SBTi Version 2.0 is out: what companies need to know now
SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 is now published. What changed, what starts in 2027, and why target validation is becoming an implementation test.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has published Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0. The headline change is not simply a new target rulebook. It is a shift toward implementation evidence, progress disclosure and a more explicit acknowledgement that companies do not control every part of their value chain.
Information only
This briefing is for general information only. It is not legal, regulatory, accounting, procurement, investment or financial advice. Companies should check current SBTi materials, validation guidance and professional advice before relying on any target-setting route.
The useful way to read SBTi Version 2.0 is this: validation is becoming less like a badge and more like an evidence test.
Under the old corporate climate-target model, many readers asked whether a company had an SBTi-validated target. That question still matters. But Version 2.0 pushes a harder question to the surface: can the company show how the target will be delivered, where the barriers are, and what evidence supports its progress?
What happened?
SBTi published Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 on 11 June 2026. The update follows a difficult period for the organisation, including the 2024 dispute over whether environmental attribute certificates and carbon credits could play a larger role in Scope 3 target delivery.
The new standard does not turn corporate net zero into a simple offsets exercise. It does, however, recognise that companies do not control every emissions source in their value chain. That matters most for Scope 3 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, where suppliers, customers, infrastructure and sector-wide constraints often determine how quickly a company can cut its footprint.
SBTi says companies can submit targets under Version 2.0 from the first quarter of 2027. Version 1.3.1 and Version 2.0 can be used in parallel until 31 January 2028. After that, Version 2.0 becomes the required route for target submissions.
The practical change
The central change is not only methodological. It is editorially important because it changes what outsiders should look for in a corporate climate claim.
| Old reader question | Better Version 2.0 question |
|---|---|
| Does the company have an SBTi target? | Which version of the standard was used, and what emissions scopes are covered? |
| Is the target aligned with science? | What implementation plan, capital allocation, supplier engagement and governance supports the target? |
| Has the company missed its target? | Has it explained the shortfall, the barriers, the evidence and the corrective action? |
| Can the company use credits? | Are credits being used for residual emissions, ongoing emissions responsibility, or to imply progress that should come from direct reductions? |
That distinction matters because target validation can be misunderstood. A validated target is not proof that a company is already decarbonising at the right pace. It is evidence that the target architecture met a recognised methodology at the point of validation.
Decision points for 2026 and 2027
Companies do not need to wait until 2027 to prepare. The useful work now is to compare existing targets, transition plans and public claims with the evidence expectations that Version 2.0 makes more visible.
Four questions matter most:
- Which target route is being used? A company should be clear about whether it is working under Version 1.3.1, preparing for Version 2.0, or planning a transition between the two.
- Where is Scope 3 hardest? The strongest disclosures will not pretend value-chain emissions are fully controllable. They will identify supplier, customer, product-use, infrastructure and data barriers.
- What is already funded? A target looks stronger when it is connected to capital expenditure, procurement decisions, product changes, energy contracts and board oversight.
- What claim is being made today? Marketing language, annual-report language and procurement answers should not imply that validation alone proves delivery.
That makes the update a governance issue as much as a climate-accounting issue. The question is not only whether a company can submit a target. It is whether the people responsible for delivery can explain the plan, the constraints and the evidence trail.
Why companies should care now
The transition period creates a short window. Companies planning new targets, refreshed targets or public climate claims in 2026 and 2027 will need to decide whether to work under the existing Version 1.3.1 route or prepare for Version 2.0.
Waiting may be risky if the company has weak Scope 3 data, limited supplier engagement, unclear transition-plan ownership or a net-zero claim that depends heavily on market instruments. Version 2.0 does not remove those problems. It makes them more visible.
For investors, procurement teams and readers of sustainability reports, the update means SBTi validation should be read alongside implementation evidence. A credible target should connect to transition planning, capital expenditure, supplier requirements, product strategy, energy procurement, board oversight and progress reporting.
Evidence readers should expect
For readers outside the company, the practical test is whether the target has supporting evidence. A credible file does not need to be perfect, but it should show how the company is turning a validated ambition into operating decisions.
- Current Scope 1, Scope 2 and material Scope 3 emissions boundaries.
- Near-term target dates, baseline year and recalculation policy.
- Transition-plan ownership, including board or executive accountability.
- Supplier engagement, product strategy or customer-use assumptions where value-chain emissions dominate.
- Energy procurement, capital expenditure or operational changes already underway.
- Clear separation between emissions reductions, carbon removals and any use of environmental attribute certificates.
- Progress reporting that explains missed milestones rather than hiding them in narrative language.
This is where Version 2.0 may matter most. It gives readers a better way to ask whether a climate target is still a forward-looking commitment, or whether it is beginning to behave like a managed business plan.
What to watch next
The first watch point is adoption. Once companies can submit targets under Version 2.0 in 2027, the market will be able to see which businesses move early and which wait until Version 2.0 becomes mandatory for submissions after 31 January 2028.
The second watch point is Scope 3. This is still the hardest part of most corporate net-zero claims. If Version 2.0 makes Scope 3 barriers more transparent, the public conversation may become more honest. If it allows too much flexibility without enough evidence, criticism will intensify.
The third watch point is claims language. A company saying it has made "best efforts" is not the same as a company being on track. The phrase may be useful if it is backed by data, supplier action and transparent barriers. It may become greenwashing if it is used as a soft landing for under-delivery.
What matters next
The important test is whether Version 2.0 improves climate credibility or simply gives companies a more sophisticated language for explaining missed targets.
The next target cycle will show three things: how companies explain Scope 3 delivery, how they use market instruments and carbon removals, and whether SBTi validation remains a trust signal as the standard becomes more flexible.
The full SBTi explainer will be updated as the transition period develops.
Sources
- Science Based Targets initiative, current standards and corporate net-zero materials.
- Wall Street Journal, reporting on the SBTi Version 2.0 release.
- Financial Times, reporting on the revised net-zero rulebook and criticism of the update.