However, in its updated standard, SBTi has now decided to move away from BVCM and instead launch a new concept: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER). What difference does this make in practice, and what implications does it have for your company?

We asked Maria , an expert on BVCM and climate finance, what she thinks about Science Based Targets concept.

What will be the impact of Science Based Targets concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility?

There are several other aspects of OER that are very positive compared to BVCM. For one thing, companies that already take responsibility for their unmitigated emissions can be recognized as a "Recognized Company" (where they take responsibility for at least 1% of their scope 1-3 emissions) or a "Leadership Company" (where they take responsibility for 100% of their scope 1-3 emissions), which can encourage more companies to do the same. There is also a greater focus on nature-based climate solutions, such as forest replanting or mangrove conservation projects, which contribute to important carbon storage while restoring nature and habitats. Nature-based climate solutions thus help to tackle both the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis at the same time.

SBTi is clear that we need to tackle the climate crisis in both the short and long term. We cannot wait until companies have achieved their net-zero targets in 20-25 years before we start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It is essential for everyone to work in parallel to reduce emissions and at the same time take responsibility for the emissions that are already in the atmosphere (not to mention those we continue to emit along the way to net zero). Here, SBTi has become much clearer through OER.

Nor does it pit nature-based removals against technical removals, but rather makes it clear that both methods are needed to achieve the goals. Nature-based climate solutions exist and can help us right now, while many technical solutions, such as Bio CCS and DACS, need to be scaled up and will become particularly important in the future for removing and permanently storing carbon dioxide.

Isn't there a risk that companies will become confused by all these concepts?

Absolutely! Many companies didn't really know what BVCM was, and now they have to learn a new concept with the switch to OER. So there is definitely a risk. But in reality, the method is the same: reduce your emissions while capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

What are the main differences between BVCM and OER?

SBTi is now becoming clearer about what is expected of companies. Although it is still not a requirement for companies to purchase carbon credits before 2035, I believe that many will want to be classified as a "Leadership Company" or "Recognized Company." OER will also become a formal part of the SBTi standard, which BVCM has not been.

Is there anything positive about the science Based Targets standard?

What is particularly positive is that nature-based removals can also be used when companies need to neutralize the remaining emissions at net zero in 2050 and beyond. In that case, 41% of the remaining emissions must consist of long-lived removals, and 59% can be addressed through short-lived removals. OER also imposes higher requirements for transparency, quality, and reporting, which reduces the risk of greenwashing.

When will Science Based Targets standard?

After being out for consultation in December, it is expected to be finalized in early 2026. However, there will be a transition period of several years—until the end of 2027—during which companies can continue to use the old standard. This will give companies time to adapt.

Here you can read more about Science Based Targets to the standard.