The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has released its second consultation on Net Zero Standard 2.0, marking one of the most significant evolutions yet in corporate climate accountability.
At its core, the new consultation reframes what it means for companies to take responsibility for their emissions. It recognises that progress towards net zero is not just about internal decarbonisation but also about contributing to global mitigation beyond a company’s direct footprint.
This is where Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) comes in. BVCM refers to climate- and nature-positive actions taken by companies beyond their direct operations and supply chains, contributing to global emissions reduction and removal.
Crucially, BVCM is not considered an offset: BVCM recognises that organisations remain responsible for their climate impact until complete decarbonisation is achieved. It is about taking responsibility and channelling finance towards systemic solutions, not claiming equivalence.
Under the proposed framework, companies will be recognised for voluntarily funding high-integrity climate and nature outcomes outside their value chains. This funding will go far beyond traditional offsetting and represent a company’s financial responsibility for its ongoing emissions. From 2035, large companies in high-income countries will even be required to take such action at a minimum level.
The consultation also introduces more explicit guidance on how companies should set budgets for this activity. Previously, there has been little guidance on what an adequate and reasonable internal carbon price should be, with some credits being sold for $5 a tonne, and others for over $100.
The SBTi now endorses internal carbon pricing as the foundation for impact budgets, recommending a minimum of $20 per tonne for recognition and $80 per tonne for leadership. These prices signal that taking climate responsibility must come with real financial commitment, transparency, and integrity.
Crucially, the STBI’s new proposal indicates that offsetting is not the end goal; instead, the emphasis is on genuine climate impact outcomes that reduce or remove emissions, restore ecosystems and nature, and advance climate mitigation.
The credibility crisis in offsetting
The timing of SBTi’s transition away from offsetting alone could not be more apt. A growing body of evidence suggests that traditional carbon offsets often are ineffective in delivering credible climate outcomes.
According to the Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2025), “the most widely used offset programs continue to greatly overestimate their probable climate impact, often by a factor of five to ten or more.”
The report finds that core problems, including additionality, leakage, double counting, environmental injustice, verification, and permanence, have persisted since the inception of the offset market.
Even after years of reform efforts, these flaws remain widespread, particularly because there is no overarching, agreed-upon price on carbon. The voluntary carbon market (VCM), once seen as a promising vehicle for corporate climate finance, has stalled due to the pervasive concerns over the quality and integrity of carbon credits, accompanied by a lack of standardised rules. As the report notes, “overcrediting in carbon offsets is an intractable problem.”
Although COP29 advanced the framework for a global compliance market under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, it did not substantially address the quality problem, creating the risk that the same structural weaknesses could undermine both voluntary and compliance markets.
The report concludes that the focus must now shift to high-integrity, durable carbon dioxide removal and storage, as well as to alternative models of climate finance, such as contribution claims, which allow companies to fund mitigation outcomes without claiming one-to-one “offset” equivalence.
Is there a better way?
This is precisely where Beyond Value Chain Mitigation comes in. Rather than using offsets as a licence to delay decarbonisation, BVCM recognises that while companies work toward eliminating emissions, they also have a responsibility to fund mitigation and restoration efforts that strengthen the global transition.
At the Global Returns Project, we’ve long argued for this shift, from transactional offsetting to delivering transformational impacts through climate and nature solutions. Through a curated portfolio of driven organisations, we direct resources to dependable, long-term outcomes for people and the planet.
Our portfolio of organisations supports the restoration of marine ecosystems and degraded forests, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity, and systemic interventions that tackle root causes of climate and ecological breakdown. Although some of the activities we support sequester carbon dioxide, this is not our primary focus; rather, we support the highest-impact, science-led projects that mitigate climate change while safeguarding and regenerating the natural world.
Going forward…
The SBTi consultation on Net Zero Standard 2.0 is open until 8 December 2025. As the conversation evolves, one truth is becoming clear: offsetting isn’t the future – taking meaningful responsibility is. By embracing Beyond Value Chain Mitigation and investing in high-integrity climate and nature solutions, companies can move beyond compliance and actively contribute to the global net-zero transition.
At the Global Returns Project, we help organisations take that step, turning ambition into measurable action. Now is the moment for businesses to lead with integrity and fund genuine climate solutions. Discover how your organisation can take responsibility beyond its value chain and become part of the movement to drive genuine climate progress.
Support our work
Read more at:
Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), Net Zero Standard 2.0 Consultation (2025)
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 50 (2025): “Carbon Offsets: The Evidence on Quality, Integrity, and Market Reform”