CNZS V2.0: Procurement’s Expanding Role in Climate Accountability
Authored by SPLC Board Vice Chair Andrew Baer, Head of Responsible Procurement, S&P Global and Kris Spriano, SPLC Vice President of Programs
The second draft of the Science Based Targets initiative’s Corporate Net Zero Standard (CNZS V2.0 or Standard) marks a turning point by positioning procurement as a central player in supply chain decarbonization. Senior leadership and procurement should take note of the significant amount of work that will be required of procurement with these changes. With these changes, there is a silver lining and opportunity to motivate large corporations to commit resources and true cross-functional collaborative actions towards meaningful progress in addressing some of the largest Scope 3 categories – those involving supply chains.
Feedback is open until December 12, and procurement leaders are encouraged to weigh in to ensure their voices are heard.
The first noticeable element is the shift from a target covering 67% of emissions across Scope 3 to requiring targets for every Scope 3 category representing ≥5% of emissions or spend. This change is meant to enhance visibility, but it also introduces two potential challenges:
- Overburdening procurement teams already stretched with cost, risk, negotiation and turnaround demands.
- Diluting a cross-functional focus on the highest impact areas, such as Purchased Goods and Services, which often account for 50% to 80%.
On the positive side, the 5% rule could encourage organizations and procurement teams to develop clearer roadmaps and reduction “forecasts” fostering collaboration across teams and supply chain hot spots.
Still, the question remains as to whether 5% truly marks “significant” contributions. For example, a company with 400,000 tons of Scope 3 emissions—70% in Category 1 and 5% each in four other categories—would need to spread resources across five areas instead of concentrating on the largest source. A higher threshold for “significant” categories, such as 15%–25%, could help maintain focus while, driving the kind of cross-functional collaboration SBTi desires and still ensuring meaningful coverage.
The draft introduces activity pools, allowing companies to measure emissions intensity at the cluster level rather than chasing every supplier. This provides some flexibility and pushes the idea of sector and/or geographic targeting to decarbonize the supply base. However, identifying key sectors and geographies—and selecting the right Scope 3 target types - still requires understanding emissions at the supplier level.
Flexibility remains in target types — absolute reduction, intensity, activity alignment, or supplier alignment — with a strong engagement expectation: ≥95% supplier alignment by the net-zero year. Potentially putting a spotlight on what we know is still an emerging, necessary best practice to drive market transformation – weighting awards with significant consideration for an organization’s climate change response – changing the conversation from a “nice to have” to a mandatory customer requirement.
The draft also permits environmental attribute certificates (EACs) in Scope 3 for the first time, under strict conditions. This gives procurement leaders novel options to tailor their approach while potentially shifting new financing to clean up some of the dirtiest industries deep in the supply chain — whether by reducing emissions per dollar spent, driving supplier adoption of science-based targets, or supporting low-carbon commodity sourcing. The choice of target type will shape both the data requirements and the engagement strategy for each pool. Careful target design and attention to detail will be essential.
Transparency and reporting are central. Companies must justify pool definitions, provide robust data, and report progress every year.
CNZS V2.0 makes clear that organizations will be expected to engage procurement and the critical supply base to a much greater extent. SBTi’s ambition to strengthen corporate accountability is commendable, and its role in driving climate action is important. To maximize impact, we encourage SBTi to consider refining the definition of “significant” categories to avoid unintended dilution and enable companies to concentrate resources where they can achieve the greatest reductions. Doing so would make compliance more practical and amplify the effectiveness of corporate climate strategies.