Why BVCM is the foundation for a credible net-zero strategy, and how to build yours
Director of Sustainability Marketing
7 min read
Why BVCM is becoming the default model for corporate climate action
Decarbonising your corporate emissions is essential work for the climate transition, but in 2026, many companies are finding that this does not go far enough.
Businesses that are serious about climate leadership are looking further afield, contributing to global climate action beyond their own operations in order to contribute to global efforts toward net-zero. That is what Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) means in practice.
BVCM is the framework endorsed by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) for businesses to support global mitigation outside their value chain. It is not a replacement for reducing your own emissions, and it is not compensatory (or compulsory). It is a structured contribution to accelerating climate action at a global scale, running in parallel with your internal decarbonisation pathway.
A note on timing: this article relates to current SBTi guidance from their 2024 Above and Beyond report. The V2 of the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard is currently in its second consultation draft (you can read Ecologi’s response to the draft here). The final version, expected later in 2026, will introduce a new framework for Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER), which will provide updates that supersede and expand on BVCM. We have included high-level analysis of OER in this article, but will update this guidance in full when the new standard is published.
SBTi endorsement has made BVCM the expected model
The SBTi's Above and Beyond report, published in 2024, sets out BVCM as a core expectation for businesses with science-based targets. Investors, regulators and procurement teams are increasingly using BVCM alignment as a signal of genuine climate leadership, and the direction of travel is clear: what is today's best practice is likely to become tomorrow's minimum standard.
For any business in a sector where ESG performance influences commercial outcomes - whether through RFPs, investor scrutiny or customer preference - having a structured BVCM strategy in place is becoming a practical competitive requirement (not just an ethical one).
The OER trajectory
The SBTi's draft V2 Corporate Net-Zero Standard signals the direction things are heading. Under the proposed Ongoing Emissions Responsibility module, businesses would be required to take explicit responsibility for their remaining unabated emissions each year, through a combination of quantified mitigation contributions and climate finance. The specifics are still being finalised, but the principle is the same as BVCM: businesses are expected to contribute to global climate solutions at a scale that reflects their ongoing emissions, not just manage their own footprint.
Building a BVCM strategy now puts your business in a much stronger position to adapt to these guidelines as they are released.
From cost centre to contribution
One of the more significant shifts in thinking that BVCM requires is moving away from seeing climate investment as a cost to be minimised. A well-designed BVCM strategy is a structured contribution to global climate action that can be disclosed transparently, communicated credibly, and used to demonstrate leadership to the stakeholders who matter most to your business.
Businesses that lead credibly on climate attract stronger ESG-focused investor interest, perform better in tender processes with sustainability criteria, and are better positioned to retain talent in a workforce that increasingly expects employers to act meaningfully on climate.
What BVCM requires
BVCM has a clear structure. Understanding it is essential before you start designing your portfolio or setting a budget.
BVCM Goal 1: tonne-for-tonne mitigation
Goal 1 focuses on delivering additional near-term mitigation outcomes. In practice, this means buying and retiring high-quality carbon credits that represent verified tonnes of greenhouse gases avoided or removed.
The SBTi guidance indicates that Goal 1 efforts should cover quantified mitigation outcomes equivalent to at least 50% of a company's emissions. This is the tonne-for-tonne component of your BVCM strategy, and it is where carbon credit quality becomes critical. Buying cheap, low-quality credits to satisfy this requirement does not constitute genuine BVCM - instead, it creates greenwashing risk and produces little real-world impact.
BVCM Goal 2: contribution beyond carbon credits
Goal 2 is broader. It focuses on driving additional finance into the scale-up of nascent climate solutions and enabling activities that support the systemic transformation needed to achieve global net-zero by mid-century. This includes things that cannot easily be measured in tonnes of CO2e: investment in early-stage carbon removal technologies, nature restoration and rewilding projects, climate adaptation programmes for vulnerable communities, biodiversity funding, and climate policy advocacy.
