In recent years, corporate pledges to achieve „net-zero“ (carbon neutrality) have become a common part of sustainability reporting. But with increasing public and investor pressure, it is increasingly important that these commitments are more than just marketing phrases. This is where Organizations like the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) play a key role in creating standards to ensure the scientific basis and credibility of corporate climate targets.

Currently being prepared new, a more stringent version of the standard (Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0). However, experts from the renowned NewClimate Institute have identified several fundamental problems in their assessment. These are not isolated shortcomings, but a pattern of potential compromises that together could undermine the credibility of the entire SBTi framework and open the door to sophisticated greenwashing. This article reveals four of the most surprising insights from their analysis.

The Trap of „Temporary“ Solutions: Why Short-Term Offsets Are Not Enough for Fossil Emissions

One of the biggest problems with the new proposal is that it allows companies to offset their ongoing fossil fuel emissions using methods that only remove CO2 temporarily. A typical example is planting trees, which sequester carbon but store it for tens, if not hundreds, of years.

The problem is a fundamental mismatch in time horizons. Fossil fuel emissions remain in the atmosphere and affect the climate for millennia. The scientific consensus is clear: such long-term pollution can only be neutralized by methods that store carbon for an equally long time. Experts therefore recommend using more precise terminology – talking about „durable“ and „non-durable“ CO2 removal. The consequence of this gap is that companies could claim „net-zero“ status when in reality they are only using a temporary solution to a permanent problem, which is in direct contradiction to the science.

But the science is very clear that persistent emissions from fossil fuels – including fossil methane – can only be offset by removals that last for thousands of years. Companies cannot claim to have zero net emissions if they 'neutralize' their residual fossil emissions through short-term CO2 removals.

Slow Driving in a Critical Decade: How Old Rules Undermine New Goals

Another surprising finding is the planned approach to implementing the new standard. Although the new, improved version (v2.0) will be available in early 2026, SBTi plans to allow companies to certify to the old, less stringent standard (v1.3) until December 2027.

This approach creates a double standard. Why does it matter? It creates a confusing market where less ambitious companies can hide behind an outdated standard for years, deceiving investors and consumers who rely on the SBTi „seal“ as a sign of true climate leadership. Experts are therefore proposing a strong solution and recommend immediately ending validations against the older version as soon as the new standard is released.

The long-term coexistence of targets validated against different standards risks undermining this accountability mechanism. Allowing companies to stick with outdated validations during this critical decade for corporate climate action could undermine the value of SBTi for all involved except for less ambitious companies that benefit from looser requirements.

When 1 % is not enough: Symbolic responsibility instead of real action

The new standard introduces a concept where companies can earn optional „credit“ for taking responsibility for their ongoing emissions. The problem is how low the bar is set.

The minimum requirement to achieve this status is to offset just 1 % of their total emissions (scope 1, 2 and 3). Experts have called this threshold „very low“ and warn that it will allow companies to gain positive PR for an almost symbolic effort. The analysis also reveals a deeper systemic problem: „The gap between optional recognition and leadership status is extremely wide.“ In practice, this means that the standard creates a system with a trivially low entry point and an almost unattainable ceiling, with no meaningful path for ambitious companies between the two poles.

While we acknowledge that SBTi is seeking broad adoption of optional recognition for persistent emissions, we are concerned that the bar for companies seeking recognition status (i.e. 1 %) is very low and may not lead to additional support for climate action outside the value chain.

Promises vs. Actions: Why Relying on Suppliers May Just Be an Illusion of Progress

The standard proposes that companies can set emission reduction targets in their supply chain (scope 3) using so-called „supplier alignment targets.“ In practice, this means that they will rely on the climate targets of their partners.

However, experts say this approach is less transparent and shifts responsibility instead of motivating direct interventions. The experts offer not only criticism, but also a better alternative: more robust „transition-specific alignment targets“. These focus on specific and measurable measures in one’s own supply chain – for example, the share of renewable energy purchased or the number of zero-emission vehicles. This approach is more transparent and effective than relying on promises from others.

The quality of supplier compliance goals critically depends on the quality of validation or verification of their suppliers' compliance status and their willingness to meet these commitments in the future, not on specific supply chain interventions by the company itself.

The devil is in the details.

The push for stricter, science-based standards for corporate climate goals is undoubtedly positive, but the NewClimate Institute’s analysis clearly shows that the details of their implementation are key to whether they bring about real change or simply create new loopholes for inaction.

Expert comments are therefore not just a technical exercise. They are a key line of defense that protects the integrity of the entire system from becoming a tool for sophisticated greenwashing. As these standards become a benchmark for corporate responsibility, how can we ensure that their complexity does not become a cover for inaction? JRi