The Science Based Targets initiative Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, published as a second consultation draft in November 2025, introduces a structured integrity framework for “Mitigation Impact Contributions” — the term the SBTi uses for what other frameworks call Beyond Value Chain Mitigation. It is not yet a published standard. It is expected to undergo further refinement, consultation, and approval. What it represents, however, is the clearest statement yet of where the SBTi’s thinking on corporate contribution claims is heading — and for any company with a validated SBTi near-term target, that direction of travel matters now, before the standard is finalised.
The Science Based Targets initiative is best known as the organisation that validates corporate near-term emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C pathway. That near-term target is the first pre-requisite for a VCMI contribution claim and the foundational commitment that distinguishes a company making a genuine BVCM contribution from one purchasing credits as a substitute for reducing its own emissions. The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard — the framework governing those targets and the net zero strategy built around them — is the most widely recognised reference point for science-based corporate climate action globally.
Version 2.0 of that standard, in second consultation draft as of November 2025, introduces for the first time a structured framework for what happens beyond the near-term target: the contributions a company may make to climate action outside its own value chain. The draft uses the term “Mitigation Impact Contributions” rather than offsets, BVCM, or carbon contributions. The choice of language is deliberate. These claims, the draft states explicitly, “do not imply a one-to-one equivalence with the company’s own emissions, nor do they require exclusive ownership of the resulting mitigation outcomes.” They are framed as contributions to the global carbon budget — quantified, verified, and disclosed — not as accounting instruments for neutralising the company’s reported inventory.
This framing is consequential for how companies communicate their contributions, how auditors assess them, and how the relationship between a reduction target and a contribution programme is structured. A company making an MIC claim under SBTi v2.0 is not claiming that its emissions have been offset. It is claiming that it has financed real, additional, verified climate mitigation beyond its value chain, in addition to its science-based reduction trajectory. The practical result is a contribution claim that is credible, auditor-ready, and immune to the “offsetting instead of reducing” criticism that has attached itself to less carefully framed programmes.
The draft standard sets out nine general integrity principles that apply to all Mitigation Impact Contributions, regardless of classification. They are numbered §1.1 through §1.9. For carbon credits specifically, these principles operate through the validated and verified credit mechanism already addressed by the ICVCM CCPs and ISO 14068-1 §11.2.
§1.1 — Ex-post delivery
The underlying activity must have already taken place, and its results, expressed in metric tonnes of CO₂e, must have been verified using observed monitoring data. No forward-issued or projected credits.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 7 · ISO 14068-1 §11.2 (ex-post rule) · CORSIA Criterion 3 · DEFRA Timing
§1.2 — Robust quantification
Mitigation outcomes must be quantified in tCO₂e using transparent, scientifically rigorous methods. Quantification must be conservative in its assumptions, complete in its coverage of all relevant gases, pools, and sources, and consistent with recognised standards. Baselines must be aligned with Paris Agreement principles and established transparently and conservatively using credible, verifiable evidence. Speculative counterfactual baselines — such as avoided emissions based on unobservable changes in customer behaviour — are explicitly excluded. Reported results must document data sources, methods, and assumptions, include an uncertainty assessment, and be reproducible by independent third parties.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 7 · ISO 14068-1 §11.2(c) · CORSIA Criterion 2 & 3
§1.3 — Additionality
The outcome would not have occurred without the intervention. Activities must not be financially viable, legally mandated, or fully financed under existing policies. To avoid creating barriers to investment in lower-income countries, activities can be aligned with, or contribute toward, a host country’s NDC — provided there is credible evidence that company support enables mitigation beyond what is already funded or committed under existing policies and measures. The draft explicitly states that corresponding adjustments under Paris Agreement Article 6 would not apply, since mitigation outcomes are framed as MIC claims rather than international transfers.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 5 · ISO 14068-1 §11.2(b) · CORSIA Criterion 1 · DEFRA Additionality Note: CAs explicitly excluded under MIC framing — contrast with CORSIA Phase 1 requirement
§1.4 — Transparency and disclosure
Disclosure of the underlying activity type, methodology, key assumptions, uncertainty ranges, monitoring period, and the specific mitigation outcome delivered (emission reductions, carbon removals, or sink protection/enhancement, or a mix). This is the disclosure requirement that connects most directly to the ISO 14068-1 §11.4 documented information requirements.
