Takeaways
- Carbon credit fund managers must assess whether credits represent real, additional and durable climate impact.
- The fund’s first strategic decision is whether to focus on avoidance credits or removal credits.
- The second decision is whether to participate in compliance or voluntary carbon markets.
- Additionality, permanence, leakage, methodology rigour and social safeguards should form the foundation of carbon credit due diligence.
- A structured due diligence framework helps fund managers protect investor returns, reduce reputational exposure and avoid low-quality carbon credits.
For carbon credit fund managers, the challenge is not simply identifying available projects. The greater challenge is selecting credible projects and avoiding credits with weak environmental integrity.
The carbon market includes a wide spectrum of credit quality, from high-integrity carbon removals to low-quality avoidance credits with limited climate value. As investor expectations increase, fund managers are expected to demonstrate both financial discipline and credible climate impact.
This makes carbon credit due diligence a critical part of investment decision-making. For investors who are new to this asset class, it is also important to understand why carbon credits are different from traditional commodities and why project quality can vary significantly.
A robust due diligence process should assess five key areas: methodology rigour, additionality, permanence, leakage and social safeguards. Before evaluating these areas, fund managers should first address two strategic questions that shape the fund’s risk profile and investment approach.
Table of Contents
1. Methodology Rigour: Start with Two Strategic Questions
The first question is: will the fund focus on avoidance credits or removal credits?
Avoidance credits prevent emissions that would otherwise occur. Examples include forest protection, avoided deforestation and landfill methane capture. These credits are generally more affordable and more widely available, making them suitable for funds that prioritise scale. However, they often face closer scrutiny over additionality, particularly when it is unclear whether the avoided emissions would have occurred without carbon finance.
Removal credits actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Examples include reforestation, biochar, direct air capture and enhanced weathering. These credits often command higher prices because they are closely aligned with long-term net zero goals. However, they are typically scarcer, more expensive and may carry greater permanence, technology or delivery risks.
The second question is: will the fund participate in compliance carbon markets or voluntary carbon markets?
This decision determines the primary type of risk the fund will face.
Compliance carbon markets, such as regulated cap-and-trade systems, are generally more mature. They operate within established legal frameworks, have formal market infrastructure and create enforceable demand. However, the main risk is regulatory risk. This is exogenous because it sits outside the control of the fund manager. Governments can change emissions caps, adjust market rules, issue free allowances or delay auctions.
Voluntary carbon markets operate differently. They may not provide guaranteed demand, but their primary risk is project quality. This is endogenous because fund managers can manage it through disciplined due diligence. Documentation can be reviewed, verification can be challenged, monitoring systems can be assessed and methodologies can be compared.
For Malaysia-focused investors, the policy landscape is also evolving. Understanding how Malaysia’s National Carbon Market Policy impacts industries can help fund managers assess future market structure, regulatory direction and carbon project opportunities.
2. Additionality: The Core Integrity Test
Additionality asks one fundamental question: would the emission reduction or carbon removal have happened without carbon credit revenue?
If the answer is yes, the credit may not represent genuine climate impact.
Fund managers should review the project’s financial assumptions, investment case and baseline scenario. Does the project’s internal rate of return fall below a reasonable investment threshold without carbon revenue? Is carbon finance genuinely required to make the project viable? Are there existing regulations, subsidies or commercial incentives that would have driven the activity regardless of carbon credit income?
If a project is already financially attractive without carbon revenue, its additionality claim becomes weaker.
In voluntary markets, additionality requires careful scrutiny. Standard registration alone should not be treated as sufficient evidence of quality. Fund managers should also understand how carbon credit projects generate revenue and secure financing, as this helps assess whether carbon revenue is genuinely material to the project.
Key due diligence questions include:
- Is carbon revenue essential to the project’s viability?
- Are the baseline assumptions conservative and credible?
- Would the activity proceed without carbon finance?
- Did the project begin before carbon finance was secured?
- Are there legal or regulatory requirements that already mandate the activity?
3. Permanence and Reversal Risk
Permanence refers to the durability of the carbon benefit.
For carbon removal projects, this is particularly important. Carbon removed from the atmosphere must remain stored for a meaningful period. If the carbon is later released, the climate benefit may be partially or fully reversed.
Nature-based projects often carry higher reversal risk. Forests can burn, trees can be affected by disease, land use can change, and illegal logging or weak governance can undermine years of carbon storage.
Fund managers should assess buffer pool contributions, insurance mechanisms, monitoring plans, land tenure arrangements and long-term stewardship commitments.
Engineered removals may offer greater storage durability, but they introduce other risks, including technology readiness, cost, scalability and operational performance.
Important questions include:
- How long is the carbon expected to remain stored?
- What events could reverse the climate benefit?
- Is there a buffer pool or insurance mechanism?
- Who is responsible if a reversal occurs?
- Is the monitoring period aligned with the permanence claim?
4. Leakage: The Hidden Risk in Carbon Credit Quality
Leakage occurs when emissions are reduced in one location but increase elsewhere as a result of the project.
For example, a forest protection project may reduce deforestation in one area. However, if logging activity simply moves to another nearby forest, the overall climate benefit may be much lower than claimed.
Fund managers should assess whether the methodology properly accounts for leakage. A credible carbon credit project should apply conservative assumptions, relevant regional data and appropriate leakage deductions.
Leakage risk is especially relevant for land-use projects, avoided deforestation, agriculture, forestry and community-based projects. It may also occur in industrial projects if production shifts to another facility or region.
A project that appears credible on paper may deliver limited climate value if leakage is not properly assessed.
5. Co-Benefits and Social Safeguards
Carbon credit projects affect communities, ecosystems, land rights and local economies.
Poor social outcomes can create reputational, legal and operational risks. A project that fails to respect local communities may face disputes, delays, cancellation or public criticism.
Fund managers should review free, prior and informed consent documentation where relevant. They should also assess benefit-sharing arrangements, grievance mechanisms, stakeholder engagement records and land tenure documentation.
High-quality projects may deliver co-benefits beyond carbon, including biodiversity protection, water conservation, soil restoration, livelihood creation and community development. In voluntary markets, these co-benefits can support stronger buyer demand and premium pricing. However, they must be evidenced, monitored and reported rather than used only as marketing claims.
Building a Carbon Credit Due Diligence Framework
No single factor determines carbon credit quality.
Fund managers should develop a weighted scorecard covering methodology rigour, additionality, permanence, leakage, monitoring and verification, developer track record, legal risk, land tenure, social safeguards, co-benefits and buyer demand.
Additionality and permanence should receive particular attention. If a project fails these two tests, the investment case becomes significantly weaker.
Fund managers should also require regular monitoring reports, independent verification, transparent documentation and the right to conduct spot audits where possible. Where emissions data or verification processes are involved, fund managers may also benefit from understanding how ISO 14064 is implemented for verification in Malaysia.
Carbon credit evaluation should also be connected to wider climate and sustainability strategy. For organisations preparing for climate-related disclosures, climate risk and opportunity assessment under IFRS S2 can support better understanding of transition risk, physical climate risk and long-term resilience.
A disciplined carbon credit due diligence framework is not only a risk management tool. It is a source of investment discipline, market credibility and long-term competitive advantage.
How Bernard Business Consulting Can Support
Bernard Business Consulting supports organisations, fund managers and sustainability teams in strengthening carbon market understanding, carbon credit evaluation and ESG due diligence.
We help clients assess carbon credit project risks, evaluate sustainability claims, understand carbon accounting principles and align climate-related strategies with credible reporting expectations. For organisations preparing broader ESG disclosures, our insights on sustainability reporting assurance in Malaysia can also support stronger governance, data quality and assurance readiness.
Contact us to learn how we can support your organisation in evaluating carbon credit projects with greater confidence, integrity and commercial discipline.
eBook
The C-Suite Guide to Malaysia’s National Sustainability Reporting Framework (NSRF)
Developed by BBC’s ESG and sustainability consultants, this practical roadmap guide helps leaders understand, plan and apply the NSRF effectively. It provides a clear roadmap to strengthen governance, enhance reporting and create business value.