Since 2015, an SBTi-validated target has sent a clear signal to the market: the company knows how much it needs to cut its emissions to stay aligned with the Paris Agreement and a well-below-2°C pathway, and it commits publicly to doing so. That’s what made the SBTi the reference framework for corporate climate action, with more than 11,000 validated targets to date and over 13,500 organizations committed to net zero. Version 2.0 of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard, published in June 2026, doesn’t abandon that goal, but it does shift its center of gravity. The biggest change is that the standard becomes “an action framework designed to support decision-making.” That’s good news for implementation. It does, however, raise questions about ambition, which the new framework leaves more up to each company’s own choices.
« From ambition to action » : an intentional shift in logic
The timeline is set. V2 becomes available for setting targets on February 1, 2027, both versions coexist for a year, and starting February 1, 2028 it becomes mandatory for all new target submissions.
V2.0 is the SBTi’s response to ten years of feedback from the field. The initiative acknowledges that companies were running into real barriers: levers outside their direct control, technologies not yet mature at scale, investment cycles misaligned with target periods, and a scope 3 that depends on the decisions of thousands of suppliers and customers.
Out of that recognition comes the principle that structures all of v2: a “best-efforts” framework. Set science-based targets, back them with reasonable implementation plans, deploy every lever within your control, stay transparent about the barriers you run into. A company acting in good faith can continue on its net-zero pathway under the SBTi framework, even when it falls short of its targets.
A cycle-based process and targets by scope
V2 organizes the approach into a renewable five-year cycle. As a prerequisite, governance must approve and commit to overseeing the targets. The company then builds its emissions inventory for the base year, sets its reduction targets, develops a transition plan, implements actions following a defined hierarchy, then reports annually before a third-party assessment at the end of the cycle. Ongoing emissions reduction (OER) coverage runs in parallel throughout the whole cycle. Two categories of companies coexist depending on size and country: Category A (large companies, and medium-sized companies in high-income countries) must set targets across all three scopes; Category B (SMEs and medium-sized companies in low- or middle-income countries) is limited to scopes 1 and 2.
Targets are set scope by scope, with several methods to choose from:
- Scope 1 (direct emissions, 100% coverage): absolute reduction, emissions intensity, or asset transition.
- Scope 2 (purchased energy, 100% coverage): alignment with low-carbon electricity, or absolute reduction.
- Scope 3 (value chain, categories representing at least 5% of emissions): overall absolute reduction, supplier and customer alignment, or category- and activity-based targets.
Short-term, five-year targets are mandatory for scopes 1 and 2, and for scope 3 in Category A. Long-term targets and the overall net-zero target remain optional.
Mandatory governance, a real strength
The standard’s first chapter covers governance. V2 makes it a mandatory requirement, assessed as early as validation, for all companies: the highest governing body, board of directors or equivalent, must take overall responsibility for the targets, oversee their implementation, and embed them in strategy. In our view, this is one of the most useful additions. What often blocks action is the lack of buy-in from leadership. Placing governance as a prerequisite tackles that blocker head-on.
A roadmap for prioritizing action
V2 requires companies to identify and quantify the most emissions-intensive activities in their value chain, and allows targets to be set directly by category or activity, rather than a single overall target. By going through this process, a company ends up with a roadmap that concretely identifies and prioritizes where to act first. The action hierarchy extends this same logic: reduce at the source first, within its own operations and value chain; then act within shared systems (power grids, supply chains, logistics); and only as a last resort, engage in sector-wide collective action, when structural barriers such as technological maturity or infrastructure prevent progress alone.
Also counting what’s being emitted today
V2 acknowledges that present-day emissions matter, through a voluntary program for addressing ongoing emissions that becomes partially binding starting in 2035. The path to 2050 doesn’t excuse companies from acting on what they emit today.
More flexibility, an ambition worth preserving
By gaining flexibility, v2 leaves more up to companies’ own choices: several requirements become optional or fall under recommendations rather than requirements. That freedom has a flip side. It makes it possible to obtain SBTi validation without aiming for the full scale of reduction that science demands. This is where the framework’s credibility is at stake, and where the most committed companies will need to make the difference.
Set a long-term target, even though it’s no longer mandatory. The long-term target becomes optional for scope 2 and scope 3. Without it, nothing requires a company to clearly state how much it will cut emissions by 2050, which on this point moves the standard away from a fully science-based logic. Setting it voluntarily remains the best way to stay the course.
Don’t settle for “best efforts”. The best-efforts framework lets a good-faith company stay in the program even if it misses its targets: the obligation of result on reduction is, in effect, loosened. That short-term comfort can backfire, though. By delaying structural effort, a company risks not only missing its long-term targets, but also being fully exposed to the transition’s financial risks, rising carbon prices, tighter regulation, stranded assets, that a more ambitious, earlier pathway would have let it absorb.
Keep ownership of scope 3. Where most emissions are concentrated, v2 opens up flexible options: setting supplier and customer alignment targets, by category, or excluding certain categories when a company judges it has no direct control over them. This flexibility makes the process manageable, but it can also shift the effort onto third parties or remove entire categories from the company’s scope of responsibility. Yet companies often retain real influence even without direct control: on commuting, for instance, a company can still act to help employees cut their footprint. Continuing to set targets on these categories remains the sturdiest choice.
The real challenge: supporting transformation, not just action
This is the most consequential point. The old standard, with reduction targets of 90% or more, could seem insurmountable and discourage some companies from engaging. But the scale of change required stayed crystal clear: limiting climate breakdown demands nothing less than a radical transformation of business models. By concentrating requirements on the directly controlled scope, v2 gives companies less incentive to rethink their role in the system: pushing suppliers, shifting how customers use products, joining sector-wide coalitions. Yet these are exactly the levers that will decide whether the collective pathway holds to the Paris Agreement. A more operational framework provides the means to work on this concretely, but it’s now up to each company to take that step: acting where it has no control, but retains real influence.
“From ambition to action” is right in spirit. V2 removes real obstacles, puts decision-making back at the center of organizations, and makes action more accessible than ever. The risk lies elsewhere: that a more flexible framework translates into lower ambition. It’s now up to each company to use that flexibility to aim for the transformation this decade needs, beyond the bare minimum.
What this means in practice
For companies engaging with v2, we see three priorities.
- Treat governance as the starting point, not a validation formality. This is the lever v2 makes mandatory, and the one that conditions everything else.
- Aim beyond the mandatory baseline. Long-term targets and targets on certain activities become optional or recommended, but they’re what keeps the trajectory aligned with 2050. Setting them voluntarily means choosing to stay genuinely science-based.
- Document scope 3 exclusions as commitments, not blind spots. The standard already requires describing planned mitigation actions. Turn that into a real action plan, not a box to check.
To go further
Earth Action supports companies in defining and implementing their climate pathway, including interpreting what v2 changes for their existing targets. The standard and its methods are public on the SBTi website. If you’re assessing internally how version 2.0 affects your strategy, write to us at contact@e-a.earth.