The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis or its editors.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has long been the gold standard for corporate climate ambition. This summer, the organization released its updated Corporate Net-Zero Standard, triggering a seismic shift in how multinational corporations approach their path to decarbonization. Among the most scrutinized aspects of this update is the role of nature-based solutions (NBS)—the integration of forests, mangroves, peatlands, and other ecosystems into corporate climate strategies.
For years, corporate sustainability teams have navigated a landscape of uncertainty regarding the role of carbon credits and nature-based offsets. The new standard does not merely provide a framework; it clears a credible, albeit rigorous, path for high-integrity nature-based action that can extend through mid-century. As companies look to align their long-term strategies with global climate goals, understanding the nuance of this updated standard is no longer optional—it is a prerequisite for survival in a low-carbon economy.
Main Facts: The New Architecture of Responsibility
The fundamental ethos of the SBTi remains unchanged: direct, deep decarbonization of a company’s own value chain must always take precedence. However, the updated standard introduces a critical, formal second track: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER).
Historically, corporate climate strategy was binary: reduce emissions and set a target date for "net-zero." The new standard adds a layer of accountability for the emissions that inevitably persist while a company undergoes its transition. OER—which builds upon the previously discussed "beyond value chain mitigation" (BVCM) concepts—demands that companies take financial and operational responsibility for their residual emissions long before they reach their final net-zero date.
This is not a license to delay internal decarbonization. Rather, it is a mechanism to ensure that companies are driving climate action in the real world, outside of their direct operational boundaries, while they work to shrink their own carbon footprint. The standard establishes three voluntary tiers of uptake:
- Engaged: Taking responsibility for 1 percent of ongoing emissions.
- Advanced: Scaling to 10 percent.
- Leadership: Taking full responsibility for 100 percent of ongoing emissions.
Chronology: From Voluntary Action to 2035 Compliance
To understand the trajectory of the new standard, one must view it through the lens of a phased timeline. The SBTi has effectively created a runway for companies to build the necessary governance, procurement, and accounting structures required for full compliance.
- Pre-2024 (The Era of Uncertainty): Corporate climate strategies were largely defined by internal reduction targets. Nature-based solutions were often treated as a "side project" or a controversial alternative to direct reductions.
- 2024–2035 (The Preparation Phase): The current period is defined by voluntary adoption. While companies are not strictly required to shoulder responsibility for ongoing emissions until 2035, the standard encourages immediate action. This decade is critical for establishing internal carbon pricing, supplier contracts, and governance models.
- 2035 (The Implementation Milestone): From 2035 onwards, the standard mandates that companies must support eligible removals equal to at least 1 percent of ongoing Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. This requirement scales upward to 100 percent by the company’s net-zero target year (no later than 2050).
- Post-2035 (The Long-Term Integration): The landscape shifts toward long-lived removals. By 2035, at least 10 percent of emissions attributable to long-lived greenhouse gases must be covered by long-lived removals, a figure that also scales to 100 percent by the net-zero target year.
Supporting Data: Why Nature-Based Solutions Matter
The inclusion of nature-based solutions is not merely an environmental preference; it is a pragmatic response to the current state of the global climate market. Nature-based solutions represent the overwhelming majority of existing, scalable carbon removal capacity.
According to the SBTi’s framework, "verified mitigation outcomes" explicitly include the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural carbon sinks. This creates a balanced, portfolio-based approach where nature works in tandem with emerging engineered carbon removal technologies (such as Direct Air Capture).
The distinct advantage of nature-based projects lies in their "co-benefits." Unlike engineered removals, which focus exclusively on carbon sequestration, well-designed nature-based projects deliver measurable outcomes for biodiversity, water security, and local livelihoods. Crucially, these projects often empower Indigenous Peoples and local communities—the stewards who have historically been the most effective at managing global ecosystems. By integrating these projects into their portfolio, corporations can meet their climate goals while simultaneously fulfilling their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) commitments.
Official Responses and Interpretations
The professional community has responded to the updated standard with a mix of relief and intense analytical rigor. Industry experts note that the SBTi has moved away from a rigid "reduction-only" mindset toward a more holistic "reduction-plus-responsibility" framework.
One of the most vital—and frequently overlooked—elements of the new standard is Footnote 75. While much of the industry has been busy debating the durability of natural carbon sinks, Footnote 75 signals that the SBTi intends to launch a formal call for evidence regarding "shorter-lived" removals. The question is whether these removals can provide climate-equivalent permanence through contractual or stewardship mechanisms.
This footnote essentially keeps the door open for nature-based solutions to be reclassified or treated with more flexibility in the future. It underscores that the SBTi is not ignoring the reality of current markets; rather, it is setting a high bar while acknowledging that the tools for verifying the long-term durability of nature-based projects are still evolving.
Implications: The Strategic Imperative for 2035
The primary implication for corporate leadership is clear: Waiting is a strategic error.
The governance requirements for 2035 are not trivial. Building the capacity to track, procure, and report on high-integrity nature-based credits requires years of institutional learning. Companies that begin their journey today—by establishing internal carbon prices and engaging with high-integrity project developers—will arrive at the 2035 milestone with a mature, battle-tested system. Those that wait will likely face a scramble for high-quality supply in a market where demand will surely outstrip availability.
Furthermore, the standard allows for "leadership" from NGOs and progressive corporations to set a higher bar than the SBTi’s minimum criteria. This creates a "race to the top" dynamic. Organizations that adopt the "Leadership" tier (100 percent responsibility) today are not just meeting a standard; they are future-proofing their brand against the inevitable tightening of global regulations.
Conclusion: A Clear Path Forward
The SBTi’s updated Corporate Net-Zero Standard has effectively demystified the role of nature-based climate solutions. By distinguishing between durability classes based on storage timescales rather than project types, the standard provides a scientific, evidence-based roadmap for the next two decades.
For corporate sustainability teams, the path is now open. The focus must shift from the defensive posture of "avoiding greenwashing" to the proactive posture of "delivering high-integrity, nature-positive impact." By embracing the two-track approach of deep internal reductions alongside responsible investment in the planet’s natural carbon sinks, corporations can move beyond mere compliance and toward a truly net-zero future.
The companies that succeed will be those that recognize the urgency of the moment—not as a deadline to be feared, but as a strategic opportunity to lead the transition to a sustainable global economy. The tools are available, the framework is set, and the time for action is now.
