SBTi Carbon Credits: What Companies Can Use in 2026

SBTi carbon credits: the 2026 position in brief

• You cannot offset Scope 1, 2 or 3 target progress. Carbon credits used under SBTi’s new Ongoing Emissions Responsibility framework must sit outside the company’s greenhouse-gas inventory and outside progress against its science-based targets.
• Version 2.0 creates a formal place for climate finance. Companies can support verified mitigation and other eligible climate action through Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, or OER, while continuing to reduce their own emissions.
• The transition has already started. Version 1.3.1 remains the applicable validation framework throughout 2026. Version 2.0 opens for validation in Q1 2027 and becomes mandatory for new target submissions from 1 February 2028.
• The state of the carbon outcome matters. An ex-post, independently verified tonne is not the same thing as funding future mitigation. SBTi now treats those routes differently.
• Budget before procurement. OER is based on five years of cumulative Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. The financial commitment can therefore be very different from the annual carbon-credit purchase a procurement team may be used to making.

For corporate sustainability teams working with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the exact role of carbon markets has often been a source of confusion. SBTi develops the standards companies use to align climate targets with the latest climate science, while its validation arm, SBTi Services, checks whether submitted targets meet those standards.

Central to the confusion is the carbon credit itself. There is no separate product called an SBTi carbon credit, and SBTi does not issue or certify carbon credits. The phrase is useful shorthand for carbon credits a company is considering using alongside an SBTi-aligned climate strategy.

But as we navigate 2026, the pressing question is how those credits can actually be applied.

The answer is straightforward: yes, a company with an SBTi target can buy carbon credits. What it cannot do is use them to make its Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions disappear.

That has not changed in Version 2.0. What has changed is the place SBTi gives to climate finance that sits alongside target delivery. The new Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER) programme gives companies a formal route for supporting mitigation while their own emissions are still being reduced.

SBTi carbon credits and Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions: financing is not target delivery

The central rule is in criterion C43.1 of the new Standard: verified mitigation used for OER cannot be counted towards Scope 1, 2 or 3 target implementation and cannot be netted from the company’s greenhouse-gas inventory.

That is the line between financing climate action and claiming an emissions reduction.

If a supplier still accounts for 5,000 tCO₂e in your Scope 3 inventory, buying 5,000 tonnes of carbon credits from a forest project does not turn that supplier line into zero. You may have financed 5,000 tonnes of mitigation elsewhere. That can be valuable, and under OER it may be formally recognised. It remains a separate result.

For a sustainability team, that separation is useful because it removes an ambiguity that has caused problems in carbon claims for years. The reduction programme and the climate-finance programme can both be reported positively without pretending they are the same thing.

SBTi rule	What it means in practice
OER mitigation cannot be netted from Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions	Carbon credits do not reduce the company’s reported inventory or substitute for science-based target delivery.
OER contributions are reported separately from target progress	A company can report external climate action, but it should not present that action as an internal emissions reduction.
Carbon credits used for OER must be permanently retired when claimed	The unit cannot remain available for sale after the company has claimed the associated mitigation contribution.
Double claiming is restricted	A mitigation outcome cannot simultaneously support an OER mitigation claim and another actor’s compliance, offsetting or compensation claim.
OER participants report a full Scope 3 inventory annually	Joining the programme can increase the amount of Scope 3 data the company has to maintain.

There is one further point worth noticing. OER recognition is not intended as a consolation prize for companies that fail to reduce their own emissions. SBTi assesses recognition alongside progress against validated targets. For companies moving into subsequent Version 2.0 target cycles, the Standard expects substantial progress towards near-term targets as well as the climate contributions themselves.

So the sequence remains the right one: reduce first, finance additional climate action alongside that work, and keep the two accounts separate.

SBTi Version 1.3.1 vs Version 2.0: the transition timeline

For companies working on targets now, the timing matters as much as the new rules.

SBTi Version 1.3.1 applies throughout 2026

Companies seeking target validation during 2026 should continue to use Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 1.3.1.

That means a sustainability team should not write its 2026 submission as though Version 2.0 has already replaced the current Standard.

SBTi Version 2.0 opens in Q1 2027

From Q1 2027, companies will be able to submit targets under either Version 1.3.1 or Version 2.0 during the transition period.

This is also the point at which OER becomes a live recognition route for companies using the new Standard.

SBTi Version 2.0 becomes mandatory from 1 February 2028

Version 1.3.1 remains available until 31 January 2028.

From 1 February 2028, all new target submissions must align with Version 2.0.

For companies with an existing target cycle, the transition is therefore less abrupt than some summaries suggest. But it is close enough that a 2026 climate-finance strategy should already be tested against the new architecture.

SBTi OER carbon credits: how the five-year budget works

The familiar question, “Does SBTi allow offsets?”, hides a more practical issue: how much climate action is the company actually committing to fund?

Under OER, the calculation uses the company’s five most recent consecutive years of ongoing Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions.

Take a company emitting 10,000 tCO₂e a year. If its emissions remain flat for five years, the OER calculation starts with 50,000 tCO₂e of cumulative ongoing emissions, not 10,000.

That changes the conversation quickly.

OER recognition level	Coverage in this example	Contribution-budget route
Engaged	At least 1% = 500 tCO₂e	No mandated carbon price. SBTi recommends at least $20/tCO₂e, which would mean $10,000 in this example.
Advanced	At least 10% = 5,000 tCO₂e, including 100% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions	$20/tCO₂e, or $100,000 in this example.
Leadership, Category A	100% = 50,000 tCO₂e	$80/tCO₂e, or $4 million, and verified mitigation equal to the covered emissions.

The distinction between carbon price and carbon-credit price is important here.

The $20 and $80 figures are SBTi contribution-budget benchmarks. They are not predictions of what a carbon credit will cost in the market. Procurement may be comparing projects at $20, $30 or $50 a tonne while Finance is deciding whether the company is prepared to commit $100,000, $4 million or another amount over the five-year target period.

Those are different decisions and they should not be collapsed into one price-per-tonne discussion.

Category B companies have an adjusted Leadership route: they may cover 100% of ongoing Scope 1 and 2 emissions plus enough Scope 3 to reach at least 10% of total ongoing emissions, rather than 100% of total emissions.

Carbon credits for business

SBTi carbon-credit eligibility: verified mitigation and contribution budgets are different routes

One of the most useful changes in Version 2.0 is that it stops treating all climate finance as though it arrives at the same stage.

OER distinguishes between verified mitigation outcomes and a wider contribution-budget route.

That sounds technical until you look at an actual project.

SBTi verified mitigation must be ex-post

For the verified-mitigation route, SBTi requires the outcome to have already occurred and to have been independently third-party assured.

The activity must produce an ex-post result measured in tCO₂e. SBTi then adds minimum integrity requirements covering governance, conservative quantification, baselines, monitoring, leakage, additionality, reversal risk and independent assurance.

This is where unit status starts to matter.

Plan Vivo’s PV Climate Version 5, for example, distinguishes between different stages of carbon delivery. A reported Plan Vivo Certificate is not the same thing as a verified Plan Vivo Certificate.

That distinction is not paperwork for its own sake. It tells the buyer how far the carbon outcome has progressed.

SBTi contribution budgets can fund ex-ante climate action

The contribution-budget route is deliberately broader.

Version 2.0 allows contribution budgets to support:

• verified mitigation outcomes;
• ex-ante mitigation funding;
• low- or zero-carbon research and innovation;
• mitigation-enabling activity;
• adaptation and resilience;
• loss and damage funding.

This matters particularly for nature projects because finance is often needed years before a verified tonne exists.

When we visited CommuniTree in Nicaragua, the project was collecting around 30 million native tree seeds and planting millions of trees across roughly 4,000 hectares a year. Farmers were being supported through seed collection, nurseries, planting, establishment and the later “free to grow” stage. Read what we saw on that visit.

The finance required for that work arrives before the final verified carbon outcome. Under the new SBTi framework, that can be described honestly as ex-ante mitigation finance rather than being forced into the language of an already delivered tonne.

That is a better distinction for both the project and the buyer.

SBTi carbon credits in practice: why Kukumuty’s unit status matters

Kukumuty in Mozambique is a useful example of why due diligence has to go beyond the project name or certification logo.

Plan Vivo currently lists 28,504 PVCs issued to date for Kukumuty. The project’s latest annual report identifies 28,504 saleable reported Plan Vivo Certificates (rPVCs) and states that no rPVCs have yet been converted into verified Plan Vivo Certificates (vPVCs) because verification has not yet taken place. View the project record.

For an SBTi OER verified-mitigation purchase, that distinction is decisive. A reported outcome awaiting verification does not yet meet the requirement for an ex-post, independently assured mitigation outcome.

That does not make Kukumuty a poor project. It means the current unit state and that particular SBTi use do not yet match.

Change the purpose, and the answer can change. A company using a contribution budget to finance future mitigation is making a different purchase and can support different stages of project delivery.

This is why phrases such as “SBTi-compliant carbon credit” are not especially helpful. The useful questions are more specific:

• What does the unit represent today?
• Has the mitigation already happened?
• Has it been independently assured?
• Which methodology was used?
• What is recorded in the registry?
• What does the company intend to claim?

SBTi carbon-credit due diligence: what to check before buying

SBTi does not provide a simple list of credits that a buyer can purchase without further work.

For verified mitigation under OER, the Standard requires recognised high-integrity criteria where applicable and its own minimum tests.

For a corporate buyer, the quickest way through that is to examine the evidence in the order it will be used.

What to check	Why it matters for SBTi carbon credits
Project and methodology	Establishes what outcome is being quantified and the rules used to quantify it.
Unit state	Tells you whether the outcome is future, reported, issued or independently verified.
Latest monitoring and verification	Shows what has actually happened, rather than what the project expects to happen.
Registry record	Confirms issuance, ownership, serialisation and eventual retirement.
Additionality and reversal treatment	These are explicit integrity requirements under OER verified mitigation.
Proposed use	A perfectly credible project can still be wrong for the SBTi route the company intends to use.
Proposed claim	The wording must not travel further than the underlying carbon evidence.

A CCP label or recognised carbon standard can be useful evidence, but neither removes the need to do this matching exercise. SBTi says it will recognise relevant third-party frameworks and standards where appropriate, while retaining its own minimum integrity criteria.

The practical test is not whether the project carries the right logo. It is whether the particular outcome supports the particular use. Our guide to choosing high-integrity carbon credits sets out the checks we make before a project reaches a client.

SBTi carbon credits and residual emissions: do not confuse OER with net-zero neutralisation

There is another distinction that is easy to lose in the shorthand.

Ongoing emissions are emissions that continue while a company is on the path to net zero.

Residual emissions are the emissions left at the company’s net-zero target year after deep reductions.

OER addresses the first category. At the net-zero target year, SBTi requires the second category to be neutralised using eligible carbon removals.

That means a general carbon credit used for OER is not automatically suitable for future net-zero neutralisation.

Version 2.0 also signals a growing role for removals from 2035, but the Standard explicitly describes those post-2035 provisions as illustrative and says they will be reviewed in Version 3 before taking effect.

The direction is clear enough to plan for. The precise future obligation is not yet fixed.

SBTi carbon-credit claims: write the sentence before the purchase

There is one check we would put near the beginning of a carbon-credit procurement process rather than at the end:

Write the sentence the company intends to publish before the purchase is signed off.

If the proposed wording says:

We financed future forest restoration expected to generate independently verified removals.

then an ex-ante project may be entirely suitable.

If the wording says:

We supported 10,000 tCO₂e of independently verified mitigation.

then the evidence has to support an ex-post, assured outcome of that kind.

And if the wording says:

We reduced our Scope 3 emissions by 10,000 tCO₂e through carbon credits.

the claim does not fit the OER rules at all.

This is usually easier to resolve before Procurement commits the money. Once the project has been bought, the sustainability and communications teams are left trying to make the wording fit whatever evidence came with it.

The order should be the other way round: decide what the company is trying to achieve, establish the SBTi route, examine the unit, and make sure the evidence supports the intended statement.

SBTi carbon credits: what companies should do in 2026

For companies working through this now, the practical sequence is fairly short.

First, establish which version of the SBTi Standard governs the target submission. For 2026 validation, that is Version 1.3.1.

Second, keep target implementation separate from additional climate finance. Carbon credits used through beyond value chain mitigation or OER do not erase the company’s Scope 1, 2 or 3 inventory.

Third, if the company expects to move into Version 2.0, calculate the five-year OER emissions base before setting a carbon-credit or climate-contribution budget.

Fourth, decide whether the company is buying verified mitigation or financing future climate action. The evidence needed is different.

Finally, check the project documents and write the intended claim before the purchase is approved.

That is the point at which “Can we use this carbon credit with SBTi?” becomes a question that can actually be answered.

For the wider procurement decision, see our guides to carbon credits for business and high-integrity carbon credits. You can also see the projects we supply on our carbon projects pages.

SBTi carbon credits FAQ

Sources and methodology

This article draws on the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard and its criteria document, SBTi’s own transition guidance, and project documentation published by Plan Vivo. All time-sensitive sources were checked on 12 September 2026.

• SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0. Primary source for Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, the separation of climate finance from target progress, the verified-mitigation and contribution-budget routes, neutralisation of residual emissions at the net-zero target year, and the illustrative post-2035 removals provisions in sections 6.5 and 6.6. View the standard.
• SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 criteria. Primary source for criterion C43.1 on accounting separation, criteria C39 to C44 on Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, and criteria C40.2 to C40.6 on coverage and contribution budgets. View the criteria.
• SBTi, Corporate Net-Zero Standard transition guidance. Primary source for Version 1.3.1 applying throughout 2026, the transition period from Q1 2027 and the mandatory date of 1 February 2028. View the guidance.
• SBTi, Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 overview. SBTi’s own summary of the new Standard, including ongoing emissions responsibility and the recognition levels. View the overview.
• Plan Vivo, Kukumuty project record, Mozambique. Source for the certificates issued to date. View the project record.
• Plan Vivo, Kukumuty annual report 2024 to 2025. Source for the saleable reported certificates and the statement that none have been converted to verified certificates. View the report.
• C Level, CommuniTree project visit, 2023. Source for the seed collection, planting and project stages described here. Read the visit report.