal to at least the gap covered under the Code. VCMI caps the eligible gap at 25% of the company’s Scope 3 emissions trajectory.
The point is not that credits become Scope 3 reductions. They do not.
The idea is to finance mitigation elsewhere while the company works on the specific problems stopping it from reducing the relevant emissions directly.
That distinction makes sense to me provided the barrier is real.
If a critical low-carbon technology does not yet exist at commercial scale, or a complex supply chain cannot move quickly enough despite serious work, there is a case for taking additional responsibility during the gap.
If the “barrier” is simply that changing supplier is inconvenient or expensive, I would be much less convinced. The credit should not become a cheaper way of deciding not to solve a solvable problem. View the code.
What can a company say after making a VCMI Claim?
The simplest answer is: make the Claim VCMI actually verified.
If the company has achieved Carbon Integrity Gold, then Gold is the recognised enterprise-wide claim.
It does not automatically mean that:
- the company is carbon neutral;
- its products are carbon neutral;
- its Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions have become zero;
- the credits reduced its reported inventory;
- every other environmental claim made by the company is now safe.
I would draft the public sentence before the final procurement decision rather than after it.
Then put that sentence beside the evidence.
Does the wording match the Claim level? Does it describe the company’s own reductions accurately? Does it imply that external credits changed the Scope 1, 2 or 3 number? Is an enterprise-wide Claim being stretched into a product claim?
If the wording travels further than the evidence, change the wording.
A defensible example might be:
We achieved a VCMI Carbon Integrity Gold Claim for [year], having met the Claims Code requirements and retired eligible carbon credits equal to [X%] of our remaining emissions for the Claim year. These credits are additional to our own emissions-reduction programme.
The final wording should follow VCMI’s current communications and branding rules.
VCMI Claims and UK green-claims rules
A VCMI Claim is a voluntary-framework claim. It is not a substitute for UK advertising and consumer-protection law.
CAP guidance updated in June 2026 says the basis of environmental claims must be clear and warns against unqualified “carbon neutral” and “net zero” claims. Marketers should make clear whether a claim depends on carbon credits or on active emissions reductions, and to what extent. EU consumer law now goes further, as our guide to the EU Green Claims Directive 2026 explains. View the ASA guidance.
The CMA also published additional Green Claims guidance for supply chains in January 2026, reinforcing that responsibility for environmental claims does not disappear because information came from another business in the chain. View the CMA guidance.
So after asking whether a statement satisfies VCMI, I would ask a second question:
What is an ordinary reader likely to understand this to mean?
That is a different test.
A technically correct VCMI reference can still sit beside a broader headline that gives the wrong impression.
There is little point spending months building a strong evidence pack and then losing the distinction in six words of advertising copy.
Can C Level carbon credits support a VCMI Claim?
Potentially, but the answer has to be given at unit level.
C Level supplies carbon credits from community-led Plan Vivo projects. In August 2026, Plan Vivo’s PV Climate programme became CCP-Eligible under ICVCM.
That programme-level decision applies subject to ICVCM’s conditions, including projects registered under Plan Vivo Project Requirements v5.7 or later and the use of accredited validation and verification bodies.
It is an important step because Plan Vivo can now put individual methodologies through the methodology-level assessment needed for credits to use the CCP label.
It does not mean every Plan Vivo credit already qualifies automatically for a VCMI Claim.
If a company tells us the intended use is VCMI, I would want to know that before we choose the units. We would then check the project, methodology, credit status, vintage, registry position, retirement timing and the VCMI rules applying in the Claim year.
That becomes particularly important for units intended to support Claims from 2027 onwards.
The intended claim changes the procurement test.
VCMI Claim readiness checklist
Before buying credits for a VCMI Claim, I would work through the decision in this order.
1. Check the emissions inventory.
Is the Scope 1, 2 and relevant Scope 3 boundary complete, current and defensible?
2. Check the near-term target.
Does it meet the current science-alignment requirement?
3. Check the other Foundational Criteria.
Can the company evidence governance, financial allocation, strategy and Paris-aligned advocacy?
4. Understand the emissions progress.
What actually caused the change from the base year?
5. Calculate remaining emissions for the Claim year.
Do not confuse them with eventual residual emissions at net zero.
6. Decide whether Silver, Gold or Platinum is sustainable.
Model the commitment over more than one year.
7. Check the exact credit-eligibility route.
For contracts crossing into 2027, do not rely on the 2026 transitional rules.
8. Specify the evidence before purchasing.
Project, methodology, registry, serial numbers, vintage, retirement and all required VCMI disclosures should be part of the procurement file.