Goal 2 is not secondary to Goal 1. It is a distinct and important component of a complete BVCM strategy. The portion of your budget allocated to Goal 2 will depend on what remains after addressing Goal 1, but it should be treated as a planned commitment rather than an afterthought.
Setting a science-based carbon price
The overall scale of your BVCM investment is determined by your science-based carbon price (SBCP). This is an internal carbon price that reflects a justifiable fee per tonne which accounts for the estimated true cost of achieving global net-zero, and it is applied to your unabated emissions for the relevant period to generate your annual BVCM budget.
For example, using a science-based carbon price of £50 per tonne: a business with 1,000 tCO2e of unabated emissions would set an annual BVCM budget of £50,000. As emissions reduce through decarbonisation, the budget reduces proportionally, which creates a direct financial incentive to accelerate reductions.
A minimum credible science-based carbon price is likely to be in the region of £20-60 per tonne, though the right number for your business will depend on your sector, emissions profile and decarbonisation timeline. The SBTi's Above and Beyond report includes detailed guidance on different approaches to setting a science-based carbon price and how to choose between them.
How to design your BVCM portfolio
With a budget established and the Goals understood, the next step is designing the portfolio itself. There are three main approaches to structuring BVCM, each with different implications for cost, impact and compliance readiness.
The three approaches
A tonne-for-tonne approach matches your emissions with an equivalent number of verified carbon credits. It is straightforward to implement but tends to produce lower impact and credibility if the credits selected are not of high quality, and it is not on its own sufficient to meet best practice without alignment with the Oxford Principles.
A money-for-tonne approach funds BVCM based on a set price per tonne of emissions. This is the approach closest to a science-based carbon price model, and it tends to produce medium-to-high impact depending on the price selected and how the budget is allocated. It is the approach most likely to be aligned with evolving standards.
A money-for-money approach dedicates a fixed percentage of revenue or profits to climate action. It is less directly tied to emissions, but can produce significant impact at the right funding level and offers flexibility in how the budget is deployed.
In practice, the SBTi recommends a hybrid model that establishes an overall BVCM budget using a money-for-tonne approach while also containing a tonne-for-tonne element. Ecologi recommends that the tonne-for-tonne component is delivered in line with the Oxford Principles.
Budget allocation across Goals 1 and 2
Once your total BVCM budget is set, the split between Goals 1 and 2 needs to be planned deliberately. Goal 1 should be addressed first. The SBTi suggests that at least 50% of your emissions should be matched through quantified mitigation outcomes under Goal 1. The remaining budget then funds Goal 2 contribution activities.
The exact split will depend on your emissions profile, your decarbonisation trajectory and the cost of the carbon credits in your Goal 1 portfolio. As carbon removal credits become a larger proportion of the portfolio over time (in line with the Oxford Principles), the per-tonne cost of Goal 1 is likely to increase, which has implications for how you plan Goal 2 funding over the medium term.
What carbon credit quality actually means
Not all carbon credits are equivalent, and the difference matters considerably for a BVCM portfolio. At Ecologi, we assess every project through our proprietary Carbon Project Assessment Framework (CPAF), which operates across three levels: the carbon standard, the methodology, and the project itself.
At the standard level, we supply credits from ICROA-endorsed standards only. At the methodology level, we are responsive to ICVCM CCP-Approval decisions. For example, when the ICVCM rejected most renewable energy crediting methodologies in 2024 due to additionality concerns, we discontinued supply from those methodologies as a direct result.
Project-level assessment is where the most important work happens. We score every project across three pillars - Climate, Nature and People - in two dimensions: quality and risk. Risk criteria are punitive in our scoring formula, and a zero in any single pillar produces a zero overall. To inform this, we work with all the leading carbon credit ratings agencies - BeZero Carbon, Calyx Global, Renoster and Sylvera - alongside satellite monitoring via Earth Blox.
Only projects scoring 80 or above out of 100 are eligible for funding through Ecologi. That threshold is what separates credits that will hold up to scrutiny from those that will not.
