The SBTi’s work is vital. We applaud its efforts to drive science-based climate action. The latest draft Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) V2.0 presents important steps forward, but to truly accelerate corporate climate leadership, it needs to be more pragmatic and enable impact in the near-term whilst working towards a net zero 2050. A balance must be struck between rigour, ambition and feasibility. We believe the following adjustments will unlock greater ambition and participation.
We have four key asks for a more impactful CNZS 2.0:
- Supplier Engagement – Encourage Best Practice, Don’t Add Barriers
- Scope 3 Mitigation – Embrace Innovation and Existing Tools
- Carbon Removals – Scale Up with Pragmatism
- Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) – Recognize and Incentivize Broad Action
Each is set out in more detail below.
Supplier Engagement – Encourage Best Practice, Don’t Add Barriers
In the existing version of the Net Zero Standard, the SBTi supplier engagement is one of multiple options that an organization can choose to set their science-aligned targets. We acknowledge the impact of engaging Tier 1 suppliers to drive meaningful action on Scope 3 emissions – often the largest part of a company’s footprint. We recommend keeping this as a powerful best practice, supported by case studies and tools, rather than a mandatory hurdle that could exclude many. Empower companies to pursue ambitious supply chain action, with flexibility around approach, to deliver their science-aligned targets, instead of penalizing them for not doing so.
Scope 3 Mitigation – Embrace Innovation and Existing Tools
We acknowledge the complexity of tackling Scope 3 emissions by recognizing direct, supply shed (activity pool), and indirect mitigation measures. This encourages innovation and broader value chain engagement.
We ask for clearer guidance on the credible application of market-based instruments like book- and-claim systems, insetting, and mass balance systems. Instead of creating new rules, leverage existing, robust quality standards to offer organizations practical flexibility.
For consistency, we recommend alignment with the upcoming GHG protocol revisions concerning Scope 3 and market-based instruments to ensure claims frameworks work in harmony, facilitating complementary action and clarity for corporates. Consistency and clarity allow corporates to navigate these frameworks with more confidence and take more ambitious action.
Carbon Removals – Scale Up with Pragmatism
We agree that carbon removals are crucial to meet societal net zero and support the integration of interim carbon removal targets as essential for reaching societal net zero. To ensure broad participation and feasibility, the approach should be practical, moving away from potentially restrictive "like-for-like" permanence requirements and instead aligning with established durability standards (e.g., ICVCM, The Oxford Principles). We support a gradual transition approach enabling companies to incorporate more durable removals over time, whilst continuing to support existing removal solutions, such as nature-based projects.
To drive the necessary ambition for global net zero, removal targets should extend beyond just Scope 1 residual emissions to include Scope 3, recognizing its significance for most companies, similar to current abatement target setting.
The SBTi should explicitly state that high-quality carbon credits are an option for removals targets set by organizations following the standard.
Beyond value chain mitigation (BVCM) – Recognize and Incentivize Broad Action
We strongly advocate for the formal recognition of BVCM, including explicit use of high-quality carbon credits, as a vital pillar of corporate climate responsibility. This is critical to drive further climate action, ensuring corporates can make a claim or be recognized for their action, particularly voluntary action.
Exploring additional recognition mechanisms, such as integration with frameworks like the VCMI, is crucial to further incentivize uptake. To drive broader participation, especially from organizations with limited resources or data, recognition should not be restricted to companies addressing all emission scopes. A tiered recognition model could uphold integrity while fostering greater inclusivity.
BVCM should complement, not replace, robust internal reductions, and its crucial role in collective climate action must be emphasized and encouraged without limitations.
Closing statement
We are optimistic about the CNZS's potential to galvanize global corporate climate action and channel significant private finance towards vital mitigation projects. To fully realize this ambition, it's crucial that the standard continues to evolve with transparency and inclusivity, upholding scientific rigor while ensuring pragmatic pathways for companies to act meaningfully across their value chains and beyond.
We urge the SBTi to provide clear guidance, embrace practical tools to accelerate the journey to global net zero, recognize corporate climate leadership, and remove obstacles to voluntary action.
The SBTi’s work is vital. We applaud its efforts to drive science-based climate action. The CNZS V2.0 presents important steps forward, but to truly accelerate corporate climate leadership, it needs to be more pragmatic and enable impact in the near-term whilst working towards a net zero 2050