Aligns with: ISO 14068-1 §11.4 · ICVCM CCP 3 · DEFRA Transparency
§1.5 — Vintage
Mitigation outcomes must be generated in respect of, or represent, mitigation from 2021 onward. This ensures that recognised outcomes reflect recent and relevant climate action, aligned with the timeframe of 1.5°C-consistent pathways and current standards of integrity.
Aligns with: ISO 14068-1 §11.2 (5-year rolling limit, different threshold) · CORSIA (Phase 1 vintage parameters) Note: SBTi sets a fixed 2021 floor; ISO uses a rolling 5-year limit. For reporting year 2025, ISO permits vintage back to 2020; SBTi v2.0 requires 2021 onward. The SBTi floor is the binding constraint.
§1.6 — Avoidance of leakage
The substantiation mechanism must demonstrate how leakage has been assessed, quantified, and addressed. Mitigation outcomes must be designed and implemented to avoid or minimise leakage in accordance with recognised standards and good practice.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 5 (leakage component) · CORSIA Criterion 6 · DEFRA Avoiding leakage
§1.7 — Risk of reversal safeguards
Measures must be in place to manage the risk of reversal. This includes ongoing monitoring, transparent reporting on permanence and reversal events, and compensation mechanisms such as buffer pools, contractual make-good obligations, or insurance solutions. In land-based contexts, safeguards must be designed and implemented in line with social and environmental safeguards and the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent, to ensure they do not result in adverse impacts on rights or livelihoods.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 6 · ISO 14068-1 §11.2(d) · CORSIA Criterion 5 · DEFRA Permanence
§1.8 — Social and environmental safeguards
Underlying mitigation activities must be designed and implemented in accordance with internationally recognised safeguards embedded in the design and verification of the mechanism. This includes: respect for Free, Prior and Informed Consent of affected communities and landholders; protection of human rights, biodiversity, and environmental integrity; and fair and transparent benefit-sharing or compensation where applicable.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 9 · ISO 14068-1 §11.3(b) · CORSIA Criterion 8 (Do no net harm)
§1.9 — Independent verification
Claimed mitigation outcomes must be subject to credible, high-quality, independent assurance. Verification must be performed either by an accredited third party or through a substantiation mechanism that provides sufficient, transparent information for independent verification to be carried out. All verification opinions must be public to enable external scrutiny and challenge. For carbon credits specifically, this means validation and verification in line with recognised standards; neutral allocation of verification bodies to reduce conflicts of interest; and oversight mechanisms including meta-audits and sanctions for underperformance.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 4 · ISO 14068-1 §11.3(f) · CORSIA Criterion 3 · DEFRA Validation and verification
Alongside the nine general principles, the draft defines two transaction-level requirements that govern how the MIC mechanism operates once the underlying mitigation outcome has been established.
§2.1 — No double issuance or allocation
The systems underpinning the substantiation mechanism must include safeguards to ensure that the same mitigation outcome cannot be issued or allocated more than once. For carbon credits, this means unique serialisation, transparent tracking, and single retirement within registry systems. For other substantiation mechanisms, an equivalent traceability system must confirm that outcomes are recorded once, allocated once, and cannot be duplicated across different transactions or ledgers.
Aligns with: ICVCM CCP 2 & 8 · ISO 14068-1 §11.3(g) · CORSIA Criterion 7(a) & 7(b)
§2.2 — Transparency of value distribution
The systems underpinning the substantiation mechanism must ensure transparency of financial flows. This includes clear disclosure of the share of value reaching implementing entities and beneficiaries, as well as the design and operation of any benefit-sharing mechanisms where relevant.
Note: §2.2 is the SBTi’s most novel requirement relative to other frameworks. No other framework currently requires disclosure of the financial flow split between intermediaries and project developers. This reflects SBTi’s concern that a large share of voluntary carbon market value has historically not reached projects. The practical implication for buyers is not yet settled in the consultation draft.
The most technically consequential statement in §1.3 is a single sentence: “Corresponding adjustments under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement would not apply, since mitigation outcomes are framed as Mitigation Impact Contribution claims.” This is in direct tension with the CORSIA Phase 1 requirement, and it creates a genuine complexity for companies operating across multiple frameworks simultaneously.