The removal trajectory
BVCM is not a mechanism for neutralising your own emissions. Buying carbon removals to neutralise residual emissions is a separate and distinct requirement of net-zero rather than BVCM. However, best practice for any carbon credit portfolio is to eventually shift towards removals, so that your BVCM portfolio transitions into a neutralisation-ready portfolio by your net-zero date.
The Oxford Principles guide how a tonne-for-tonne portfolio should evolve over time so that businesses are ready for that end state. By progressively increasing the proportion of removal credits in your Goal 1 portfolio now - and within those removals, increasing the proportion with durable, long-lived storage - you are building towards the position you need to be in by your net-zero target date. The transition is gradual by design.
This matters practically because the supply of high-quality removal credits with durable storage is limited and prices are rising. Businesses that wait until their net-zero target date to begin shifting their portfolio towards removals will find themselves competing for scarce supply at elevated cost. Building those supplier relationships and forward contracts now is a material strategic advantage, not because your BVCM portfolio requires removals today, but because your net-zero neutralisation requirement will, and the time to prepare for that is well before it becomes urgent.
What good governance looks like in practice
A BVCM strategy is only as credible as the documentation behind it. Before you start purchasing credits or allocating a budget, it is worth establishing a basic governance structure: who owns the BVCM programme internally, how decisions about credit selection and budget allocation are made, and how contributions will be disclosed in your annual reporting. This does not need to be complex, but it does need to be consistent. Stakeholders reviewing your climate disclosures are increasingly looking for evidence of how you’re approaching carbon credits and climate action, and not just what you’re spending.
The risks of ad-hoc contributions
Businesses that approach BVCM without a designed strategy - making individual credit purchases reactively or allocating climate budgets without a framework - face specific, avoidable risks.
Underfunding
Without a science-based carbon price and a structured budget, BVCM contributions tend to be sized by what feels affordable rather than what is appropriate.
The SBTi's guidance on BVCM is explicit that the scale of contribution matters. A token gesture does not constitute genuine BVCM, and stakeholders (investors, customers, accreditation bodies) are increasingly sophisticated in their ability to assess whether a business's climate investment is proportionate to its emissions and commitments.
Misalignment with standards
The voluntary carbon market is not self-regulating. Without a deliberate approach to credit selection, portfolio composition and supplier due diligence, it is easy to build a BVCM portfolio that does not align with the Oxford Principles, does not meet ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, and will not hold up to the scrutiny of a ratings agency assessment.
Misaligned portfolios create reputational risk and may need to be substantially restructured as standards evolve. This is a costly and disruptive process that a well-designed strategy can help you avoid from the outset.
Regulatory exposure
As BVCM-style requirements move towards being formalised in standards like the SBTi's Corporate Net-Zero Standard, businesses with ad-hoc or poorly documented climate contributions will find themselves exposed. Businesses that have been making structured, documented BVCM contributions will have a much easier transition than those starting from scratch when new obligations come into effect.
What this means for your strategy next
Designing a BVCM strategy is the point at which your corporate carbon credit strategy becomes a coherent, long-term programme rather than a series of individual decisions. It requires a science-based carbon price, a clear budget, a planned split between Goals 1 and 2, and a portfolio designed to evolve in line with the Oxford Principles.
The next steps from here are practical: identifying high-quality carbon credits for your Goal 1 portfolio, selecting carbon credit suppliers with the due diligence processes to back them up, and designing the Goal 2 contribution strategy that works alongside that portfolio. Each of those steps is covered in the chapters that follow.
Work with Ecologi
Designing a BVCM strategy that is credible, cost-effective and aligned with evolving standards is not straightforward. The choices you make about carbon price, portfolio composition, credit quality and budget allocation all have material implications for both your climate impact and your business's exposure to risk.
Ecologi helps businesses design and implement BVCM strategies grounded in best practice - from setting a science-based carbon price and building an Oxford Principles-aligned Goal 1 portfolio, to identifying the right Goal 2 contributions for your sector and stakeholder context. If you want to design a BVCM strategy that holds up to scrutiny and evolves with the market, speak to one of our climate experts to get started.