Blog
DATE
2.7.2026
AUTHORS
Dr. Florian Niedermeier
Dr. Merlin C. Köhnke
TOPICS
Governance & regulation
Climate management
SHARE
On June 11, 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative published Version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard. For companies, this results in a transition period during which two versions will be valid simultaneously, with a fixed end date. This article explains which version is appropriate for which starting point and which deadlines apply.
As of August 2026. We will update this post as soon as the SBTi publishes additional implementation documents, but no later than every six months.
Currently, both versions are in effect simultaneously, though with different scopes. Version 1.3.1 is the only version against which targets can currently be validated. Although Version 2.0 has been published and is fully available since June 11, 2026, the validation portal will not accept submissions based on this version until the first quarter of 2027, according to the SBTi.
In practice, this situation regularly leads to a misinterpretation: Companies view the publication date as the effective date and suspend their target-setting process in order to adopt the new version immediately. The SBTi expressly advises against this. In its transition document from June 2026, it urges companies not to delay their target-setting and to continue using Version 1.3.1.
The reason is practical. Version 1.3.1 allows for flexibility that is no longer provided for in Version 2.0, such as a combined target covering Scope 1 and Scope 2. At the same time, key changes in Version 2.0 already affect targets set under the older version. So those who submit now lose little and gain a full target cycle’s head start.
The deadline for submissions under Version 1.3.1 is January 31, 2028. Starting February 1, 2028, the SBTi will accept only targets submitted under Version 2.0. Between the first quarter of 2027 and this deadline, companies have the option to choose which version to use for their submissions.
When it comes to planning, one factor is more important than the target date itself: the lead time. Target validation is not a mere administrative formality; it requires a robust greenhouse gas inventory, a clearly defined base year, and documented assumptions. Anyone who views the January 2028 target date as the starting signal has already missed the boat.
Targets that have already been validated are not affected by the transition. According to the SBTi, they remain valid for their full cycle, regardless of which version was used when they were set. The transition to Version 2.0 will not take place until the next cycle.
According to the SBTi transition document, four elements of Version 2.0 already apply to targets set under Version 1.3.1. This is intended to ensure a smooth transition between the versions without any methodological discontinuity. For companies, this means that part of the transition is not a task for the future, but directly affects their ongoing target-setting efforts.
The most far-reaching change is the updated absolute contraction methodology. According to the SBTi, it was implemented in the system in the second quarter of 2026 and is incorporated into all tools and submission documents. Since then, targets have been calculated based on annual emissions reductions relative to a base year that reflects the most recent available emissions data. Companies do not need to submit a separate application for this.
In addition, there is the implementation hierarchy, which may also be applied to targets under Version 1.3.1, as well as the best-efforts principle. Companies below the thresholds for Category A may also apply for classification as a small or medium-sized enterprise under the current version.
Implementation Hierarchy: Version 2.0 ranks measures for achieving targets according to their impact. Priority is given to measures that directly reduce the physical CO₂ footprint within the company’s own operations and throughout the value chain. Only then do measures that decarbonize shared systems and entire sectors follow. Market-based instruments such as guarantees of origin or raw material certificates are permitted within this framework, but only under defined conditions and in the context of activity pools and sector-based approaches.
In its transition document, the SBTi identifies three typical starting points and provides a specific recommendation for each. The decisive factor is not the size of the company, but its stage in the target cycle: whether validated targets already exist, what target year they specify, and when the next scheduled review is due.
Current SituationSBTi RecommendationTiming of the Transition to Version 2.0No validated targets yet; initial target-setting is pendingDo not postpone target-setting; submit according to Version 1.3.1In the subsequent cycle following the expiration of the first targetsExisting targets with a target year of 2030 or laterRetain current targets, do not set new targets prematurely. Starting in 2028 for the 2030–2035 cycle: Mandatory five-year review in 2028. Maintain current targets, Plan the transition. Starting in 2028 for the 2030–2035 cycle. Set or update targets by January 2028. Version 1.3.1 can be used; the target applies to the full cycle. In the subsequent cycle:
The most effective preparation does not involve the target formula, but rather the data foundation. Version 2.0 requires, according to the SBTi’s guidance document, a documented emissions inventory with transparent assumptions and scope definitions. Companies whose inventories are currently compiled in disparate spreadsheets will lose time during the submission process—time that the deadline does not allow for.
