The Science Based Targets initiative released the final Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0 in June 2026, following a two-year revision process and several rounds of expert and public consultation. The updated standard will shape how companies set, implement and communicate climate targets in the coming years.

This briefing is intended for companies, accountability initiatives, policymakers, civil society organisations and other stakeholders assessing the credibility and comparability of corporate climate strategies.

NewClimate Institute reviews the final standard and highlights key takeaways on how the SBTi has strengthened requirements for transparency and integrity, where important gaps remain, and what to look out for next. The analysis builds on NewClimate’s previous inputs to the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0 consultation process and related sector standard discussions.

Key takeaways:

• A more mature framework for corporate climate target setting: The final CNZS v2.0 covers key elements for credible corporate climate target setting, including emissions targets across the value chain, target implementation, and companies’ responsibility for ongoing emissions.
• Greater focus on short-term action and implementation: The standard places stronger emphasis on near-term targets and implementation planning, while making long-term net-zero target setting optional rather than mandatory.
• High flexibility may weaken comparability: The wide range of target-setting options across scopes may make it harder for stakeholders to compare companies’ targets and distinguish high-integrity climate strategies from those that only meet minimum requirements.
• Hourly matching remains emerging good practice, but not a core requirement: The final standard misses an opportunity to require a gradual phase-in of hourly matching for low-carbon electricity, although its optional recognition framework sends an important signal that hourly matching is becoming good practice for credible scope 2 action.
• Scope 3 target setting still needs clearer direction: The updated scope 3 approach introduces several target-setting options, but category- and activity-specific transition targets remain the most promising way to guide and track value chain decarbonisation.
• Implementation guidance is useful but needs a stronger evidence base: The new implementation hierarchy provides helpful high-level principles for companies’ climate action, but further evidence and guidance are needed on the effectiveness and safeguards for activity-pool and sector-level approaches.
• A leadership gap remains: The CNZS v2.0’s high degree of flexibility may position the SBTi more as a mobilisation initiative for a broad range of companies than as a leadership initiative that clearly rewards the most ambitious and science-informed climate strategies.
• Next steps will be critical for corporate climate accountability: Forthcoming SBTi sector standards, the GHG Protocol revision process, and possible future good-practice recognition mechanisms will be important to strengthen transparency, comparability and integrity.