The SBTi’s rationale for excluding CAs
The SBTi’s reasoning is framing-based. Under an MIC claim, the company is not asserting that it owns or has cancelled the mitigation outcome in the sense that it is deducted from any accounting inventory. It is asserting that it has financed real, additional, verified climate action beyond its value chain. Because there is no ownership transfer or accounting equivalence implied, the corresponding adjustment mechanism — which exists to prevent double counting between a buyer’s inventory and a host country’s NDC — is not triggered. The reduction is not “transferred” in the Article 6 sense; it is supported and disclosed as a contribution.
The tension with CORSIA
CORSIA Phase 1 requires corresponding adjustments for all eligible emissions units from 2024. CORSIA is a compliance instrument, not a voluntary framework. An airline that purchases credits to discharge its CORSIA obligation is making an accounting offset — a direct deduction from a calculated excess — not a contribution claim. The regulatory context is different. For airlines making both a CORSIA compliance purchase and an SBTi-aligned MIC contribution in the same year, different credit types may be appropriate: CA-backed credits for the CORSIA element (via the Sovereign Portfolio), and standard CCP-aligned credits for the SBTi MIC element.
The tension with ISO 14068-1
ISO 14068-1 §11.1 notes CAs as the mechanism for avoiding double counting between private buyers and host country governments, without mandating them. The standard encourages but does not require CAs for carbon neutrality claims. A company making both an ISO 14068-1 carbon neutrality claim and an SBTi MIC contribution claim from the same credit purchase is in a position where the stronger double-counting protection provided by CA-backed credits benefits the ISO claim, but is not required by the SBTi claim. The answer to “should we use CA-backed credits?” is therefore: yes for ISO and CORSIA purposes; not required but not prohibited for the SBTi MIC claim.
The practical position for buyers
Until the SBTi CNZ v2.0 standard is finalised and its relationship with CORSIA and ISO 14068-1 is further clarified through implementation guidance, the most defensible position for a company seeking the strongest evidence chain across all frameworks simultaneously is to source CA-backed credits via the Sovereign Portfolio — not because the SBTi MIC framing requires CAs, but because CA-backed credits satisfy all frameworks without exception, while standard voluntary credits do not satisfy the CORSIA Phase 1 requirement. CA-backed credits are not more restrictive; they are more comprehensive.
For a mid-market UK company reporting under SECR, with a validated SBTi near-term target, making a VCMI contribution claim alongside an ISO 14068-1 carbon neutrality declaration, and beginning to plan its engagement with the SBTi CNZ v2.0 MIC framework, the interaction of all seven frameworks produces a set of simultaneous requirements that are individually navigable but collectively complex.
The SBTi near-term target is already the first VCMI pre-requisite. The reduction trajectory it requires is the foundation on which the BVCM contribution sits. Making an MIC contribution that satisfies SBTi v2.0’s nine principles requires credits that are ex-post, from 2021 vintage or later, additional, transparently quantified, independently verified, and associated with robust safeguards. These requirements are a subset of what the ICVCM CCPs and ISO 14068-1 §11.2 already require. A company that satisfies the ICVCM and ISO frameworks satisfies the SBTi MIC principles without additional effort.
The complication arises at §1.5 (vintage 2021 floor) and §2.2 (value distribution transparency). The vintage floor requires credits from 2021 onward — a fixed date that will affect credit sourcing decisions as the market evolves. The value distribution requirement, if retained in the final standard, will create a new transparency obligation that no current framework addresses and that the market has not yet operationalised.
The overall direction of the SBTi v2.0 framework is clearly aligned with what the 360° Impact Portfolio already provides: ex-post, CCP-aligned, independently verified credits from Gold Standard and Verra, sourced with 2021+ vintage, with SDG co-benefit mapping and a disclosure pack that addresses all frameworks simultaneously. The MIC framing — contribution rather than offset, not one-to-one equivalence — is the framing used in every disclosure pack we produce. The alignment is structural, not retrospective.
The SBTi CNZ v2.0 standard has not yet been approved. The process positions described below are based on the consultation draft as published in November 2025. These will be reviewed and updated when the final standard is published.
All credits are ex-post. Quantification methodology and vintage year are confirmed and documented per credit batch. Additionality is assessed with reference to programme methodology approved under CCP-Approved Gold Standard and Verra frameworks. Speculative counterfactual baselines are excluded by programme design.
Activity type, methodology, and monitoring period are documented in the disclosure pack. Leakage and permanence assessments are sourced from project documentation. Social and environmental safeguards documentation is referenced from the registry project record. Verification is by accredited independent VVBs under Gold Standard / Verra requirements.
