SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0: from target validation to real-world implementation
The release of the Science Based Targets initiative (“SBTi”) Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 marks an important shift in corporate climate action. While the previous framework was primarily focused on validating science-based targets, the new version places much greater emphasis on implementation, governance, and accountability. SBTi itself describes this as a move from ambition to real-world implementation.
This changes what “good” looks like in practice. Under Version 2.0, companies are not only expected to set credible targets, but also to show how those targets will be delivered, how progress will be tracked, and how climate action is embedded in decision-making. In other words, the bar is being raised from target setting to target delivery.
Below, we outline five major changes compared to the old manual, and what they mean in practice.
1. Stronger governance and leadership accountability
One of the clearest changes in Version 2.0 is the stronger focus on governance. Companies are expected to secure formal approval of targets at the highest level of the business and to develop, publish, and maintain a transition plan that explains how those targets will be implemented. This makes climate targets less of a sustainability exercise and more of a core business issue.
On a practical level, climate ambition now needs visible backing from leadership. Companies will need clearer ownership, stronger internal coordination, and a credible link between strategy, capital allocation, and decarbonisation planning.
2. Higher expectations on base year quality and data robustness
Version 2.0 also strengthens data quality requirements. Instead of relying on an older historical baseline, companies are required to use the most recent year with comprehensive data as the target base year for a new target cycle. SBTi’s logic is that targets should reflect the company’s current emissions profile, not an outdated footprint. The main consequence of this is that companies cannot rely as easily on early reductions achieved years ago to define future ambition; the focus shifts to today’s starting point.
The evidential bar is higher: for Category A companies,1 assurance expectations increase, including specific third-party assurance requirements for base-year data. That puts more pressure on data systems, documentation, and audit readiness.
Version 2.0 also makes Scope 3 target setting more focused. Rather than encouraging broad coverage for its own sake, the framework increasingly steers companies toward the most material Scope 3 categories and emissions-intensive activities, helping effort land where it can have the greatest impact.
3. Targets become more tailored and more demanding
The target architecture itself changes significantly. Under the previous standard, companies could often set a combined Scope 1 and Scope 2 target. Under Version 2.0, those scopes are separated, creating greater transparency and accountability over direct emissions versus purchased energy.
For Scope 1, companies can use different science-based pathways depending on their context, including absolute emissions reduction, emissions intensity reduction, and asset transition approaches. For Scope 2, companies can choose between a conventional emissions reduction target and a low-carbon electricity alignment target, which increases the share of low-carbon electricity used, contracted or matched over time. These options are designed to keep targets aligned with 2050 net-zero pathways while better reflecting operational reality.
Another important shift is timing. Version 2.0 moves toward a 5-year target cycle, introducing a more structured, cyclical validation and reassessment model, and encouraging companies to revisit ambition more regularly as business realities evolve.
4. Much greater emphasis on implementation and progress tracking
Perhaps the biggest conceptual change is that Version 2.0 moves beyond the target and into how it is implemented. SBTi now includes a full implementation hierarchy, focusing primarily on actions that directly reduce emissions in the company’s own physical greenhouse gas (“GHG”) inventory, while also acknowledging broader measures such as activity-pool or sector-level interventions where direct action is constrained.
This is where market instruments also come in. Version 2.0 takes into account that certain instruments (such as low-carbon electricity attributes) can support implementation, especially for electricity-related emissions.
Reporting expectations are also stronger. Companies are expected to report progress annually on more than GHG emissions. The framework now asks for more information on implementation actions, barriers to progress, and assurance status, making climate reporting more complete and more transparent.
5. Ongoing Emissions Responsibility becomes part of the picture
Version 2.0 also introduces the concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (“OER”). The rationale is that even companies on a credible decarbonisation pathway will continue to emit while they are transitioning. SBTi therefore introduces a framework that acknowledges climate contributions addressing these ongoing emissions beyond the core target requirements.
For now, this recognition framework remains optional until 2035. After that, Category A companies will be required to address a defined share of ongoing emissions using eligible carbon removals. By the net-zero target year, companies with net-zero targets are expected to balance 100% of residual emissions. This adds a new layer to the standard: not just reducing emissions, but also addressing what remains with increasing credibility over time.
What does this mean for companies now?
Version 2.0 of the Corporate Net Zero Standard raises the bar and pushes companies to convert ambition into action. It is more demanding on governance, data quality, implementation planning, and progress disclosure and represents a stronger framework overall. It is likely to become more meaningful for investors, customers, and other stakeholders, but for companies it means that simply having a target will matter less now than being able to implement.
That said, companies do not all need to move immediately. SBTi states that companies will be able to submit targets under Version 2.0 from February 1, 2027, while companies setting targets in 2026 or 2027 can still use the current Version 1.3.1 as a strong foundation. Existing validated targets also remain valid through their target cycle, subject to the relevant review provisions.
For most businesses, the right next step is therefore not to rush into compliance, but to assess readiness. That means understanding whether target setting is feasible now, whether the current or future framework is the better fit, and what gaps still exist in data, governance, and transition planning.
Schedule a free consultation with our sustainability experts.
