Voluntary Carbon Market Rankings 2026

SCS Global Services' climate vice president Christie Pollet-Young calls for third-party verification professionals to be included in the rooms where decisions happen, so their practical expertise can inform market design.

Environmental Finance: What's been the biggest change in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) over the past year?

Christie Pollet-Young: It's been great to see a greater emphasis on higher-quality credits, and that pricing is not the only factor at play. A lot of entities have been taking significant action, in terms of making strong commitments, conducting due diligence and hiring reputable verification bodies. We need all hands on deck to engage and train experts, in all stakeholder roles, to scale market growth and impact.

It is required by the registries to have all projects verified. These assessments require extensive expertise and experience with very detailed and complex methodologies. There is now greater importance on quality and reputation and a need to do larger-scale projects and bring more experts into these areas.

EF: What role does biodiversity and social impact play in verifying these credits?

CPY: From a social perspective, there is a wide array of potential community benefits, depending on the way the project is structured, the presiding government and land tenure. How benefits are shared can be very complicated, especially if there are decades or centuries of history on that land. It takes a real concerted effort to comprehend local context, look at the appropriate level of detail to confirm that consent and transparency, and ultimately, to ensure the long-term viability and impact of the reviewed project.

EF: SCS Global Services recently announced it had verified 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions reductions and removals. As the market continues to grow, where do you see the VCM heading?

CPY: The VCM is growing, and interest in projects is definitely there. What we need is to have solutions to suit the varying levels of development and understanding by market actors. Everyone wants credit portfolios to be diversified, and verification bodies play a huge part in that by providing the independent verification needed to build trust in the quality and integrity of credits. But there needs to be an understanding that when managing risk, not everything is going to be perfect. We should keep iterating and improving our approaches to strengthen and grow the market, but also not let that stand in the way of progress and implementation. If all stakeholders are constantly chasing a moving target, execution is hindered, and with it, the necessary flow of capital to make these solutions a reality.

EF: What impact does the interrelationship between voluntary and compliance markets have on your work?

CPY: We've been involved in both. We started as certification auditors for the Forest Stewardship Council, then we got into the California Climate Action Registry (now the Climate Action Reserve), which then led to us verifying the first forestry project under California's Cap and Invest Program. That experience across both voluntary and compliance markets gives us a valuable perspective on how assurance approaches can evolve while maintaining quality and credibility. Convergence provides us with more opportunities to use our approach to create a climate impact. There are obviously differences, but people have choices and it brings greater market awareness. Standards and methodologies are always changing. The VCM is in a constant state of evolution.

I was on the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) continuous improvement working group for verification bodies, and I've always been committed to high-quality because it translates into impact. In 18 years, we have not had any of our verification decisions overturned. We like to work with registries to make sure there's consistency, rather than allowing projects to move from one verification body to another, looking for a different answer.

The market previously did not allow for the level of scrutiny that is required today. A savvy buyer should understand the importance of a verification body, including its track record, experience, technical expertise and commitment to quality. Those factors are fundamental to trust in the assurance process. We have no interest in greenwashing or greenhushing, and we stand behind those values.

EF: What would you like to see improve in the VCM?

CPY: I would love to see more entities talking about what they've done; publicly sharing that it isn't risk-free but there are benefits. People can be quiet, but if you're doing high-quality, credible work, that deserves to be shared. Greater transparency can build trust and confidence and inspire others to get involved.

I would encourage people to involve verification bodies in the conversation. There has been a lot of talk about quality recently, in and about verification bodies, but we're not typically being invited into those rooms. It comes across as a closed-door, exclusive situation, and that is disappointing. People dictate what verification bodies should be doing, how we should do our jobs and what the solutions are, without drawing on the practical experience and technical expertise we bring from providing assurance every day. We understand what the pain points are, where implementation becomes challenging and what is needed to maintain quality.

Verification bodies are a critical part of this ecosystem. We are not just verifying credits; our experience and expertise help underpin their quality, provide assurance and ultimately build trust in the market.