Voluntary carbon markets in corporate climate strategy were created as a spontaneous decentralized initiative, self-organized, without a clear structural role in mainstream net-zero planning.
Over the past few years, numerous initiatives have emerged within the voluntary carbon market to improve its integrity, transparency, and standardization. Among the most prominent are the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), which establishes high-integrity quality benchmarks for carbon credits; the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI), which provides guidance on credible corporate claims and the use of carbon credits; and the Climate Action Data Trust (CAD Trust), which enhances transparency and interoperability across carbon credit registries.
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has just pushed the guidance a bit further, giving practical target and action-tools to corporates to integrate carbon credits as a pillar in their climate strategy.
In the Version 2 of SBTi’s Corporate Net Zero Standard, released June 2026, SBTi embeds carbon market action directly into the core net-zero framework, no longer as a separate workaround, but as a recognized part of credible climate strategy. This shift signals something important: carbon finance now has an explicitly defined role within corporate net-zero planning.
Critical point to note: carbon markets complement emissions reduction. They do not replace it, and V2 is explicit on this. But carbon finance can handle the emissions that continue throughout the transition period, while direct action is being implemented.
In V1, SBTi treated carbon markets through separate guidance called Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM). The message was implicit: you can use carbon markets, but they’re supplementary.
V2 replaces BVCM with a new framework called Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER). The difference is structural. OER isn’t separate, but sits inside the Corporate Net-Zero Standard itself, with the same level of rigor, transparency, and integrity requirements as emissions reduction targets.
OER acknowledges that even with aggressive decarbonization across Scopes 1, 2, and 3, companies will continue to emit greenhouse gases while transitioning to net-zero. SBTi calls these ongoing emissions. Within ongoing emissions sits a critical subset: residual emissions. These are the portion that remain in the company’s net-zero year: emissions that cannot practically be eliminated through direct action.
The framework provides guidance on how to address these ongoing emissions, within its optional recognition program.
Companies will need to indicate whether or not they will participate in the OER recognition program. Those that do not wish to take part will need to submit an explanation to the SBTi.
OER establishes three tiers of public recognition, each tied to concrete carbon finance commitments:
Engaged Recognition: Address at least 1% of total ongoing emissions by establishing a contribution budget or supporting VMOs.
Advanced Recognition: Address at least 10% of total ongoing emissions (and 100% of Scope 1 and 2), by either contributing $20/tCO₂e carbon price or supporting VMOs equal in volume to covered emissions.
Leadership Recognition: Category A companies will need to address 100% of total ongoing emissions across all scopes, by establishing a contribution budget equal to $80/tCO₂e of covered emissions and using the contribution budget to support VMOs equal in volume (tCO₂e) to the emissions covered. Category B companies qualify at 10% coverage on the same specifications.
The carbon market implications are substantial.
Validation at scale: SBTi now explicitly defines conditions under which carbon finance can be used to address ongoing emissions within net-zero strategies. This removes a layer of reputational risk for companies using verified carbon credits in their complementary climate strategy. They’re not hedging climate commitment, but they’re executing a recognized framework.
Integrity as table stakes: By embedding OER into the main standard, SBTi is signaling that carbon projects will be subject to significantly stronger integrity, accounting, and claims requirements than in previous iterations of net-zero guidance.
Clearer procurement pathways: The recognition tiers create a framework for corporate procurement decisions. As SBTi publishes more detailed guidance on what qualifies, companies are likely to have clearer signals on acceptable credit quality. This should reduce procurement uncertainty.
Two dynamics are at play:
Reputational first-mover advantage: Companies acting between 2026 and 2035 will earn SBTi recognition during the voluntary period. This creates years of market differentiation—they’re the climate leaders who acted early. Companies waiting until 2035, when OER moves to mandatory, miss that window entirely.
Supply constraints are real: The removal credit market is still maturing and supply is limited. Prices could rise if demand concentrates in the late 2030s. Companies that secure high-integrity carbon removal projects early will have better pricing power and guaranteed access. Those that wait risk both.
This isn’t speculation. It’s embedded in the market fundamentals: building a nature-based solutions project takes years. Reforestation, agroforestry, and REDD+ initiatives require long development cycles. The projects financed today determine the supply available in 2035.
If you’re starting to think about OER commitments, clarity on project quality matters.
Standard-certified projects will likely matter most: Leading frameworks like CCP and standards like Verra and Gold Standard currently set the bar for additionality, permanence, and claims alignment. SBTi has indicated it will develop recognition frameworks for projects that meet OER criteria, but hasn’t yet published specifics on which standards or methodologies will qualify. For now, certification under established registries reduces procurement risk. Projects outside these frameworks create uncertainty until SBTi’s recognition guidance is final.
Long-cycle projects offer supply certainty: Nature-based solutions like REDD+, forest restoration, and agroforestry take time to develop. But this is an advantage, not a liability. Projects built now determine the supply available when you need it in 2030–2035. Starting procurement conversations today gives you access to the strongest pipelines and better terms.
Develop partnerships with aligned developers early: The companies that will have secure access to high-quality carbon projects are those that commit to partnerships now. This isn’t about timing the market. It’s about ensuring the projects you need actually exist when you need them.
SBTi V2 doesn’t create the need for carbon markets in corporate net-zero strategy. That need already existed. But V2 creates incentives for early action. And it signals that the global transition to net-zero requires verified carbon solutions, not as a workaround, but as architecture. For companies, that means climate strategy that’s credible and defensible. For project developers, that means predictable demand for projects that meet the framework’s standards.
Ready to explore your ongoing emissions responsibility commitments?
If you’re beginning to think about ongoing emissions responsibility or need high-integrity carbon finance for your net-zero strategy, we’re here to help. We develop and finance verified carbon projects aligned with known standards such as Verra, Gold Standard and CAR; from REDD+, IFM, ARR, Blue Carbon to improved cookstove initiatives.
Explore our project portfolio or discuss with us how high-integrity nature-based solutions can integrate into your climate strategy.
Learn more:
Disclaimer: This article provides an overview of SBTi V2.0 and the Ongoing Emissions Responsibility framework based on publicly available documentation. SBTi guidance continues to evolve, so please verify against official sources. For complete and official guidance on the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 and OER framework, please visit sciencebasedtargets.org.
