Morgan Stanley
Institute for Sustainable Investing

How Companies Are Approaching Voluntary Carbon Credits

Jan 6, 2026

The Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing surveyed 225 global corporates on their voluntary carbon markets strategies. Companies buying carbon credits today see volumes increasing over time, while those who intend to buy in the future will be most influenced by pricing and regulation.

Key Takeaways

  • Over 90% of companies currently buying carbon credits plan to continue and see volumes growing over time. 

  • Corporates who intend to start buying credits in the future are less certain about their plans, as they weigh pricing and regulatory factors. 

  • Those who don’t plan to buy credits have mixed rationale for this decision, with 39% expecting to decarbonize entirely within their own value chains but 31% not planning to set net zero targets at all. 

Voluntary corporate spending on carbon credits is growing, although the market remains small. A new survey from the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing finds that 90% of companies currently buying voluntary carbon credits plan to continue. Meanwhile, future buyers, who are not yet active in the market, are less certain about their plans.

 

The Institute surveyed 225 global companies with annual revenues exceeding $1 billion to assess how voluntary carbon markets could evolve.

 

Commitment and Growth Among Current Buyers

Current buyers are predominantly large, listed companies with established net zero targets. For these organizations, the factor most likely to influence the volumes of carbon credits they purchase in the future is progress on their own decarbonization strategies, cited by 32% of current buyers, and significantly ahead of the second-largest response, on factors influencing the pricing of instruments.

 

Source: Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, December 2025. See the report for the full list of factors.

 

Uncertainty and Price Sensitivity for Future Buyers

Future buyers, defined as those planning to enter the market at some point, seem less certain on the outlook. While they expect to match current buyers in purchase volumes by 2030, more than half report low visibility on the quantities they may ultimately buy. Pricing emerges as the most influential factor for these companies, particularly in North America and APAC, while regulatory considerations are more top of mind for EMEA respondents.

 

Source: Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, December 2025. See the report for the full list of factors.

 

Diverse Motivations for Non-Buyers

Non-buyers, those with no plans to enter the market have different reasons for not purchasing carbon offsets. Nearly 40% believe they can fully decarbonize within their own value chains and thus see no need to participate in voluntary carbon markets. However, non-buyers are also much less likely to have a net zero target today, at 25% compared to 95% of current buyers and 85% of future buyers. In the non-buyer group, 31% do not plan to set a net zero target at all, while another 44% are still developing their strategies. Notably, the non-buyer group includes a higher proportion of healthcare companies and fewer energy companies, suggesting sectors with lower average carbon intensity may be less focused on the voluntary credit markets.

 

Source: Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing, December 2025. See the report for the full list of factors.

 

Decarbonization Strategies and Insetting

On average, current and future buyers anticipate that about two-thirds of their carbon reductions will come from actions within their own operations or value chains, 28% from grid or other decarbonization, and the remaining 7% as residual emissions, to be offset through carbon removals. Over 85% of companies currently take or are considering insetting actions—projects within their value chain to reduce emissions—such as supplier energy efficiency and nature restoration. 

 

Similarly, corporate strategies have shown signs of this evolution across global capital markets, as companies prioritize measurement of indirect greenhouse gas emissions from their value chains, or Scope 3 emissions. 

 

“In our discussions with corporates, it’s clear that decarbonization efforts are no longer limited to direct operations,” says Cristina Lacaci, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Sustainability Structuring & Head of Sustainability Capital Markets EMEA. “As Scope 3 becomes a priority, management teams are seeking strategies that combine emissions reduction with biodiversity and nature stewardship across their value chains. This is particularly relevant for consumer-facing businesses and those with agricultural or commodity exposure, where holistic action resonates strongly with stakeholders.”

 

The Road Ahead

Looking forward, current buyers anticipate increasing their median purchase volumes by more than 25% above today’s levels by 2035. Future buyers anticipate reaching similar median volumes, but are less certain, with more than half saying they have either “low” or “very low” visibility over future purchase volumes. 

 

Companies participating in the voluntary carbon markets also signaled that they remain focused on quality assurance. The survey found reputational risks associated with carbon credits are material—almost half of current buyers place this among the top reputational risks their company manages—but over 80% say these risks are largely outweighed by perceived benefits. 

 

The most common way that corporates manage project risk is by taking a portfolio approach. Most buyers believe that pricing reflects project quality to some degree, but the supply of high-integrity credits, such as those bearing the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles label, remains limited.

 

This echoes a longer-term shift toward prioritization of quality in corporate purchasing strategies seen in the fixed income markets.  

 

“The market has seen a shift towards higher-quality credits for more than two years,” notes Iain Mackay, Executive Director, Head of Environmental Markets at Morgan Stanley. “We increasingly find that corporates have a clear idea of what instruments they want to buy, and what they are prepared to pay. The most common requests we get are for nature-based solutions in the range of $15 to $30 per ton. While it takes time for supply to respond, the demand signals are now well established.”  

Download The Report

Morgan Stanley surveyed 225 corporates on voluntary carbon markets.

