VCMI claims: what corporate transparency really requires
The VCMI Claims Code of Practice is one of the most important governance innovations in voluntary carbon markets. The Nature+ Coalition explores how its transparency requirements can be operationalised without discouraging credible corporate action.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI) Claims Code of Practice has rapidly become a reference for companies that wish to use carbon credits to support claims about their climate performance. By tying claims to disclosure, science-based targets and high-integrity credits, the Code provides a defensible foundation for corporate communication. Implementation is now the central question, and the Nature+ Coalition believes a few clarifications would help the framework deliver its potential.
The transparency contract
At its core, the VCMI framework rests on a simple bargain. Companies gain the ability to make defensible claims at Silver, Gold or Platinum levels in exchange for disclosing their climate strategy, their use of credits and their progress against science-based targets. The Nature+ Coalition strongly supports this exchange.
The coalition recommends three operational improvements:
A standardised disclosure template, machine-readable, hosted on a public registry, so that researchers, NGOs and rating agencies can analyse claims at scale;
Clear interoperability with SBTi and with national disclosure regimes such as the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, to avoid duplicate reporting burdens;
Explicit recognition of nature-based credits meeting ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, on equal footing with engineered removals when the claim concerns ongoing emissions contributions.
Beyond Beyond Value Chain Mitigation
The Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) concept has been useful in moving the conversation beyond simple offsetting language. But BVCM risks being interpreted as a discretionary add-on. The Coalition proposes that VCMI work with SBTi to integrate ongoing emissions responsibility more centrally into corporate net-zero pathways, in line with the direction taken by the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.
This integration should make explicit that:
Action on ongoing emissions, including the purchase of high-integrity credits, is a complement to, not a substitute for, deep decarbonisation;
Reasonable interim milestones (2030, 2035, 2040) should be embedded into corporate transition plans;
The contribution of NbS to early action is critical and should be recognised across SBTi, VCMI and the EU regulatory framework.
Avoiding the chilling effect
Several of our member organisations report that companies are hesitating to engage in voluntary markets out of fear of greenwashing accusations. The paradox is that the more rigorous the framework, the more reluctant some companies become to communicate at all. This is a problem for the climate. The coalition believes that VCMI, SBTi and the ICVCM should jointly issue a clear, accessible communication framework that explains what good practice looks like, so that ambitious companies can act with confidence.
Looking ahead
The Nature+ Coalition will publish a detailed comparison of the VCMI, SBTi and CRCF transparency requirements in the second half of 2026, with a particular focus on how NbS-related claims can be substantiated in a defensible way. We invite policymakers and corporate practitioners to engage with us on this work.