The second point is progress reporting. Version 2.0 introduces an assessment at the end of the target cycle for Category A companies subject to external review. The SBTi recommends implementing this review on a voluntary basis as early as Version 1.3.1. Companies that do so early will avoid having the review, data collection, and target setting all occur in the same fiscal year.
Third, it’s worth taking a look at your own categorization. Whether a company meets the thresholds for Category A determines its reporting requirements and the associated effort. The answer should be available before planning the submission, not after. A robust corporate-level carbon footprint is a prerequisite for the reporting basis itself; we address the question of how the base year is updated in the event of restructuring separately in the article on recalculating the base year.
A fourth point remains to be addressed. The SBTi has announced the launch of a framework for accountability for operating emissions in 2027 and plans to publish details in the second half of 2026. Companies with targets under both versions should be able to participate. It is not currently possible to make definitive statements about the framework’s design.
The transitional rule is more business-friendly than the discussion surrounding Version 2.0 might suggest. The SBTi could have made a clean break. Instead, it is incorporating key changes into the existing version and giving companies with ongoing targets a full cycle to prepare. This is a deliberate choice in favor of feasibility.
Nevertheless, based on our project work, we see a recurring pattern: Waiting for the new version costs more than the transition itself. Companies that have put their goals on hold since the announcement of Version 2.0 now face the same data-related work as before, only with less time. The SBTi’s recommendation to submit reports based on Version 1.3.1 now aligns with this observation.
We view the current information regarding the framework for ongoing emissions with skepticism. Although it has been announced for 2027, the details have yet to be finalized. Companies that wish to base their climate strategy on a recognition mechanism for residual emissions should not currently count on this component. The solid foundation remains reduction within their own value chain; any additional measures are supplementary but do not replace it.
Those who approach the transition strategically rather than administratively use it as an opportunity to review their own climate goals in terms of their implementation logic. This is precisely where Version 2.0 comes in: It shifts the focus from goal formulation to the question of what measures will actually achieve the goal. A structured validation of the carbon footprint and climate targets is recommended for the subsequent external verification of the assessment and targets. We already provided an overview of the changes in Version 2.0 in a separate article when the draft was released.
The transition to Version 2.0 of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard is clearly defined in terms of timing: Until January 31, 2028, organizations may choose between the two versions; as of February 1, 2028, only Version 2.0 will apply. Targets that have already been validated will continue to run through their cycle without change.
For most companies, this does not result in an immediate obligation to make the transition, but it does require some preparatory work. This work does not lie in the target formula, but rather in the data foundation, the categorization, and the question of who will review the progress assessment at the end of the cycle. Companies that clarify these three points before the deadline approaches will retain the flexibility to choose the timing.
The most costly mistake at this stage is to wait and see. The SBTi’s recommendation to finalize targets now in accordance with Version 1.3.1, rather than waiting for the new version, is not a mere formality; it provides a full target cycle of flexibility.
Dr. Florian Niedermeier is an SBTi-certified expert and is responsible at Five Glaciers Consulting for ensuring the methodological soundness of greenhouse gas inventories and science-based climate targets. He assists companies in setting targets in accordance with the criteria of the Science Based Targets initiative, from determining the base year through target calculation to submission. If you have any questions about this article, you can reach him at florian.niedermeier@fiveglaciers.com.
Governance & regulation
Governance & regulation
Best Practices
Climate management
Ratings & certifications
Contact us for all concerns and questions relating to sustainability. We are happy to make time for a personal meeting or a digital coffee.
Headquarters in Hamburg
Tel.: +49 174 1305766
Email: info@fiveglaciers.com
Branch Office in Kiel
Tel.: +49 (0) 174 1305766
Direct appointment booking
