What Does SBTi V2.0 Mean for Freight Decarbonization?

Key Takeaways

SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 is effective February 1, 2027. Companies setting new targets after that date must comply. Companies with existing 2030 targets begin their next cycle under sbti V2 0 from 2028.
The standard establishes a mandatory three-level implementation hierarchy. Physical, activity-level interventions must be assessed and implemented before market mechanisms such as book-and-claim can count toward target implementation. (For freight, this means carrier selection, route optimization, modal shift, and shipment consolidation.) Cost is not a valid structural constraint for bypassing this sequence.
All five major freight modes are explicitly named as Emissions-Intensive Activities. Both Category A and Category B companies must identify and separately quantify transport EIAs that represent 5% or more of total Scope 3 emissions.
Well-to-wheel reporting is mandatory for all transportation-related Scope 3 emissions, including where transport categories are excluded from near-term targets. Tank-to-wheel figures are no longer sufficient.
Average-factor data cannot satisfy the hierarchy's evidentiary requirements. Demonstrating that physical intervention was assessed requires carrier- and route-level differentiation that trade-lane averages cannot provide.

What is SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0?

The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 (CNZS V2.0) is the updated science-based target-setting framework published by the Science-Based Targets Initiative on June 11, 2026. It is effective from February 1, 2027. It replaces Version 1.3.1 as the primary standard for corporate net-zero target setting, covering Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions across all sectors and geographies.

The standard introduces three structural changes that did not exist in V1:

A mandatory implementation hierarchy that sequences how companies must act before using market mechanisms
Explicit identification of Emissions-Intensive Activities (EIAs), including all major freight modes, requiring separate quantification
A Well-to-Wheel (WtW) reporting requirement for all transportation-related Scope 3 emissions, including where those categories are excluded from near-term targets

The standard requires companies to follow Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol methodology for all Scope 3 calculations.

What Changes for Freight Under V2.0?

The core change for freight is this: book & claim and other market-based mechanisms are no longer a first resort. SBTi net-zero V2.0 requires companies to demonstrate that physical emissions reductions were assessed and implemented first, at the level of the specific carrier, route, and mode, before any market instrument can count toward target implementation.

This applies to Scope 3 Categories 4 and 9, upstream and downstream transportation and distribution, which cover the freight movements most relevant to shippers across manufacturing, FMCG, automotive, apparel, and pharmaceutical sectors.

The standard also mandates well-to-wheel reporting for all transportation emissions. This means Tank-to-Wheel (TtW) figures, which capture only direct combustion, are no longer sufficient. Companies must account for the full energy lifecycle of the fuel or electricity used, from extraction and production through to the vehicle or vessel operation.

A third structural change introduces a new framework for identifying and quantifying the most emissions-intensive value chain activities, covered in the section below.

What Are Emissions-Intensive Activities and Why Do They Matter for Freight?

An Emissions-Intensive Activity (EIA) is a value chain activity that generates significant GHG emissions relative to a company's total Scope 3 footprint.

Under C6.1-C6.3, all companies, both Category A and Category B*, must identify and separately quantify emissions from any EIA representing 5% or more of total Scope 3 emissions across categories 1 to 14. This is not a reporting recommendation. It is a mandatory requirement that applies regardless of company size or geography.

All five major freight modes are explicitly named as EIAs in Table A.1 of the standard:

Ocean shipping
Aviation freight
Road heavy duty
Rail freight
Road light duty

For any global shipper where freight is a material share of Scope 3, transport EIAs will almost certainly cross the 5% threshold. That makes separate quantification mandatory, not discretionary.

What Does Separate Quantification Require?

EIA quantification must use the best available data (C6.2). Where a company cannot complete EIA quantification, it must explain which EIAs have not been quantified, describe the data limitations, and complete the quantification in the next update to its transition plan.

For Category A companies, EIA emissions are also in scope for mandatory third-party assurance (C7.1-C7.2). Separately, companies must self-disclose material data gaps, methodological limitations, and the use of estimates or proxy data in their GHG inventory (C5.10).

The EIA framework transforms freight emissions from a line item in a Scope 3 category rollup into a separately evidenced, separately assured, and, for Category A companies, separately tracked commitment. Average-factor data that was sufficient for category-level reporting becomes harder to defend when the same figures are subject to independent scrutiny at the activity level.