Learn More

Disclosures: 

This report is led by the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing (“Institute”) and presents results from an online survey of corporate leaders conducted by iResearch on behalf of the Institute. From August 19 to September 26, 2025, a sample of 225 corporate leaders were surveyed across North America, EMEA and APAC. The sample was evenly split across regions and categorized by their participation in voluntary carbon markets, with 75 respondents each from groups currently buying, planning to buy, or having no plans to buy carbon credits and/or EACs (Environmental Attribute Certificates). 

This material was published in December 2025 and has been prepared for informational purposes only and is not a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument or to participate in any trading strategy. This material was not prepared by the Morgan Stanley Research Department and is not a Research Report as defined under FINRA regulations. This material does not provide individually tailored investment advice. It has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. 

Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (collectively, “Morgan Stanley”), Members SIPC, recommend that recipients should determine, in consultation with their own investment, legal, tax, regulatory and accounting advisors, the economic risks and merits, as well as the legal, tax, regulatory and accounting characteristics and consequences, of the transaction or strategy referenced in any materials. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives. Morgan Stanley, its affiliates, employees and Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors do not provide tax, accounting or legal advice. Individuals should consult their tax advisor for matters involving taxation and tax planning, and their attorney for matters involving legal matters. 

Past performance is not a guarantee or indicative of future performance. Historical data shown represents past performance and does not guarantee comparable future results. Certain statements herein may be “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements are not historical facts or statements of current conditions, but instead are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to uncertainty and changes in circumstances. These statements are not guarantees of future results or occurrences and involve certain known and unknown risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict and are often beyond our control. In addition, this report contains statements based on hypothetical scenarios and assumptions, which may not occur or differ significantly from actual events, and these statements should not necessarily be viewed as being representative of current or actual risk or forecasts of expected risk. Actual results and financial conditions may differ materially from those included in these statements due to a variety of factors. Any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of Morgan Stanley speak only as to the date they are made, and Morgan Stanley does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statements were made. Because of their narrow focus, sector investments tend to be more volatile than investments that diversify across many sectors and companies. 

Diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against loss in declining markets. 

Certain portfolios may include investment holdings deemed Environmental, Social and Governance (“ESG”) investments. For reference, environmental (“E”) factors can include, but are not limited to, climate change, pollution, waste, and how an issuer protects and/ or conserves natural resources. Social (“S”) factors can include, but not are not limited to, how an issuer manages its relationships with individuals, such as its employees, shareholders, and customers as well as its community. Governance (“G”) factors can include, but are not limited to, how an issuer operates, such as its leadership composition, pay and incentive structures, internal controls, and the rights of equity and debt holders. You should carefully review an investment product’s prospectus or other offering documents, disclosures and/or marketing material to learn more about how it incorporates ESG factors into its investment strategy. 

ESG investments may also be referred to as sustainable investments, impact aware investments, socially responsible investments or diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) investments. It is important to understand there are inconsistent ESG definitions and criteria within the industry, as well as multiple ESG ratings providers that provide ESG ratings of the same subject companies and/or securities that vary among the providers. This is due to a current lack of consistent global reporting and auditing standards as well as differences in definitions, methodologies, processes, data sources and subjectivity among ESG rating providers when determining a rating. Certain issuers of investments including, but not limited to, separately managed accounts (SMAs), mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) may have differing and inconsistent views concerning ESG criteria where the ESG claims made in offering documents or other literature may overstate ESG impact. Further, socially responsible norms vary by region, and an issuer’s ESG practices or Morgan Stanley’s assessment of an issuer’s ESG practices can change over time. 

Portfolios that include investment holdings deemed ESG investments or that employ ESG screening criteria as part of an overall strategy may experience performance that is lower or higher than a portfolio not employing such practices. Portfolios with ESG restrictions and strategies as well as ESG investments may not be able to take advantage of the same opportunities or market trends as portfolios where ESG criteria is not applied. There is no assurance that an ESG investing strategy or techniques employed will be successful. Past performance is not a guarantee or a dependable measure of future results. For risks related to a specific fund, please refer to the fund’s prospectus or summary prospectus. 

Investment managers can have different approaches to ESG and can offer strategies that differ from the strategies offered by other investment managers with respect to the same theme or topic. Additionally, when evaluating investments, an investment manager is dependent upon information and data that may be incomplete, inaccurate or unavailable, which could cause the manager to incorrectly assess an investment’s ESG characteristics or performance. Such data or information may be obtained through voluntary or third-party reporting. Morgan Stanley does not verify that such information and data is accurate and makes no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness when evaluating an issuer. This can cause Morgan Stanley to incorrectly assess an issuer’s business practices with respect to its ESG practices. As a result, it is difficult to compare ESG investment products. 

The appropriateness of a particular ESG investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives. Principal value and return of an investment will fluctuate with changes in market conditions. 

© 2025 Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC. Members SIPC. All rights reserved. 

CRC 5035537 12/2025 

View Disclosures Close Disclosures