Carbonomics 101: What are voluntary carbon markets and how are UK financial institutions using them as part of their sustainability strategies?

While carbon pricing has long been an area of debate, the race to net-zero by 2050, if not earlier, has revived the idea of putting a price against 1 tonne of CO2 emitted or saved. 

A significant challenge of carbon pricing has been the ‘low-price tag’ for carbon emissions, which in consequence failed to send a strong enough signal to decision makers to embark on a lower-carbon future. However, this is changing: in the compliance carbon market, the EU carbon price [1] reached an all-time high at the start of September at €62 per tonne in intraday trading. Some of the appreciation may have been technical given the quieter summer period and expectations that there may be greater demand on gas in the winter, but the trajectory is clear. Interestingly, it was the 40th time in 2021, that the price of carbon hit a new record high (see chart below).

Price of carbon since 2014 (EUR per 1 tonne CO2)

Source: Sandbag [2]. EU ETS EUA Prices

With the momentum for net-zero growing, and institutional zero carbon pledges making headlines*, we wanted to find out how financial institutions are approaching these challenges and what role carbon credits play as a supplement to their sustainability strategies.

How to categorise GHG emissions

GHG emissions are classified in three scopes:

  • Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned or controlled sources
  • Scope 2 covers all emissions released in the atmosphere from the consumption of purchased energy sources
  • Scope 3 includes all other indirect emissions that occur in a company’s value chain

A few examples:

Source: Carbon Trust [3]

Net-zero, carbon offsets and carbon markets

Cutting emissions is important but isn’t enough on its own to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to well below 2, ideally to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. Carbon offsets, such as for example sequestration, will continue to play an important role in helping to remove pollution from the atmosphere.  

With emissions of all three scopes required to be fully offset by 2050 (or another given date depending on country laws/policies), the voluntary carbon market can go some way towards helping organisations meet this objective. The principle behind this is straight forward: reducing emissions as much as possible is top priority, while a small and often unavoidable remainder of emissions can be ‘neutralised’ with carbon offsets that equate to the remaining exposure. These offsets, or generated carbon credits from a third party, represent projects such as sequestering carbon, restoring peatlands or preventing deforestation, to name a few.

How do financial institutions (FIs) use carbon markets as part of their sustainability strategies?

Having surveyed various FIs earlier this year, it’s fair to say that the organisations were at very different stages of their journey. While some said they are still learning about how to effectively measure and monitor all three scopes of emissions, others told us they are considering a public net-zero target pledge with definite deadlines. Another group of FIs mentioned that they are looking at how carbon offsets could be used to supplement their portfolios and support their organisation’s wider objectives to reduce residual risks, or how the purchase of carbon credits could help protect natural habitats and biodiversity.

Key take-aways included:

  • It starts with the right metrics: there’s a lot of work underway at the moment to get the data/metrics in place that help measure the emissions in the first place; not a simple or straightforward task as pointed out by many.
  • Carbon credits in demand: FIs have been using a wide range of carbon credits over the years, particularly for their own operational emissions (scopes 1 & 2), but increasingly also for scope 3 emissions; alongside switching to renewable sources. With an increasing number of FIs considering offsets, there is potential that the costs for offsets will increase.
  • Who’s to pay: there’s an ongoing discussion about who should pay for the offsets e.g. the asset manager or the asset owner?
  • Inclusion of carbon credit in emission targets: there are divergent views when it comes to the question of allowing carbon credits to be used to achieve emission targets. Organisations, who have signed up to the Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi), are not allowed, by definition, to use offsets, although offsets are still considered valuable for the residual carbon footprint. By contrast, the Net Zero Asset Managers’ (NZAM) Initiative allows for offsets if there is no financially or technologically viable alternative.
  • Divestments not a quick solution: selling off high emitting assets may not be the answer to support the transition to net-zero or to achieve systemic change.

Looking more closely at different categories of FIs, this is what we’ve heard from each group:


  • Active support for carbon credits: some banks already apply or strongly support the generation of carbon credits. The credits are bespoke in nature or for their own bank offsetting initiatives. In particular banks with public net-zero commitments are using carbon credits. However, banks have not applied carbon offsets to the carbon emissions (scope 3) of their loan portfolios.
  • Net-zero not universal: not all banks have net-zero ambitions. Instead, they have set themselves % targets for certain dates; often applying different targets and timelines to the different scopes.
  • Disclosures vary substantially: mainly depending on bank size, disclosures range from full emission breakdown per scope to no disclosure whatsoever for some of the smaller/start-up banks.
  • Building societies vary in approach: while some use carbon offsets already, others make no mention of their emissions or targets in their published reports.

Asset managers

  • Net-zero funds: in the last three years, an increasing number of asset managers have launched funds targeting net-zero investment options.
  • Verifying offsets: different asset managers are using different sources for their offsets and different ways of verifying them. Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Gold Standard were the most frequently mentioned.
  • Only a minority of asset managers are currently willing to buy carbon credits: while a few asset managers have agreed to buy and absorb the costs of carbon credits for specific portfolios, this clearly was the minority of those we surveyed. However, some are open to discussing carbon credits but are not yet set-up to do so at a portfolio level. We also heard asset owners have not (yet) fully embraced carbon credits.
  • Seeking dialogue about net-zero: many portfolio managers told us they are keen to continue engaging with the underlying companies to promote emission reductions rather than those companies relying on carbon credits.
  • Emissions matter: if all else is equal, portfolio managers are likely to choose the lower emitting company over a higher emitting company if all other metrics are similar (and available), emphasising how ESG data is affecting portfolio management and investment decisions.

