By Tim Holman, Head of Consultancy, TEAM Energy

For more than a decade, achieving validation from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has been viewed as a significant milestone in corporate sustainability. It remains a valuable indication that an organisation’s emissions reduction targets align with climate science. However, validation alone is not proof of progress. The real measure of success is whether those targets influence the business decisions that drive meaningful emissions reductions.

The publication of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 signals an important shift in expectations. The framework moves the conversation beyond target setting towards implementation, governance, transparency and continuous improvement. Increasingly, the distinction will not be between organisations that have science-based targets and those that do not, but between those that treat targets as public commitments and those that use them to shape business strategy and operational performance.

Many organisations have become adept at calculating emissions and establishing credible reduction pathways. The greater challenge now lies in embedding decarbonisation into the everyday decisions that determine how a business functions, from capital investment and asset management to procurement and supplier selection.

A target can define the destination, but it does not determine the route.

Delivery depends on finance teams assessing carbon impacts alongside financial returns, procurement teams incorporating sustainability criteria into purchasing decisions, estates managers prioritising retrofit programmes and operational leaders taking ownership of measurable emissions reductions. These decisions occur across the organisation, often well beyond the direct influence of sustainability teams.

As a result, many businesses are entering a more demanding stage of the net zero journey, where success is measured less by ambition and more by execution.

A growing emphasis on implementation accountability

Version 2.0 strengthens the connection between target setting, transition planning, governance structures and progress reporting. Organisations are expected to pursue emissions reductions using the levers available to them, disclose key assumptions and dependencies, and demonstrate how barriers to progress are being addressed.

Importantly, the framework’s best-efforts principle recognises that factors such as technology availability, infrastructure constraints, supplier capability and policy developments may influence the pace of decarbonisation. This should not be confused with a relaxation of standards. Organisations are still expected to demonstrate what actions have been taken, what challenges have been encountered and how those challenges are being managed.

Increasingly, credibility will be determined by how effectively an organisation governs and delivers its transition programme, rather than by the existence of a validated target alone.

This also changes the conversation at board level. Instead of asking, “Do we have a science-based target?”, senior leaders should be asking:

• Where will planned emissions reductions come from?
• Who is accountable for delivering them?
• How will investment be prioritised?
• What happens if progress falls behind expectations?

These questions move climate targets from sustainability reporting into mainstream business management.

Transition plans are becoming strategic business tools

As expectations evolve, transition plans are taking on a more central role within organisations.

A robust transition plan provides the framework for translating climate ambition into measurable action. It should link targets to specific initiatives, investment decisions, ownership structures, timelines, assumptions and dependencies.

At a minimum, organisations should be able to answer four practical questions:

• Where will emissions reductions be achieved?
• Who owns delivery of each initiative?
• How will progress be monitored, verified and communicated?
• What corrective actions will be taken if performance deviates from plan?

Answering these questions requires collaboration across finance, procurement, operations, estates, facilities and executive leadership teams. Effective transition plans create alignment between business functions, ensuring that emissions reduction objectives are reflected in day-to-day decision-making.

While SBTi validation confirms that targets meet defined requirements, it should not be viewed as a guarantee that a transition plan is achievable, adequately resourced or commercially viable. Responsibility for delivery remains firmly with organisational leadership.

Scope 3 is where ambition meets reality

For many organisations, Scope 3 emissions represent the greatest challenge in achieving climate targets.

Unlike operational emissions, Scope 3 emissions originate across complex value chains involving suppliers, products, logistics providers and customers. As a result, organisations often have less direct control over outcomes and must rely on collaboration and influence rather than ownership.

The barriers to progress are rarely limited to measurement alone. Data quality may vary significantly between suppliers, ownership of information can be fragmented and procurement priorities may not always align with sustainability goals. In many cases, organisations have greater influence over purchasing specifications and contractual requirements than over the technologies available to suppliers.

Meaningful Scope 3 action therefore requires organisations to translate high-level climate commitments into practical, category-level decisions.

This may include:

• Assigning clear responsibility to procurement teams.
• Prioritising engagement with high-impact suppliers.
• Improving the quality and consistency of supplier emissions data.
• Incorporating carbon performance into sourcing decisions.
• Being transparent about areas where influence remains limited.

The most credible organisations are not necessarily those with the most sophisticated Scope 3 disclosures. They are the ones demonstrating how emissions data is informing procurement, supplier engagement and value chain decision making.

From ambition to evidence

Science-based targets will continue to play an important role in demonstrating climate ambition and alignment with scientific guidance. Yet as expectations mature, attention is shifting from commitments to outcomes.

Stakeholders increasingly want to understand where reductions are being achieved, which teams are accountable and how organisations respond when performance falls short of expectations.

The organisations that succeed in this next phase will be those that move beyond target setting and embed decarbonisation into the way business decisions are made.

Because ultimately, climate leadership is not defined by the targets an organisation publishes.

It is defined by the progress it delivers.