SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard v2: What It Requires and Why Attributional Accounting Is the Foundation 

By the end of this article, readers will understand what SBTi's Corporate Net Zero Standard v2 requires from companies in transport and logistics, why attributional accounting is the foundation it is built on, and what that means in practice for Book and Claim. 

What just changed – and why it matters? 

On June 11, 2026, SBTi released its Corporate Net Zero Standard v2. For the transport and logistics sector, this is not a routine update. It shifts the focus from setting ambitious targets to actually delivering and demonstrating them – with clear requirements on how emissions are measured, reported, and verified. 

Five requirements stand out for freight professionals. 
  • Market-based measures now count toward target achievement – but within a defined hierarchy.
    Companies must first reduce emissions directly at source, then within shared systems like their immediate logistics network, then at sector level. Book and Claim sits within this hierarchy. That is new, and it is significant. 
  • Attributional accounting is mandatory.
    The standard requires attributional GHG accounting as the basis for inventory reporting and target achievement. This has direct implications for how Book and Claim programs and registries must be structured. Not all existing platforms are set up this way. 
  • Well-to-Wake and Well-to-Wheel emissions reporting is required.
    In alignment with exisiting international standards, full fuel lifecycle emissions – from production through combustion – must be reported against corporate targets. Upstream emissions can no longer be left out. 
  • Third-party assurance is strengthened.
    Large companies need competent verification by independent third parties when reporting toward target achievement, especially when using market-based measures.  
  • Co-claiming is explicitly addressed.
    Erroneous double counting must be prevented. But legitimate co-claiming of lower emissions across the value chain must be enabled. The standard draws a clear line between the two. 
The requirement that cuts across all of these is attributional accounting. To understand why it is the foundation, it helps to understand what it actually means. 

Two approaches, two questions 
GHG accounting has two foundational approaches. They answer different questions and serve different purposes. 

Attributional GHG accounting asks: How much did we emit? 

It tracks actual GHG emissions and removals by observing an activity and applying a modeled emission factor. Consider an aircraft engine: there is no direct CO₂ sensor at the exhaust. Instead, fuel consumption is measured, and an emission factor is applied based on the carbon content of the fuel and its oxidation rate. The result closely reflects what was actually emitted – or at least very close to it. 

Attributional accounting is also called inventory accounting. It is the method used to build a GHG inventory, and it is what the majority of GHG accounting standards require for performance tracking. 

Consequential GHG accounting asks: What changed because of this action? 

Rather than measuring what was emitted, it calculates the difference between two conditions – what happened, and what would have happened otherwise. The result is expressed as saved, avoided, or reduced emissions. 

Carbon credits work this way. A counterfactual baseline is compared with the outcome of a mitigation project, and the difference is credited. Consequential accounting is genuinely useful for comparing options – "which choice gives me the higher emissions reduction impact?" – but it does not measure what was actually emitted. It measures a difference. 

The two are also called inventory accounting and project accounting respectively. They serve different purposes and must not be mixed in a reporting context. 
Why this matters for Book and Claim?

A Book and Claim certificate that expresses its value as "tonnes of CO₂ saved compared to a fossil fuel baseline" is using consequential logic. It describes a difference, not an actual carbon intensity. Under SBTi v2, that certificate cannot be used to satisfy a target. 

A certificate that carries an actual, verified lifecycle carbon intensity value – expressed in gCO₂e per megajoule, for example – is attributional. It reflects what was genuinely emitted across the fuel's full lifecycle. That is what counts. 

The same applies to registries. For co-claiming to work legitimately across a supply chain – which SBTi v2 explicitly enables – every certificate must carry an attributional emission factor, and the registry must prevent that value from being claimed more than once. 

Built for this from the start 

SFC's Market-Based Measures Framework was designed around attributional accounting, multimodal coverage, and supply chain collaboration – not as a response to SBTi v2, but as its founding design logic. The alignment with what the standard now requires is direct. 

For professionals who want to understand this accounting foundation in depth and apply it confidently in their own work, SFC Academy offers courses built specifically for freight and logistics professionals. 

Enroll in our courses below to learn more. 

Courses related to this subject: