The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has published the second version of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard. Although the changes may appear technical at first glance, they clearly show how corporate sustainability expectations are changing.

While in recent years the focus has primarily been on setting science-based climate targets, the new standard increasingly shifts attention towards implementation, measurable progress and transparent reporting.

Key terms in brief

SBTi (Science Based Targets initiative): An international initiative that supports companies in developing and validating science-based emissions reduction targets.

Corporate Net-Zero Standard: The SBTi corporate net-zero standard, which defines the requirements for credible net-zero targets.

Six important changes worth knowing

1. Greater flexibility for different companies

The new standard applies a differentiated approach to small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as to companies operating in lower-income countries. With this, the SBTi recognises that not every organisation starts from the same position.

What does this mean? Climate targets can be better aligned with the company’s operating environment and capabilities.

2. Transition plans gain importance alongside targets

The new standard creates a closer link between emissions reduction targets and corporate transition plans. It also allows targets to be better aligned with different regions, business lines or stages of the value chain.

What does this mean? Setting targets is becoming increasingly insufficient on its own – companies also need to show how they intend to achieve them.

3. Transparency is just as important as the result

The SBTi maintains the “best effort” approach, meaning that it expects companies to take all reasonable steps to achieve their targets. In addition, companies must transparently present the assumptions, dependencies and risks that affect implementation.

What does this mean? Credibility is increasingly determined not only by the results achieved, but also by transparent operations.

4. Actual emissions reduction remains the priority

The new standard introduces a clear implementation hierarchy. First, companies must reduce emissions from their own operations, followed by measures that can be implemented in the value chain, and then sector-level collaborations.

What does this mean? The focus remains on actual emissions reduction, not on offsetting solutions.

5. Continuous monitoring becomes a basic expectation

The standard introduces an annual assessment and reporting process. Companies must regularly present their progress, any obstacles and the measures taken to address them.

What does this mean? Achieving net-zero targets requires continuous monitoring and regular review.

6. Carbon credits may still only play a complementary role

The SBTi continues to allow the use of high-integrity carbon credits, while making it clear that these cannot replace the reduction of companies’ own emissions.

What does this mean? Carbon offsetting may still only be a complementary tool in achieving net-zero targets.

From when does the new standard apply?

The SBTi provides a transition period until 31 January 2028. Until then, companies may submit their targets under either the previous 1.3.1 standard or the new 2.0 standard. After this date, only version 2.0 may be applied.

What should companies prepare for?

The publication of the new standard offers a good opportunity for companies to review their climate strategy and emissions reduction targets.

It is particularly worth reviewing the following areas:

• whether the emissions reduction targets still correspond to the company’s operations and evolving expectations;
• whether the transition plan properly supports the achievement of the targets;
• whether data collection and reporting processes are suitable for annual monitoring;
• whether carbon offsetting truly plays a complementary role in the climate strategy.

Although the SBTi corporate net-zero standard is a voluntary framework, it clearly shows that international expectations are increasingly moving towards feasible transition plans, measurable results and credible reporting.