What Is the Implementation Hierarchy and Why Does It Matter?

The implementation hierarchy is the most commercially consequential element of SBTi net zero V2.0 for freight teams. It is established in CNZS-C21 and sets a mandatory sequence for how companies must approach emissions reduction.

The standard's stated intent is to prioritize emissions reductions as close as possible to the source, while enabling credible and systemically relevant action at the activity pool or sector level where sufficient decarbonisation is not feasible within the required timeframe.

The Three Levels

Level	What is covers	Transport examples
Level 1: Activity-level action	Direct interventions on the specific emissions source	Carrier selection, route optimization, modal shift, shipment consolidation, reducing air freight, improving vehicle utilization
Level 2: Activity pool-level action	Action within the shared system from which emissions arise	Book-and-claim within a defined logistics network, maritime carrier network, or fuel supply system
Level 1: Sector-level action	Broader sector intervention where structural constraints prevent action at Levels 1 or 2	Sector-wide decarbonization programs, enabling investments

The standard requires that companies prioritize activity-level actions to reduce emissions from their operations and value chains before pursuing more indirect action (C21.1).

Activity pool-level action, where book-and-claim becomes relevant for freight, is only permitted after activity-level options have been assessed and implemented where feasible. Sector-level action is only permitted where structural constraints prevent sufficient action at either Level 1 or Level 2.

What Counts as a Structural Constraint?

The standard defines feasibility as technically and commercially achievable on reasonable terms relative to sector norms, considering available technologies, market conditions, and credible leading practices (footnote 38).

Footnote 40 states directly: "Structural constraints do not include internal preferences, procurement choices, or cost considerations alone."

This means a company cannot purchase a book-and-claim certificate because physical decarbonization was inconvenient or expensive. It must document why carrier-level, route-level, or modal interventions were not technically or commercially feasible on reasonable sector terms.

Why Is Book-and-Claim No Longer a First Resort?

Book-and-claim is explicitly recognized in V2.0 as a valid mechanism within the implementation hierarchy, alongside other commodity certificates using mass balance or book-and-claim chain-of-custody models.

However, recognition comes with constraints. Under CNZS-C25, all market instruments must satisfy the following integrity criteria:

Activity matching (C25.1): The instrument must correspond to the same activity type, fuel, or energy source as the company's underlying activity. A maritime certificate cannot be used against a road freight emissions liability.
System association (C25.2): Instruments must occur within the same system, or within geographically or systemically relevant systems.
Quantification (C25.3): Outcomes must be transparently and conservatively quantified according to recognized methodologies.
Verifiability (C25.4): Auditable documentation must be maintained to enable independent third-party assurance.
Temporal alignment (C25.5): Instruments must correspond to activities occurring within 12 months of the company's underlying activities.
Unique attribution (C25.6): Outcomes must be clearly attributable to the company, without double counting.
Double counting prevention (C25.7): Unique identification and tracking of outcomes is required.

These are not administrative requirements. They are granular data requirements. To demonstrate activity matching, a company must know which transport mode, fuel type, and carrier service generated the emissions. To demonstrate temporal alignment, it must know when those activities occurred. To demonstrate that physical action was assessed first, it must have data granular enough to evaluate what Level 1 interventions were available.

The Hierarchy Changes What Data Is Required Before a Certificate Is Purchased

The sequence the standard establishes means the data requirement exists upstream of the market instrument decision, not alongside it. A company that moves directly to book-and-claim without demonstrating that it has considered Level 1 options has not met the standard's requirements, regardless of the certificate's integrity.

What Data Does the Hierarchy Actually Require?

Average-factor data cannot satisfy what the hierarchy demands.

To demonstrate that activity-level intervention was assessed, a company needs to know:

Which carrier or service on a given lane operated more efficiently than others
Which routing produced lower actual emissions for the specific shipment
Which services had better utilization rates during the relevant period
What the fuel mix was on the specific vessel or vehicle
Where anchorage exposure, blank sailings, or rerouting affected actual emissions

Trade-lane averages eliminate that differentiation. When every carrier on the same lane receives the same emissions factor, the data cannot support a meaningful intervention assessment. Two carriers with materially different operational efficiency appear identical. The analysis the hierarchy requires becomes impossible.

