In November 2025, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) published a second draft of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2.0 (CNZS v2.0). Stakeholders were invited to provide feedback on the draft through a survey by 12 December 2025. This input to SBTi’s public consultation discloses NewClimate Institute’s perspectives on the second draft and transparently lists all consultation responses to the SBTi.

This second draft shows significant improvements, but gaps remain to ensure transparency and integrity of companies' climate strategies.

The input to the CNZS v2.0 second draft builds on our previous position paper to the CNZS v2.0 first draft from April 2025.

Our main insights include

• Identification of relevant emission sources and target boundaries: The approach to determining relevant scope 3 emission sources is a significant improvement and will help cover a larger share of emissions in companies’ value chains. Its effectiveness, however, depends on high-quality emission inventories supported by robust auditing.
• Activity-level reporting and alignment targets: We welcome more granular reporting and the introduction of transition-specific alignment targets, which can strengthen companies’ ability to guide and track real-economy transitions. However, supplier alignment targets and revenue-based fossil phase-out metrics offer limited transparency and comparability, risking weaker incentives for meaningful action.
• Activity pool and sector-level interventions: Further clarifications on how companies may use activity pool and sector-level interventions are encouraging, though empirical evidence on their effectiveness remains limited. We recommend further research to ensure guardrails are science-based and that interventions genuinely support sectoral transitions.
• Bioenergy and bio-based feedstocks: Strengthened safeguards for bioenergy and bio-based feedstocks are an important step, given their sustainability constraints and limited mitigation potential. Requirements should reflect more clearly the scarcity of sustainable biomass and ensure its prioritisation for hard-to-abate sectors.
• Responsibility for ongoing emissions: We support SBTi’s provisions to encourage companies to take responsibility for ongoing emissions, while ensuring reduction efforts remain the priority. Eligibility criteria are a useful safeguard, but the 1% threshold for recognition is too low to drive meaningful additional climate action. Clearer integrity requirements are needed to ensure credible contributions beyond the value chain.
• Neutralisation of residual emissions at the net-zero target year: The current proposal to allow non-durable removals for neutralising fossil emissions is inconsistent with scientific evidence. Residual fossil emissions require durable storage, and terminology should be clarified accordingly. We welcome the use of corresponding adjustments to prevent double counting.
• Transparency and claims: The proposed evolution from an ex-ante validator to also performing ex-post verification, alongside improvements such as integrity checks and five-year renewal cycles, might strengthen corporate accountability. However, we recommend two-year renewals and an immediate shift to the new standard upon release to avoid distorted comparisons and ensure the SBTi dashboard remains credible during this decisive decade for corporate climate action.