Pension Funds

  • Feeling the pressure: apart from regulatory pressure, pension funds are also increasingly challenged by organisations such as MakeMyMoneyMatter[4] to consider public net-zero targets. As a result, some are discussing carbon credits as an option with their asset managers, albeit it will likely be the asset manager that buys and holds the carbon credit on the pension fund’s behalf.
  • Carbon offsets and fiduciary duty: there are questions around the appropriateness for pension funds to use carbon offsets given their fiduciary duty (and when the offset itself does not explicitly provide an expected return but incurs a cost, thereby reducing the return). Others argued that if carbon credits rose in value then they could be sold in the future as a net gain. Some however, were open to the idea of using carbon offsets (albeit described as ‘early stage’ thinking), if it could help them meet their net-zero target or impact objectives.
  • Data and disclosures: similar to other FIs, many funds are still working on getting emission data right as well as their disclosures – for example aligning them with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures per the recent regulations.  

What’s next?

Carbon credits are not a new concept although are arguably gaining more attention as more entities adopt net-zero targets and are looking at portfolio emissions and ways to reduce them – as well as the growing focus on establishing robust infrastructures to reduce some of the unknowns. Carbon credits are seen by many as a ‘last resort’ but a useful step nonetheless in helping to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. With prices set to increase, if much of the increased demand expected from FIs does start feeding through into carbon credit pricing, questions around when the right time is, the extent to which FIs engage and the technology which they use to do that, could well dominate agendas.

Follow our Carbonomics 101 series, where we address these questions (and more), to help you stay informed on the development of the carbon markets and learn about the role they play in achieving net-zero. For our next instalment we will be taking a look at what the voluntary carbon markets mean for Corporates.

*NatWest achieved Net Zero Carbon across its operations in 2020. We achieved this through a combination of emissions reductions, alongside offsetting residual Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions (business travel) through the purchase of internationally recognised TIST (The International Small Group and Tree Planting Program) Carbon Credits.


  1. EU Emissions Trading System
  2. Closing ECX EUA Futures prices, Continuous Contract #1. Non-adjusted Euro price based on spot-month continuous contract calculations. Source:

This article has been prepared for information purposes only, does not constitute an analysis of all potentially material issues and is subject to change at any time without prior notice. NatWest Markets does not undertake to update you of such changes.  It is indicative only and is not binding. Other than as indicated, this article has been prepared on the basis of publicly available information believed to be reliable but no representation, warranty, undertaking or assurance of any kind, express or implied, is made as to the adequacy, accuracy, completeness or reasonableness of the information contained in this article, nor does NatWest Markets accept any obligation to any recipient to update or correct any information contained herein. Views expressed herein are not intended to be and should not be viewed as advice or as a personal recommendation. The views expressed herein may not be objective or independent of the interests of the authors or other NatWest Markets trading desks, who may be active participants in the markets, investments or strategies referred to in this article. NatWest Markets will not act and has not acted as your legal, tax, regulatory, accounting or investment adviser; nor does NatWest Markets owe any fiduciary duties to you in connection with this, and/or any related transaction and no reliance may be placed on NatWest Markets for investment advice or recommendations of any sort. You should make your own independent evaluation of the relevance and adequacy of the information contained in this article and any issues that are of concern to you.

This article does not constitute an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any investment, nor does it constitute an offer to provide any products or services that are capable of acceptance to form a contract. NatWest Markets and each of its respective affiliates accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct, indirect or consequential losses (in contract, tort or otherwise) arising from the use of this material or reliance on the information contained herein. However this shall not restrict, exclude or limit any duty or liability to any person under any applicable laws or regulations of any jurisdiction which may not be lawfully disclaimed.

NatWest Markets Plc. Incorporated and registered in Scotland No. 90312 with limited liability. Registered Office: 36 St Andrew Square, Edinburgh EH2 2YB. Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. NatWest Markets N.V. is incorporated with limited liability in the Netherlands, authorised and regulated by De Nederlandsche Bank and the Autoriteit Financiële Markten. It has its seat at Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and is registered in the Commercial Register under number 33002587. Registered Office: Claude Debussylaan 94, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Branch Reg No. in England BR001029. NatWest Markets Plc is, in certain jurisdictions, an authorised agent of NatWest Markets N.V. and NatWest Markets N.V. is, in certain jurisdictions, an authorised agent of NatWest Markets Plc. NatWest Markets Securities Japan Limited [Kanto Financial Bureau (Kin-sho) No. 202] is authorised and regulated by the Japan Financial Services Agency. Securities business in the United States is conducted through NatWest Markets Securities Inc., a FINRA registered broker-dealer (, a SIPC member ( and a wholly owned indirect subsidiary of NatWest Markets Plc.

Copyright 2022 © NatWest Markets Plc. All rights reserved.

scroll to top