By Michel Goldsworthy, VP, Climate Impact at Elimini
This article is republished with permission from Energy Intelligence
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is updating its Corporate Net-Zero Standard, sparking debate over how best to align business action with climate science. Proposals to require carbon removals from 2030 mark a step forward, but questions remain about whether cumulative rather than annual targets deliver real capacity growth. Shifting electricity goals from “renewable” to “zero carbon” broadens options but raises concerns over scope, lifecycle emissions and the exclusion of bioenergy.
For many years now, the SBTi has led the way in setting the standard for corporate climate commitments. At the heart of SBTi is a simple ethos: follow the science. This ethos has played a large part in the rapid growth of SBTi. More than 10,000 companies are now committed to the target-setting initiative, and more than 3,000 companies are now committed to setting net-zero targets.
With growth comes challenges. The challenge for SBTi lies in maintaining its commitment to the science while maintaining the commitment of its signatories. To get anywhere close to keeping temperatures to within 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects a need for rapid decarbonization alongside immediate scale-up of removals. Meanwhile, decarbonization will only get more expensive for businesses as they progressively move along their marginal abatement cost curves. To top things off, the resolve of businesses will inevitably be tested by the increased politicization of climate change and a rise in anti-climate rhetoric. Adherence to the science can guide efforts to ameliorate these challenges.
In March, SBTi launched a consultation on Version 2 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard. The proposals are bold and undoubtedly a step in the right direction to bring many areas of the standard more closely in line with the science. Of note, SBTi has shifted its position on carbon removals, requiring or recommending for businesses to include removals as part of their targets from 2030 onward — paving the way for the scale up of the carbon removals industry. However, there are some areas that seem to take a step backward, notably the use of cumulative instead of annual targets and the change from zero carbon to "renewable energy" targets.
Removals Targets
The 2nd edition of the State of CDR report estimates that around 7 billion-9 billion tons of CO2 removals will be required per year in 2050. Meanwhile, the gap for 2030 is estimated at 900 million-2.8 billion tons of CO2. In short, we need significant deployment of removal, both now and in the future. The Corporate Net-Zero Standard has historically provided only a limited role for removals, allowing them only for compensating emissions in the net-zero year. The proposed introduction of removals targets from 2030 begins to bring the standard more closely in line with the science.
However, academics and other stakeholders are concerned the proposals may not do enough to close the removals gap. In addition to the proposed targets only covering Scope 1 emissions, which remain a relatively small component of most companies’ overall footprint, they are also framed as cumulative rather than annual. This would effectively spread out the residual emissions projected for the net-zero target year over the preceding years rather than requiring a gradual ramp up in capacity. Not only will this fail to deliver the scale up in capacity necessary for a sustained claim of net zero, but it also arguably contravenes the definition of net zero, which requires emissions and removals to balance over the same time period. Using removals accumulated over a period up to 20 years to compensate for annual emissions of the net-zero target year will ultimately rely on different time periods for calculating emissions and removals.
More ambitious targets inevitably make target adherence more expensive for companies. For SBTi to be successful, it cannot rightly ignore the cost of mitigation and ability to pay.
A possible solution is to provide greater flexibility to companies by moving to an overall mitigation target underpinned by minimum emission reduction and minimum carbon removal targets aligned to lower quartile estimates of IPCC 1.5°C pathways. This would ensure companies still retain a decarbonization strategy consistent with the science in delivering both emission reduction and carbon removal targets, while also maintaining some flexibility in providing the most cost-effective approach for delivering the remaining necessary mitigation.
Low-Carbon Electricity
SBTi also proposes a shift from “renewable electricity” targets to “zero-carbon electricity” targets to apply a more technology-agnostic approach and open the door to clean, nonrenewable technologies such as nuclear energy. While the justification for the change is reasonable, the current definition of zero-carbon electricity raises some concerns. It only applies to the point of conversion (i.e. Scope 2 emissions) and not the lifecycle of power generation. This feels out of touch for a standard that has long emphasized the importance of Scope 3 emissions.
Moreover, sustainable bioenergy is specifically excluded on the basis of its associated lifecycle emissions. This not only contradicts SBTi’s own definition but runs counter to the principle of technology agnosticism.
Removing credible climate solutions from the table will only push up costs for those businesses who are already facing significant cost pressures in meeting their targets. The IPCC notes that restricting the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage can impact costs to households and climate outcomes.
If proposals from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol to move from annual matching to hourly matching for calculating Scope 2 emissions are implemented, there will undoubtedly be a significant need for low-carbon baseload and flexible power. Bioenergy remains one of the only technologies capable of fulfilling this need and quite simply cannot be removed from the table. A more scientific approach would be to do away with categorization altogether and simply require all Scope 2 targets to be based on emission reductions.
The ambition of SBTi cannot be doubted. It has laid excellent groundwork and continues to make moves in the right direction to remain aligned with the science, particularly on carbon removals. But if we as the business community are to be successful in playing our role in solving the climate crisis, we need all options on the table. And that includes bioenergy.
Michael Goldsworthy is vice president of climate impact at Elimini, an independently operated subsidiary of Drax Group focused on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.
9/5/25