The Difference Between Reporting-Grade and Decision-Grade Data

Data type	What is can do	What it cannot do
Industry averages (e.g., GLEC defaults)	Support compliance reporting, provide a consistent baseline	Differentiate between carriers, routes, or services; support intervention assessment
Carrier-reported figures	Provide carrier-level context	Reflect actual voyage conditions; account for utilization, rerouting, or speed variance
Execution-grade, shipment-level data	Reflect what actually happened on the specific movement; support carrier benchmarking, intervention assessment, and certificate matching

What About Well-to-Wheel Reporting?

V2.0 introduces a mandatory well-to-wheel (WtW) reporting requirement for all transportation-related Scope 3 emissions, established in C5.6(a):

"In addition to the minimum boundary defined in Table 5.4, companies shall account for and report all transportation-related scope 3 emissions on a well-to-wheel or well-to-wake (WtW) basis."

This requirement survives even where a transport category is excluded from near-term targets. Footnote 30 is explicit: "This exclusion does not affect the WTW reporting requirement for transportation-related emissions."

What WtW Means by Mode

Mode	WtW boundary
Ocean shipping	Production of heavy fuel oil or LNG, plus direct engine emissions including methane slip
Aviation freight	Upstream jet fuel production (well-to-tank) plus direct emissions from operations (tank-to-wake)
Road (heavy duty)	Extraction and refining of diesel or HVO, plus combustion during freight transport
Rail freight	Specific electricity grid mix or diesel production, plus efficiency losses in locomotive traction

Source: Table A.1, pages 97-98, SBTi CNZS V2.0

Tank-to-wheel figures alone are no longer sufficient for transport Scope 3 reporting under V2.0. The upstream fuel lifecycle must be included for all modes.

What Is the GHG Protocol Doing at the Same Time?

SBTi V2.0 is not the only standard shifting the ground beneath Scope 3 reporting. The GHG Protocol, whose Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard provides the calculation methodology that CNZS V2.0 requires companies to follow for Scope 3 accounting, is undertaking its first substantive revision of that standard since its original publication in 2011.

In March 2026, the Scope 3 Technical Working Group (TWG), published its Phase 1 Progress Update. All content remains subject to change, but the direction of travel is clear enough to warrant attention now.

Three proposed revisions are directly relevant to freight and logistics teams.

Proposed Revision B1 introduces a prescriptive coverage threshold: "Companies shall account for and report at least 95% of total required scope 3 emissions." This revision closes the gap that currently allows partial inventories to claim compliance. The TWG voted 87% in support.

Proposed Revision A1 requires companies to disaggregate reported Scope 3 emissions into distinct tiers based on data type, classifying emissions by whether specific activity data or secondary and average-based methods were used. Classification rules remain under consideration, but the intent is explicit: to increase transparency, improve comparability, and incentivize primary data collection.

Supporting this, the TWG is also proposing that companies disclose whether their Scope 3 inventory has been independently verified (A2), that emission factors meet defined completeness standards (A5), and that companies set measurable data specificity goals and improvement targets over time (A6, A7). Taken together, these revisions move Scope 3 data quality from a narrative disclosure into a structured, auditable commitment.

What This Means Alongside CNZS V2.0

The two processes are in active co-development. The SBTi FAQ confirms close collaboration with the GHG Protocol, with mutual representation in governance bodies and working groups. The direction is consistent: both are moving toward greater data specificity, reduced tolerance for exclusions, and mandatory transparency on data quality.

For freight and logistics teams, the combined signal is clear. Reporting average-based transport emissions without disclosure of that methodology is becoming harder to sustain, first under V2.0's assurance requirements, and potentially under the GHG Protocol's proposed disaggregation rules when the revised standard is finalized.

This shift is not incidental. In May 2026, SBTi launched its new five-year strategy, with CEO David Kennedy describing the organization’s evolution toward becoming "a partner to companies in delivering their targets in practice." The strategy explicitly prioritizes data transparency, system-level assessment of progress, and clearer pathways from ambition to action. The standard and the strategy point in the same direction: emissions measurement that supports decisions, not just disclosure.

