Toute l'actualitéWith the release of Version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard on 11 June 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has done more than update one of the most influential climate frameworks for businesses. It has also sought to answer a question that has gradually moved to the centre of corporate net-zero strategies: what responsibility does an organisation bear for the emissions it continues to generate during its transition? Even when companies follow pathways aligned with climate science, they continue to emit greenhouse gases for many years. Between the decarbonisation of their operations and the achievement of net zero lies a space that has long remained insufficiently defined: the question of ongoing emissions and the responsibility they entail.
Recognising Climate Responsibility During the Transition
The most significant innovation introduced by Version 2.0 is the concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER).
The idea rests on a simple observation. Even when a company follows a reduction pathway consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, it continues to generate greenhouse gas emissions whose effects on the climate persist. The challenge, therefore, is no longer solely one of emissions reduction; it is also one of responsibility for those ongoing emissions.
The introduction of OER marks an important shift in the way corporate climate action is conceived. Until now, discussions have often been framed as a relatively binary choice: reduce emissions on the one hand, offset them on the other. The SBTi now proposes a more nuanced perspective. Between value-chain decarbonisation and the neutralisation of residual emissions lies a third area of action: climate contribution associated with emissions that remain during the transition. Such contribution can take different forms, ranging from financing carbon removal projects to supporting ecosystem protection and restoration initiatives beyond a company's value chains.
Importantly, this recognition does not alter the fundamental architecture of the standard. Carbon credits cannot be used to meet Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions reduction targets. A tonne of CO₂ financed through an external project does not reduce a tonne accounted for in a company's greenhouse gas inventory. Emissions reductions therefore remain at the heart of any credible net-zero pathway and continue to serve as the primary measure of climate performance.
Precisely because this principle remains intact, the evolution introduced by Version 2.0 is so significant. The SBTi does not blur the distinction between reduction and contribution; rather, it makes it more explicit and more structured. Climate contribution mechanisms are no longer relegated to the margins of net-zero strategies. They now occupy a clearly defined place within the conceptual architecture of the standard, without being conflated with decarbonisation efforts.
Reconciling Two Imperatives That Have Become Inseparable
This new version can be understood as an attempt to strike a balance between two imperatives that have sometimes appeared to be at odds in net-zero debates.
The first is the preservation of environmental integrity. Since its inception, the SBTi has maintained that companies must prioritise reducing emissions at source and transforming their business models. Any use of carbon credits that risks slowing those transformations is viewed as a threat to the credibility of corporate climate commitments.
The second imperative is more operational in nature. Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement requires not only reducing global emissions, but also mobilising large-scale investment in solutions capable of storing or removing carbon from the atmosphere. Whether through ecosystem restoration, forestry projects, regenerative agricultural practices or engineered carbon removal technologies, these solutions require substantial investment, often years before their climate benefits can be fully realised.
Version 2.0 of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard does not choose between these two imperatives. Instead, it seeks to reconcile them. By maintaining a strict separation between emissions accounting and the financing of climate action, it preserves the primacy of reductions. By simultaneously recognising responsibility for ongoing emissions, it acknowledges that a company's climate responsibility extends beyond both its carbon inventory and its ultimate net-zero target.
This shift is far from insignificant. It reflects the growing maturity of the climate debate, which is no longer centred on whether carbon credits have a role to play in corporate climate strategies. The real question now concerns their purpose, their timing and how they should be articulated alongside decarbonisation efforts.
2035: When Recognition Becomes Obligation
While the introduction of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility is the most visible evolution in the standard, the most consequential change may well lie in the provisions scheduled to take effect from 2035 onwards.
From that date, large companies will be required to finance carbon removals equivalent to at least 1% of their annual carbon footprint. This requirement will increase progressively over time until it ultimately covers all residual emissions on the pathway to net zero.
For the first time, the SBTi is embedding an explicit obligation to support carbon removal solutions before net zero has been reached. This decision reflects a reality that is now widely acknowledged: residual emissions will continue to exist for decades and will ultimately need to be addressed through mechanisms capable of durably removing carbon from the atmosphere. In this respect, Version 2.0 recognises that carbon removals are no longer a marginal or speculative topic. They have become a structural component of long-term climate pathways.
A Gradual Ramp-Up?
This evolution sends a strong signal about the destination. It remains more cautious, however, about the pace required to get there. Responsibility for ongoing emissions relies primarily on voluntary recognition mechanisms. Companies may choose to act today, but they are not required to do so.
This caution is understandable. Since its creation, the SBTi has been built around a core conviction: the credibility of net zero depends first and foremost on emissions reductions. The standard therefore seeks to avoid a situation in which premature obligations encourage organisations to prioritise the purchase of carbon credits over the transformations required within their own operations and value chains.
Yet this balance raises a fundamental question. If companies will require substantial volumes of carbon removals in the 2040s and 2050s, how can the economic conditions needed to develop those solutions at scale be created today?
This is where the central debate surrounding Version 2.0 emerges. For some, the explicit recognition of climate contribution and the gradual integration of removals into net-zero pathways already provide a meaningful signal for both companies and investors. For others, such institutional recognition will remain insufficient unless accompanied by stronger near-term financing requirements. Carbon sequestration and removal projects are built over decades. They require robust methodologies, long-term visibility and sufficiently clear demand signals to justify the investments involved.
In other words, Version 2.0 clarifies the destination, but leaves the question of timing largely unresolved. It acknowledges the role that removals will need to play in achieving net zero, while effectively betting that gradual recognition will be enough to mobilise the market before mandatory requirements come into force in 2035.
What Version 2.0 Means for Businesses
For companies, Version 2.0 does not create an immediate financing obligation. What it does change is the strategic framework within which climate contribution initiatives are considered.
By explicitly recognising responsibility for ongoing emissions and the legitimacy of actions undertaken beyond corporate value chains, the standard gives greater legitimacy to approaches that have, until now, remained largely voluntary. The question is therefore no longer whether such mechanisms have a place within a corporate climate strategy, but when organisations choose to embrace them.
A New Stage in the Maturity of Net-Zero Strategies
Beyond its technical provisions, the publication of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 reflects a deeper evolution in the way companies understand their role in the climate transition. Until recently, discussions focused primarily on emissions reductions and the credibility of climate targets. These issues remain essential. Yet a broader question is now emerging: how should companies assume responsibility for their climate impact during the years required to transform their business models?
The introduction of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility offers an initial answer. By recognising that ongoing emissions deserve consideration in their own right, the SBTi opens a new space within corporate climate strategies—one that sits between decarbonisation and the neutralisation of residual emissions.
Whether this recognition will be sufficient to mobilise the financing required for carbon sequestration and removal solutions over the coming decades remains to be seen. That may ultimately be the central lesson of Version 2.0: the debate is no longer about whether climate contribution mechanisms belong within net-zero pathways, but about whether companies, investors and project developers can bring forward, early enough, the solutions upon which future net-zero ambitions will depend.