Q&A with Kyra Power, SBTi Engagement Manager
The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) recently released an initial draft of its revised Corporate Net‑Zero Standard V2. Once operational this standard will provide guidance for companies around the world to set robust and credible net-zero targets. As of April 2025, more than 10,000 businesses have validated targets or are committed to setting targets with the SBTi.
Now open for public consultation, the draft invites input from all stakeholders—including those in the carbon removal community. To unpack the technical details, our Director of Communications, Sasha Chebil, sat down with Kyra Power, North America Engagement Manager at SBTi, where she supports the evolution and adoption of SBTi standards and guidance. During a live Q&A with Carbon Business Council members, they discussed what the proposals could mean for carbon removal providers and tackled the key questions on everyone’s mind.
What is the biggest takeaway for carbon removal in the updated Net‑Zero Standard?
One of the most significant proposals for carbon removal within the draft standard is interim removal targets. One possible pathway we’ve proposed would require companies to set minimum carbon removal targets leading up to their net-zero year, in addition to their abatement targets. If successful, this proposal could spur early market demand and help build Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) supply in time to meet global climate needs by midcentury.
In the consultation, we are evaluating whether interim removals targets should be required, recommended as best practice, or if companies should have the flexibility to pursue either removals or additional abatement on top of their science-based target.
How does the SBTi see its role in catalyzing demand for high‑durability carbon removals?
As the key standard setter for corporate climate targets, the SBTi recognizes its unique position and responsibility to provide guidance and clarity to the market. While our frameworks remain built around emissions reductions first and foremost, we recognize the potential role of removals in counterbalancing residual emissions.
Embedding proactive interim removal targets in the standard could provide removals suppliers with credible indicators of future demand. Buyers would also be able to plan for future investments into various removals options - whether nature‑based or through technologies like direct air capture or enhanced rock weathering.
How is the SBTi balancing the need for flexibility with the risk of companies disengaging from targets?
We’re grounded in climate science—so the bar remains high—but we’re also pragmatic about implementation challenges, especially around Scope 3. That’s why the draft introduces additional flexibilities, such as indirect mitigation options for the most challenging Scope 3 emissions, and seeks feedback on whether interim removal targets should be mandatory or recommended. Our goal is to maintain ambition aligned with what climate science says is necessary, while also taking into account the very real barriers to implementation that companies face.
What reactions have you heard so far from SBTi-committed businesses and carbon removal suppliers?
Many see interim removal targets as a welcome market signal. The overall reception has been enthusiastic but we are ready to iterate on this draft - to simplify or refine to make the standard more effective. We encourage everyone to participate in the consultation.
You’ve touched on this a bit already, but from your vantage point, will interim removal targets be required or optional? And will they appear in sector‑specific standards?
The proposed revisions from SBTi are a welcome development. They provide much-needed clarification around interim targets, permanence, and the role of carbon removals in achieving net-zero goals. However, more work is needed ahead of final drafting to ensure interim targets cover more than Scope 1 emissions; the Oxford Portfolio Principles approach to portfolio composition is incorporated; and the required size of the market by 2030 is taken into account when setting targets.This is a central question of the public consultation. We have laid out three options:
Required interim removal targets
Recommended (but not mandatory) targets
A flexible “abatement + removals” approach, that allows companies either to layer in removals on top of their abatement pathway or to go beyond their science‑based abatement requirements
Once the Corporate Net‑Zero Standard V2 is operational, it will inform our future sector standards.
What about durability thresholds—how long must removals store carbon?
The draft proposes minimum durability requirements, with two broad options:
“Like‑for‑like” or matching removal permanence to the specific greenhouse gas’ atmospheric lifetime.
Gradual transition – early on, allow shorter‑lived removals such as nature-based solutions, with progressively more durable technologies required as companies near net‑zero.
The SBTi will reference existing third‑party integrity frameworks to set those thresholds. In the feedback process, we want to know which third‑party quality standards and criteria we should reference to ensure removals are real, additional, and verifiable.
How will short‑term vs. long‑term removals be treated in disclosure and target assessments?
We’re seeking feedback into this as part of the public consultation and within the expert working groups– both of which will inform the design options and guardrails included in the final standard. If the standard ultimately requires interim removal targets, then there may be specific requirements related to disclosure and assessment. Proposed progress assessments will allow companies to report performance, but specific disclosure requirements remain under development.
The power of collective action cannot be overstated. When buyers across industries and regions come together, it helps establish a more resilient market. Buyers’ coalitions create a stronger, unified voice and can drive market growth faster than individual buyers acting alone. This collaboration is vital for making carbon removals a viable solution for large-scale emissions reductions.
What recognition will companies get for addressing ongoing emissions with removals?
Under the current SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard, companies are encouraged to pursue Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM), or the activities outside their own value chain that reduce or remove CO₂. However, as it stands there’s no formal incentive or “credit” for doing so.
In the draft revision, SBTi is proposing a reward and recognition mechanism for BVCM. Companies that invest in or purchase verified removals and mitigation projects beyond their direct operations—such as financing community reforestation, supporting third‑party direct air capture, or funding nature‑based projects in their supply shed—could earn acknowledgement.
It’s important to note that all of this remains under consultation: we want your input on how to incentivize companies to take action beyond their own value chain.
How can stakeholders engage in the final standard?
The public consultation survey closes on June 1, 2025. Anyone can submit feedback on specific sections or the full draft. Whether you’re a corporate climate lead, run a carbon removal project, represent an NGO or study the topic, weigh in. Your feedback will help shape:
If interim removal targets should be mandatory or optional - or included at all
The design of durability thresholds for removals
Integrity criteria referenced
How SBTi recognizes actions beyond a company’s direct value chain
👉 Fill out the survey today and help ensure the updated Corporate Net‑Zero Standard delivers guidance that is both more rigorous and more practical.
###
