The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) published its long-awaited Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 yesterday. Having contributed to the process as a member of the SBTi CDR Expert Working Group, Louis Uzor, Policy Director, gives his assessment about what the standard means for CDR.
The headline on carbon removal
The standard signals that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) will become mandatory beginning in 2035, marking a substantial shift forward from the previous version, which pegged CDR requirements to the point of net-zero or 2050. 2035 is 15 years earlier than 2050, despite being still a decade away, CDR's role in corporate climate strategy has been strengthened.
The OER framework
The mechanism through which this mandate operates is a new Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER) framework; it’s the first time SBTi has created a structured route for carbon credits in corporate net-zero strategies and replaced the vaguer Beyond Value Chain Mitigation label. It runs in three phases: 1) voluntary recognition from now, 2) mandatory responsibility for Category A companies (large and medium-sized companies in high-income countries) from 2035, and 3) full neutralisation of all residual emissions at the net-zero target year. The post-2035 requirement starts at 1% of ongoing emissions and rises linearly to 100% by the net-zero year, with a phased durability requirement on long-lived removals starting at 10% in 2035 and scaling accordingly.
Strictly no double counting and preferably no co-claiming
The standard includes a hard requirement that credits used under the OER framework cannot be simultaneously claimed by another actor within the corporate realm (double counting in corporate ledgers). Concerning co-claiming with governments (double counting across corporate and governmental ledgers), R46.1 recommends, but does not require, that companies, where possible, use removals that are not simultaneously claimed against countries' nationally determined contributions (NDCs), including through corresponding adjustments via Article 6, where available. This being a recommendation and not a requirement matters particularly for the use of European CRCF removal credits as part of SBTi progress reporting: CRCF requires, amongst others, that removals certified are included within the European NDC (See Article. 1.2). Further guidance on CDR under SBTi will hopefully clarify how this recommendation is best applied within a European context, since, for now, the recommendation stands against the use of CRCF removal credits.
Developing an update to a flagship standard within a new geopolitical moment
The standard reflects the current geopolitical moment. Sustainability objectives are facing hard competition from wars, trade tensions, oil crises and industrial competitiveness concerns. Simultaneously, companies that have made net-zero commitments are facing systemic practical barriers that sit outside their direct control, and target achievement becomes ever more burdensome. The standard has responded with a "best-efforts" framing, with targets set subject to uncertainties and dependencies. One notable retreat: earlier drafts included interim near-term removal targets to drive early CDR procurement based on Carbon Gap’s recommendations. These have been delayed and consolidated into the broader OER framework - a step back from the more ambitious earlier position, though one the SBTi has justified given the changed context.
The honest read
The new standard marks progress and presents a credible 2035 signal. But it has also traded ambition for breadth by softening several provisions under consultation pressure, leaving open questions about whether the 2035 mandatory requirement will hold through implementation. It is also worth noting that several key implementation mechanisms are still to come. Interim guidance on reporting actions and market instruments is expected for consultation only in Q4 2026, and the question of how different elements combine into an overarching progress claim has yet to be resolved. The standard has been published, but companies need significant further guidance before the full CDR picture is clear. If it were up to us at Carbon Gap, a small CDR contribution should already be a mandatory part of a net-zero standard today. The SBTi now appears to be making this choice by 2035. In the meantime, ambitious CDR buyers need clarity and guidance on their voluntary CDR implementation. As we look forward to the details that remain to be sorted for CDR, we will be working with SBTi to ensure that their upcoming guidance provides a clear signal for CDR buyers in theory and practice.