For clients who indicate SBTi v2.0 alignment as a requirement, credits are sourced with 2021 or later vintage as the floor. Vintage year is recorded per credit batch in the disclosure pack. Where the SBTi floor is more restrictive than ISO 14068-1’s 5-year rolling limit, the SBTi floor applies.
Unique serialisation and single retirement on Gold Standard or Verra registry, in the client’s legal entity name. Serial numbers and retirement link provided in the disclosure pack. §2.2 value distribution transparency will be implemented when the final standard and practical guidance are available.
The model disclosure uses the SBTi v2.0 “Mitigation Impact Contribution” framing: no one-to-one equivalence, no neutralisation claim, quantified and verified climate benefit beyond the value chain. This framing is aligned with every other framework in the library — it is structurally consistent with VCMI, ISO 14068-1, and the Oxford Principles simultaneously.
Contribution, not equivalence
The claim explicitly states no one-to-one equivalence with reported emissions. The contribution is framed as additional to the SBTi reduction trajectory, not a substitute for it.
Ex-post, additional, verified
Credits satisfy §1.1 (ex-post), §1.3 (additional), §1.5 (2021+ vintage), and §1.9 (independently verified) simultaneously with ICVCM CCPs and ISO 14068-1.
Standard not yet finalised
Disclosure references SBTi v2.0 as a consultation draft only. Exact framing should be confirmed against the published standard when available before including in formal disclosures.
Model disclosure for illustrative purposes only. SBTi v2.0 is a consultation draft, not a published standard. References to SBTi v2.0 in formal disclosures should note draft status and be confirmed against the published standard when available. Legal review recommended.
SBTi v2.0 is the most forward-looking of the seven frameworks and the only one in consultation draft. It sits closest to the VCMI Claims Code in its contribution framing, references the ICVCM CCPs for credit quality, and connects to CORSIA through the CA question it explicitly addresses.
Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market · 2023
The SBTi v2.0 MIC principles are substantively addressed by the ICVCM CCPs for carbon credits. §1.9.1 explicitly references validation and verification per recognised standards. CCP-Approved status of Gold Standard and Verra provides the programme-level satisfaction of §1.1–§1.9 simultaneously.
International Organization for Standardization · 2023
ISO 14068-1 §11.4 documented information requirements directly satisfy SBTi §1.4 transparency and disclosure. §11.2 credit criteria satisfy §1.1–§1.3. The key divergence is vintage: SBTi requires 2021+; ISO uses a rolling 5-year limit. Where both apply, the SBTi floor is the binding constraint.
Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative · 2023
SBTi v2.0’s contribution framing is structurally consistent with the VCMI Claims Code: both frame credit use as contribution rather than compensation, both require SBTi near-term targets as a precondition, and neither requires one-to-one equivalence. A VCMI Gold claim can be made simultaneously with an SBTi MIC contribution claim on the same purchase.
International Civil Aviation Organization · 2019 onward
SBTi §1.3 explicitly states CAs do not apply under MIC framing. CORSIA Phase 1 requires CAs from 2024. The two are not contradictory: they address different claim types. For companies making both a CORSIA compliance purchase and an SBTi MIC contribution, CA-backed Sovereign Portfolio credits satisfy both simultaneously without constraint.
UK Government · SECR Guidance · 2019
SBTi v2.0 MIC principles address every DEFRA Good Quality criterion and go substantially beyond them in quantification rigour, vintage specification, and transparency of value distribution. DEFRA compliance is a byproduct of MIC alignment for any UK SECR reporter. The 2021 vintage floor is more recent than DEFRA anticipates.
University of Oxford · Smith School · 2024
The Oxford Principles are referenced by the SBTi’s Above and Beyond report (2024) that preceded the v2.0 draft. Both address the shift toward higher-durability removal approaches over time. Oxford Principles alignment represents the portfolio construction logic that the SBTi v2.0 MIC framework implicitly assumes as best practice evolves.
The 360° Impact Portfolio contribution framing — verified climate action beyond the value chain, additional to your SBTi reduction trajectory, not a substitute for it — is already aligned with the SBTi v2.0 MIC principles in consultation draft. Credits are ex-post, CCP-aligned, 2021+ vintage, independently verified, and documented to ISO 14068-1 §11.4 simultaneously. The 30-minute discovery call is the starting point.