9. Draft the intended public wording.
Make sure the Claim the company wants to communicate is the Claim the evidence can support.
10. Plan the MRA and verification process.
The work does not finish when the credits are retired.
I would much rather find a problem at step two than after the company has bought 20,000 tonnes.
Should your company use the VCMI Claims Code?
VCMI is most useful for a company that is already serious about reducing its own emissions and wants a recognised, independently verifiable framework for going further with carbon finance.
It gives the company a structure for connecting four things that have too often been handled separately: the corporate inventory, the reduction target, the carbon-credit purchase and the public claim.
I would use it where those four things genuinely belong together.
I would be more cautious if the conversation begins with the badge.
A company that wants Platinum because Platinum sounds strongest has started in the wrong place. First establish whether the company qualifies, what its remaining emissions are, what the budget looks like over several years and which credits will actually be eligible when they are retired.
Then decide whether the Claim is worth making.
That is less glamorous than choosing between Silver, Gold and Platinum, but it is where most of the real decision sits.
VCMI Claims Code FAQ
No.
VCMI is a voluntary framework. Companies choose whether to pursue a Carbon Integrity Claim, although legal, regulatory, investor or customer requirements may apply separately.
Under the current v3.1 Claims Code, a public long-term net-zero commitment is recommended rather than one of the four mandatory Foundational Criteria.
The mandatory target requirement is a publicly disclosed science-aligned near-term emissions-reduction target consistent with reaching net zero no later than 2050.
No.
Credits used for VCMI Claims sit alongside the company’s own emissions reductions. They do not count as Scope 1, 2 or 3 reductions towards the company’s science-based target.
No.
SBTi primarily governs corporate emissions-reduction targets and net-zero pathways. VCMI governs the voluntary use of carbon credits and the claims companies can make about that use.
The current v3.1 Code allows interim routes through 2026.
From 1 January 2027, the Code says credits purchased and retired for VCMI Claims must be CCP-labelled or qualifying Article 6.4 credits. VCMI reserves the right to revise the date if availability changes.
Potentially.
Plan Vivo PV Climate became CCP-Eligible at programme level in August 2026, subject to ICVCM conditions. Individual methodology and credit status still need checking. Programme eligibility does not automatically mean every Plan Vivo unit already carries the CCP label.
No automatic right follows from a VCMI Claim.
The company still needs to consider VCMI’s communications rules and the advertising and consumer-protection rules in every jurisdiction where the statement is made.
ICVCM focuses on the integrity of carbon-crediting programmes and credit categories.
VCMI focuses on the company using the credits, its own decarbonisation progress and the claim it wants to make.
VCMI Claims support from C Level
C Level can help where corporate emissions data meets carbon-credit procurement.
That includes calculating and checking the relevant emissions base, working through the intended Claim level, sourcing and assessing the credits, arranging retirement and making sure the evidence needed later is captured at the point of purchase.
If the intended use is a VCMI Claim, tell us before the credits are selected.
It changes what we need to check.
- Explore C Level carbon projects
- Read our SBTi carbon credits guide
- Read our BVCM guide
- Read how we assess high-integrity carbon credits
Sources and methodology
This article was checked against the current primary VCMI and UK claims sources on 16 September 2026. Where older explanatory material conflicts with the current VCMI Claims Code v3.1, the current Code has been used.
- VCMI Claims Code of Practice, August 2025, version 3.1. Source for the Foundational Criteria, the Silver, Gold and Platinum thresholds, remaining emissions, eligible credits and the 1 January 2027 date. View the publication.
- VCMI Monitoring, Reporting & Assurance Framework, August 2025, version 1.4. Source for the credit disclosures, limited assurance and third-party verification. View the framework.
- VCMI Resource Library. Source for the current Claims Code documents. View the library.
- VCMI Scope 3 Action Code of Practice. Source for the Scope 3 emissions gap and its 25% cap. View the code.
- VCMI FAQs. Source for how VCMI describes its own role. View the FAQs.
- ICVCM, CCP-Eligible programme decisions for BioCarbon Standard, Cercarbono and Plan Vivo PV Climate, 4 August 2026. Source for Plan Vivo PV Climate’s programme-level decision and its conditions. View the decision.
- Plan Vivo, PV Climate approved as a CCP-Eligible carbon-crediting programme. Source for Plan Vivo’s account of the decision and the next methodology stage. View the announcement.
- ASA and CAP, Environmental claims: carbon offsetting and carbon neutral, updated 17 June 2026. Source for the UK advertising position on carbon neutral and net zero claims. View the guidance.
- CMA, Making green claims: getting it right across the supply chain, 22 January 2026. Source for responsibility for green claims across a supply chain. View the guidance.