SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2: the six most important changes for companies

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is regarded as the leading international reference framework for science-based climate targets. With the Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, or CNZS V2 for short, the initiative is preparing its most comprehensive revision to date. The focus is shifting significantly: away from mere target validation and towards a stronger integration of implementation, progress measurement, and auditable climate data. The standard has not yet been finalised. The final version is expected to be published in 2026 and to apply to new target validations from 1 January 2028. Until then, the existing standard (CNZS V1.3) remains applicable.

What changes with the Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0

The new SBTi draft standard places greater emphasis on the implementation of climate targets: targets should not only be scientifically sound but also underpinned by concrete measures, reliable data, and demonstrable progress. The focus thus shifts more from ambition to impact, encouraging continuous efforts towards achieving targets.

At a glance: These six developments shape the draft Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0 and the forthcoming requirements for companies:

1. Cyclical validation of climate targets: Companies should not only define their targets clearly but also review them regularly and, if necessary, update them.

2. Transition plans gain importance: Reduction targets should be supported by concrete implementation and investment plans.

3. Stricter requirements for Scope 2: Evidence for electricity sourcing must be more transparent and plausible in terms of geography and timing.

4. Focus on material Scope 3 emissions sources: Instead of blanket requirements, the focus is on the targeted management of the most significant emissions drivers.

5. Increased significance of assurance and auditability: Target-relevant GHG data must be consistently documented and externally verified.

6. Systematic addressing of ongoing emissions: The SBTi discusses complementary approaches for companies to take responsibility for remaining emissions, in addition to reduction efforts.

Timeframe: After two consultation rounds in 2025, the final version is expected in 2026 and will be binding for new target validations from 1 January 2028. Until then, CNZS V1.3 remains applicable. Existing validated targets remain generally valid until the end of their term, though additional requirements may become relevant as part of future transition arrangements or target renewals.

1) Cyclical validation: from climate target to continuous management process

A fundamental change in the draft concerns the cyclical validation process: instead of a one-off validation, CNZS V2 foresees a three-stage process consisting of entry check, initial validation and regular renewal validation every five years, supplemented by optional event-driven spot checks designed to ensure continuous monitoring and quality assurance.

Mandatory performance assessments are planned at the end of each target cycle, alongside regular progress reporting using standardised calculations to demonstrate progress towards defined targets.

The validation of climate targets thus becomes a dynamic management tool that is closely linked to reporting, data quality, and operational implementation. Companies that embed corporate climate management as a continuous process are better prepared to meet the upcoming standard’s requirements.

2) Transition plan: from climate target to verifiable implementation

• Concrete reduction measures for all relevant emissions areas
• Investment plans and a clear allocation of resources
• Governance structures and responsibilities
• Timetables, milestones and measurable progress indicators

According to the current CNZS V2 draft, Category A companies will be required to publish a transition plan within twelve months of initial validation, substantiating their climate targets and net-zero ambitions. For Category B companies, this remains optional. The plan should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis, typically every five years, and formally approved by company management.

This creates a direct link to the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), specifically ESRS E1, which also requires a climate transition plan.

For companies, this means that simply defining climate targets will not be sufficient. What matters is a demonstrable implementation logic, from measures and investments to governance structures and continuous monitoring.

3) Scope 2: electricity procurement becomes part of the climate strategy

Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased energy, particularly electricity, and represents one of the most important emissions reduction levers for many companies.

One of the key updates in CNZS-V2: Scope 1 and Scope 2 must be reported as independent targets in future. Previously, combined accounting was permitted. The draft also formulates significantly stricter requirements for the quality of electricity certificates and the purchase of low-carbon electricity. In this context, the SBTi is aligning its approach with the ongoing revision of the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance, which is internationally recognised as the leading methodology for accounting for emissions from purchased energy. 

Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs), which are inexpensive but do not match consumption geographically or temporally, are likely to lose eligibility.

• Which certificates or EACs are used and from which regions?
• Do the certificates match actual electricity consumption in terms of geography and time?
• Is direct electricity procurement via Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) possible? 
• How transparent and reliable is the evidence overall?

4) Scope 3: focus on key sources of emissions

Scope 3 emissions often represent the largest share of a company’s total emissions, while also being the most complex part of the carbon footprint due to significant data uncertainty and limited direct control. 

The draft standard therefore focuses on significant scope 3 categories, priority emissions sources, and areas where companies can realistically exert influence. Nevertheless, Category A companies are expected to be required to set Scope 3 targets, regardless of the share of Scope 3 emissions in their total footprint. 

In addition, the draft envisages that major Tier‑1 suppliers will, in future, be encouraged to set their own climate targets, making supply chain transparency a non-optional consideration. 

• Which suppliers and product groups are the strongest drivers of Scope 3 emissions?
• Where is meaningful influence possible – for instance through procurement decisions, product design or supplier development?
• Which categories can be captured using robust activity data rather than generic spend‑based estimates?
• Where do verifiable reduction levers emerge that can be integrated into a clear target logic?

5) Assurance: GHG data must be auditable

With the Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0, the importance of robust and externally verifiable emissions data increases significantly. For Category A companies, the draft introduces mandatory third-party assurance of relevant greenhouse gas data. For Category B companies, external assurance remains optional, although it is explicitly recommended by the SBTi.

This places greater emphasis limited assurance - an external audit in which an independent, accredited auditor assesses key emissions data and progress for material misstatements and plausibility.

The prerequisite for this is a consistent and transparent data foundation. Our recommendation: Review at an early stage whether methodologies, calculation logics, assumptions and supporting evidence are comprehensively documented.

• Are organisational and operational boundaries clearly defined and traceable? 
• Are emission factors derived transparently?
• Is the Scope 3 methodology applied consistently across all relevant categories?
• Are Scope 2 instruments and guarantees of origin fully verifiable?
• Is there a clear audit trail?

Companies that have their GHG inventory externally verified establish an important basis for data quality, credibility and regulatory readiness. For further insights, see our article 5 reasons to verify your carbon footprint to understand why this step is worthwhile and what to consider in practice.

6) Ongoing Emissions Responsibility: taking charge for residual emissions

The draft also introduces the concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER), building on and advancing the previous Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) approach. It establishes a structured framework through which companies can assume responsibility for emissions that continue to arise along the decarbonisation pathway towards net zero – for example by financing high-quality climate protection projects outside their own value chain or through internal carbon pricing. The draft sets out two levels of recognition designed to incentivise early action.

From around 2035, OER is expected to become mandatory for Category A companies. The share of ongoing emissions to be covered will increase gradually, with the aim of ensuring full coverage of ongoing emissions by 2050. 

Importantly, OER measures do not replace emissions reduction targets and cannot be counted towards them. The concept is intended to strengthen additional climate action and is explicitly not conceived as an offsetting mechanism.

What companies should do now

Although the Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0 has not yet been finalised, the direction of travel is clear: climate targets are becoming more data-driven, more auditable, and more closely tied to concrete implementation.

Against this backdrop, three steps are already of particular relevance for companies today:

1. Professionalise GHG accounting
Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 categories should be measured reliably, documented in a consistent methodological framework, and updated on an annual basis. A robust data foundation is a prerequisite for validation, reporting, and external assurance.

2. Develop an implementation plan
Define which emissions will be reduced, through which specific measures, and within what timeframe. This should include sites, suppliers, product groups, and investment budgets. A structured transition plan will also help meet emerging requirements under both CNZS V2 and the CSRD.

3. Ensure verifiability
Data sources, methodologies, emission factors, electricity procurement instruments, and progress tracking should be documented in a way that ensures long-term traceability and auditability – forming the basis for external verification and future validation cycles.

How EurA supports companies on this journey

EurA accompanies companies in preparing emissions data along the entire supply chain to the highest standard, developing SBTi-compatible target pathways, and integrating the requirements of the upcoming Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0 into their own climate strategy at an early stage.

As one of eleven officially certified SBTi consultants in Germany and 163 worldwide (as of May 2026), Marvin Gornik will be happy to support you.

→ Get in touch and make your climate strategy SBTi-ready!

Conclusion: SBTi 2.0 strengthens climate action 

The Corporate Net-Zero Standard 2.0 is not a minor update, but a fundamental shift from a purely target-based logic to a logic of implementation and credibility. In future, companies will not only need to set ambitious targets, but also demonstrate their implementation and progress in a transparent, consistent, and verifiable way.

Companies that start building a structured foundation today – covering emissions data, Scope 2 electricity strategy, Scope 3 levers, and transition planning – will create a robust basis for upcoming regulatory requirements as well as for increasing expectations from investors, customers, and business partners.