What Should Freight and Logistics Teams Do Now?

CNZS V2.0 is effective February 1, 2027. Companies setting new targets after that date must comply. Companies with existing 2030 targets begin their next cycle under V2.0 from 2028. The planning window is now.

Audit your current data foundation. Determine whether your Scope 3 transport data is calculated from trade-lane averages, carrier-reported figures, or shipment-level execution data. This determines how far your current data can take you under the SBTi hierarchy.
Identify your significant transport EIAs. CNZS V2.0 requires identification and quantification of Emissions-Intensive Activities for all major freight modes where they represent 5% or more of total Scope 3 emissions. This applies to both Category A and Category B companies.
Assess Level 1 intervention opportunities. Before designing a book-and-claim program, map the carrier selection, routing, modal, and consolidation decisions where data could support measurable emissions differences. This requires carrier- and route-level differentiation, not averages.
Upgrade to WTW-compliant calculations. Ensure your emissions calculations include the full fuel lifecycle for each mode. Tank-to-wheel figures must be expanded to well-to-wheel or well-to-wake.
Prepare for assurance. V2.0 requires independent third-party assurance for Category A companies covering Scope 3 emissions and significant EIA emissions.

All five steps require the same thing: freight emissions data at the level of the carrier, the route, and the shipment. Explore how VesselBot's Logistics Intelligence Platform supports each one.

*Category A companies: generally large companies from high-income countries. Category B companies: generally smaller or emerging-market companies for whom certain other V2.0 requirements are reduced or optional

Q&A

Does SBTi V2.0 ban book-and-claim for freight?
No. V2.0 explicitly recognizes book-and-claim as a valid mechanism at Level 2 of the implementation hierarchy. It requires companies to demonstrate that Level 1 physical interventions were assessed and implemented where feasible first. Recognition comes with integrity criteria covering activity matching, temporal alignment, verifiability, and unique attribution.

Does SBTi V2.0 require shipment-level primary data?
The hierarchy's evidentiary requirements create a practical demand for carrier- and route-level differentiation that trade-lane averages cannot provide. The standard does not mandate shipment-level primary data by name, but requires best available data for EIA quantification (C6.2, page 25) and mandates disclosure of data gaps and the use of estimates or proxy data (C5.10, page 24)

When does SBTi V2.0 become mandatory?
V2.0 is effective February 1, 2027. Companies currently working toward targets under V1.3.1 may continue under that version until the end of 2027. Companies with existing 2030 targets begin their next cycle under V2.0 from 2028.

Does Category 9 (downstream transportation) have to be included in near-term targets?
Not necessarily. C14.2(e) (page 36) permits exclusion of Category 9 where the company does not hold contractual or other direct means to influence the fuel type, transportation route, or mode of transport. However, the WTW reporting requirement applies regardless of whether the category is included in targets.

Is GLEC still acceptable under SBTi V2.0?
GLEC-based default factors remain acceptable for emissions inventory reporting where primary or modeled data are unavailable. The standard defers to GHG Protocol methodology (C5.1, page 23). However, average factors become insufficient for the intervention assessment the hierarchy requires. They cannot differentiate between carriers, routes, or services at the level needed to demonstrate Level 1 options were considered.

Do the GHG Protocol Scope 3 revisions create obligations now?
No. The Phase 1 Progress Update published in March 2026 is a draft document, not a final standard. All proposed revisions remain subject to change prior to public consultation. They are relevant now because they signal the direction of the next revision to the methodology standard that underpins Scope 3 accounting globally, including under SBTi V2.0. Companies that build data foundations aligned with the proposed direction will be better positioned when the revised standard is finalized.

Sources:

About the author

Maria Bena is Communications Manager at VesselBot, where she develops the content and communications strategy that brings freight intelligence and supply chain emissions data to the executives who need to act on it. Working directly with data analysts, logistics experts, and sustainability leaders, she translates shipment-level insights into strategic narratives for C-suite audiences across manufacturing and global logistics. Her background spans over 15 years in communications across the private, public, and non-profit sectors, with a focus for the past four years on the intersection of logistics data, Scope 3 reporting, and supply chain decision-making.