SBTi releases Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0: what changes for companies with existing targets

The Science Based Targets initiative has released Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0, its updated framework governing how companies set and act on net zero targets. The release tightens requirements around climate target delivery rather than simply target setting, reflecting criticism that earlier versions allowed companies to make ambitious commitments without proportionate near term action. For companies already holding SBTi approvals under the previous standard, the update creates a need to assess whether existing targets and delivery plans remain compliant.

The new standard moves the emphasis from ambition to delivery, a distinction that matters operationally for sustainability and ESG managers who must now demonstrate progress against commitments rather than simply having them on record. Companies pursuing SBTi validation for the first time will face the updated requirements immediately. Those with existing targets will need to understand the transition provisions, which the initiative has not yet made universally clear at the time of this edition going to publication.

For CFOs and sustainability leads, the practical implication is that net zero claims underpinned by SBTi approval will face greater scrutiny and require more granular documentation of emissions reduction activity. Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 reductions will all need to be tracked against the submitted targets in ways that satisfy the updated standard. Organisations that have relied on offset strategies to fill gaps between ambition and actual reductions may find those approaches less viable under the new rules.

The timing of the release matters for CSRD reporting teams specifically. Companies required to report under ESRS E1 on climate targets and transition plans are expected to reference the standards against which their targets are set. A newly updated SBTi standard creates a question about whether CSRD disclosures should reference the version under which a target was validated or the current version of the standard, a point that compliance teams should clarify with auditors early.

The SBTi update arrives alongside ongoing debate about the GHG Protocol's own independent review process, during which scientists on the Independent Standards Board raised concerns about deliberations over forest carbon accounting. Together, the two developments signal a period of active evolution in the foundational methodologies that underpin corporate climate commitments, and professionals should monitor both processes closely as guidance firms up.