On June 11, the Science Based Targets initiative published the final version of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0, a document that sounds like regulatory boilerplate but is functionally a mandate. For the 11,000+ companies and financial institutions that have already set science-based targets under SBTi frameworks, the new standard shifts carbon removal from optional ESG theater into a hard requirement. Category A companies, those with €450 million-plus in turnover or 1,000-plus employees, must begin purchasing carbon removal credits in 2035 and reach 100% removal coverage at their net-zero year, no later than 2050. The standard becomes mandatory for all new target submissions on February 1, 2028, and target validation under V2.0 opens in Q1 2027 as a voluntary option alongside V1.3.1.
This is not a small regulatory tick. Sylvera's analysis of the standard estimates that companies with science-based targets retired roughly 20 million tonnes of carbon credits in 2026, about 0.06% of their combined footprint. Running those same companies' footprints through SBTi's V2.0 removal requirements generates a demand scenario of 293 million to 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon removal credits annually by 2035. That is a 14,000% to 55,000% increase in annual corporate demand for durable carbon removals, conditional on companies pursuing voluntary early recognition and hitting their removal targets on schedule. The standard distinguishes between reduction credits (avoiding or reducing emissions) and removal credits (pulling CO₂ out of the atmosphere or locking it away long-term), requiring that removal credits meet durability thresholds, permanence of at least 1,000 years for geological storage, or 100 years for biological approaches like biomass burial.
The mechanism SBTi built is three-tiered. Companies can pursue voluntary recognition now by demonstrating removal purchases that exceed their ongoing emissions; they can wait until 2035 when removal purchases become mandatory for large firms; or they can miss the target and face validation failure when SBTi audits their progress. The standard treats carbon credits as a complement to emissions reductions, not a substitute, companies must still reduce their operational footprint first, then use removal credits to address the residual emissions they cannot eliminate. This matters because it prevents a company from simply buying credits to offset high emissions instead of actually decarbonizing operations. David Kennedy, SBTi's CEO, framed the revision as a shift toward implementation: 'We are at a critical moment for climate action: companies have told us that they need a partner that can help foster implementation and that's what the Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 is designed to do.'
Who wins and who loses is immediately clear. Direct air capture companies like Climeworks, which can produce durability-certified removals at scale, benefit from a formal demand signal backed by corporate compliance risk. Carbon removal suppliers that have struggled to differentiate themselves from offset vendors now have a regulatory benchmark, SBTi's durability standards, that cuts through greenwashing. Companies that have already committed to removal purchases or built removal suppliers into their supply chains (Microsoft, Stripe, Shopify) have a nine-year head start on competitors who ignored the removal market as niche. The real risk falls on large corporates with high residual emissions in hard-to-decarbonize segments like cement, steel, and chemicals. For them, 2035 is not far away. Building reliable supply chains for 1,000-year-durable removals takes time, capital, and technical partners that do not yet exist at scale.
The open question is velocity. SBTi's voluntary recognition program launches immediately, but most companies will wait until 2035 to begin removal purchases. If adoption accelerates earlier, if Category A companies start buying removal credits in 2027 or 2028 to de-risk the 2035 mandate, the demand ramp could compress into five or six years instead of nine, forcing suppliers like Climeworks and emerging biomass-burial platforms like Mast Reforestation to scale faster. The other watch is regulatory alignment: the EU ETS is already examining whether to integrate CDR credits into its carbon pricing mechanism, and if the bloc synchronizes CDR policy with SBTi's mandate, European corporates face a double requirement. That coordination would almost certainly accelerate demand further. The standard also explicitly declines to permit offsetting as a method to address in-chain emissions, supply chain emissions companies directly influence but do not own, which means Scope 3 abatement will depend on actual emissions reduction, not credit purchases. For suppliers focused on low-hanging fruit offsets, that is a warning. For removal technology companies with durable, scalable products, it is a nine-year acquisition notice.