Is the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard feasible for all sectors? ISEP responds to consultation

In May 2025, ISEP convened a member workshop to formulate its response to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) consultation on the Net-Zero Standard v2.  

Senior Policy and Engagement Lead Chloë Fiddy set out the key responses here. 

Overall Reflections 

ISEP members broadly welcomed the increased rigour in the proposed standard. However, two primary concerns emerged: 

  • Proportionality: Some requirements may be too burdensome for Category B companies. ISEP recommends that stricter measures apply only to Category A companies, with voluntary adoption for Category B. 
  • Sector-Specificity: Feasibility on some of the suggestions varies by sector. Tailored requirements would improve practicality and uptake. 
image

Key Consultation Responses 

  • Transition Plans: Members supported mandatory transition plans for Category A companies but only recommended them for Category B, noting feasibility concerns. They also encouraged SBTi to align with existing frameworks like the Transition Plan Taskforce, rather than creating new ones. 
  • Boundary Setting: While many preferred retaining the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard, concerns were raised about comparability across organisations if multiple boundary-setting methods are allowed. Harmonisation with evolving international frameworks was urged. 
  • Activity-Level Emissions Reporting: Full Scope 3 coverage was seen as essential despite challenges. Annual reporting of emission-intensive Scope 3 activities was favoured, with a full inventory every three years for Category B companies. 
  • Data Traceability: The feasibility of achieving full traceability by 2035 varies significantly by sector. Sector-specific targets were recommended. 
  • Thresholds for Scope 3: Participants suggested lowering the significance thresholds (currently 1% and 10,000 tCO₂e) to capture more emissions sources within near-term targets. 
  • Indirect Mitigation: Support was expressed for allowing indirect mitigation under strict conditions, especially for hard-to-abate sectors. 
  • Supplier Engagement: ISEP backed mandatory Tier 1 supplier engagement targets and supported multiple approaches to measuring alignment. Achieving 100% supplier alignment by 2030 was deemed infeasible, but 90% was seen as achievable with flexibility around whether the targets set needed be to specifically endorsed by the SBTi formal target-setting. 

Looking Ahead 

ISEP’s members are eager to remain engaged as the standard evolves. They emphasise the importance of pragmatic implementation, proportionality for smaller businesses, and the need for coherence with other reporting and policy frameworks.

Download ISEP's full response here.


Published by:
image

Chloë Fiddy

Senior Policy and Engagement Lead

Chloë is the Senior Policy and Engagement Lead for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation at ISEP. Within this remit she works on policy advocacy and practice guidance projects relating to sustainability disclosures, particularly the aspects of emissions reporting, adaptive capacity, and risk and transition planning. Chloë is also a District Councillor and chairs the council’s Audit and Standards Committee. Previously she has worked at senior levels in the manufacturing and retail sectors, in climate and sustainable development planning roles in the public sector, and has served for a number of years as a charity trustee.