On June 11, 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) published version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard, the framework more than 11,000 companies use to set climate targets in line with science. After a two-year revision process, the update reshapes how targets are set, governed and checked. If your company already holds a SBTi target, or you are considering setting one, here is what actually changes and what to do about it.
Our SBTi expert François Mahé listed the following changes that we will discuss in this article:
- A new way of grouping companies
- From just a target to a governance and a transition plan
- Wider toolkit to set targets
- Moving away from all-or-nothing compliance
- Room for market instruments and carbon removals
Why SBTi rewrote the standard
The first Corporate Net-Zero Standard was launched in 2021 and gave companies a common definition of what a credible net-zero target looks like. Since then, over 11,000 companies have committed to it. Five years in, SBTi found that setting a target and delivering on it were two different things. Plenty of companies validated ambitious targets and then struggled to show real progress against them. The standard also needed to catch up with newer accounting guidance, in particular the GHG Protocol's Land Sector and Removals Standard.
Version 2.0 answers that gap. The ambition stays the same: net-zero by 2050 at the latest, along a 1.5 °C aligned pathway. What changes is everything around it: the governance, the reporting, the checks that are meant to make sure a validated target actually turns into lower emissions.
1. A new way of grouping companies
Previously, SBTi ran one general track plus a separate, lighter route for SMEs. V2.0 replaces that with two formal categories.
%20(Engels)%20(Engels).png)
Which category you fall into decides how strict your requirements are, from data assurance to how fast your near-term target has to move. Your category is set when you register, checked again at validation, and recalculated each new cycle on a consolidated group basis, so it is worth checking early and revisiting it as your company grows.
2. From just a target to a governance and transition plan
Under V1.0, SBTi validated the target and left the rest up to the company. V2.0 asks for a lot more around that target.
- Targets need sign off at the highest level of governance in the company, and have to sit inside corporate strategy rather than next to it.
- Companies require a transition plan. SBTi checks that the plan contains the elements the standard requires. It does not judge how good, complete or realistic the plan actually is; that responsibility stays with the company.
- Category A companies must have their base-yearemissions data go through limited assurance from an independent third party.
3. Wider toolkit to set targets
V2.0 widens the toolkit for target setting, scope by scope.
Scope 1 gains a new asset transition option alongside the usual absolute reduction target.
Scope 2 now has to be reported separately from Scope 1, with new options around how you source electricity.
Scope 3 sees the most significant change, moving beyond straight emissions' reduction to include supplier, volume and product-level alignment targets, what SBTi calls a shift from an "emissions-first" metric to an "action-first" one.
4. Moving away from all-or-nothing compliance
One of the more debated changes is that V2.0 moves away from an all-or-nothing compliance model. Companies that use every reasonable option available to them, and stay transparent about the barriers they run into, can remain in the programme even if they miss a target. This is aimed at sectors such as steel, cement or aviation, where the technology for full decarbonisation is not there yet.
It is not a free pass. Companies that fall short still face tighter targets in the next cycle, and their case has to hold up under the same assurance scrutiny as everyone else's. Handled seriously, this gives companies with genuinely hard-to-abate emissions a reason to stay engaged rather than walk away from the standard. Handled loosely, it could easily become a loophole. Which way it goes will depend on how strictly SBTi enforces it in practice.
5. Room for market instruments and carbon removals
Now market tools like "book-and-claim," in which a company buys into a shared, verified pool of sustainable material instead of physically tracking it, also count toward scope 3, but only after all direct decarbonisation options have been used up. Carbon removals also get more room, with a forward-looking requirement from 2035 to actively support removals at scale. The order stays the same, though: reduce first, remove only what is genuinely left over.
SBTi also still has to publish the criteria for recognising third-party assurance frameworks, framework guidance and plans to align the standard with the GHG Protocol's own revisions, so expect some of this detail to keep evolving over the coming months.
What to do now?
If you do not have a target yet, or you have one and want to update it: you can still set a target under Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1 until January 2028. Several of the flexibilities in V1, such as a combined scope 1 and 2 target, remain attractive in the meantime, and key innovations from V2.0 are being applied to V1 in the interim. Targets set this way stay valid for their full cycle; you would move to V2.0 for the cycle after that.
If your current target year is 2030 or later, or your mandatory five-year review falls in 2028: the advice is to keep your current target running and start planning your move to V2.0 for the 2030 to 2035 cycle, setting new targets from 2028 onwards. That lead time is there to give you room to plan the projects and internal changes you will need before the new requirements apply.
Either way, if you already hold an SBTi commitment under V1, a gap analysis is a logical first step. It shows you where your near-term targets, transition plan disclosure and base year data assurance stand against V2.0, and how much work sits between where you are now and where the standard is heading. If you are setting targets for the first time, the tiered structure and the wider scope 3 options create real strategic choices, and they are worth getting right from the start.
How Hedgehog can help
At Hedgehog, we help companies translate standards like this into a plan that actually fits their organisation: mapping your scope 3 hotspots, building a transition plan your board can stand behind, and working out whether V1 or V2.0 is the smarter route for your next cycle. If you want to know what a gap analysis would show for your company, get in touch, and we'll help you find the path that suits you.
