A New Net-Zero Standard Just Entered the Picture. Here's How ISO 14060 Fits With SBTi and the GHG Protocol.

On June 17, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released a draft of its first global standard for net-zero transition planning: the ISO Net Zero Aligned Organizations Standard, designated ISO 14060.

The draft begins a 12-week public consultation across more than 170 national standards bodies, with a final version expected in 2027.

For mid-market manufacturers, and especially for ingredient and material suppliers to the large brands, the natural reaction is a familiar one: another framework, another acronym, and another set of requirements to track alongside the GHG Protocol, SBTi, ISSB, CSRD, CDP, and countless customer requests.

But ISO 14060 is not another reporting framework competing for attention. It occupies a different place in the sustainability landscape, and understanding that distinction helps explain why the standard matters.

What ISO 14060 Is, and What It Isn't

ISO describes the standard as the first international, independently verifiable framework to support net-zero transition planning. It’s a mouthful but carries the two ideas that matter most.

First, it is a planning standard, not a target-setting standard. ISO has been explicit on this point. ISO 14060 does not establish how emissions should be calculated. It does not determine whether a target is ambitious enough. Instead, it focuses on how organizations build, document, implement, and verify a credible transition plan for reaching net zero. In ISO's own framing, the point is not just to calculate and report, but to understand where you are today and then identify the opportunities to reduce.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, ISO 14060 is designed to support independent validation and verification.

That feature represents one of ISO's clearest differentiators. As climate claims undergo greater scrutiny, a standard that can be independently verified introduces a level of accountability and credibility that self-reported claims do not carry. For a supplier whose customers are increasingly skeptical of unsubstantiated environmental claims, that distinction has practical value.

A few other details are worth noting. The standard is designed to be applicable across sectors, geographies, and organizational sizes, including dedicated guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises. It addresses both direct and value-chain emissions, emphasizes deep emissions reductions before the use of carbon removals, and requires organizations to establish both interim and long-term reduction objectives supported by a documented transition plan.

Understanding the Relationship Between ISO 14060, SBTi, and the GHG Protocol

The easiest way to understand ISO 14060 is not as a standalone framework, but as part of a larger system. Organizations often view sustainability frameworks as competing requirements. In reality, many serve different purposes.

• The GHG Protocol answers: How do we measure emissions?

• SBTi answers: How ambitious do our targets need to be?

• ISO 14060 answers: How do we build and verify a credible transition plan that gets us from today's emissions to tomorrow's targets?

The three frameworks operate at different levels rather than competing with one another.

How ISO 14060 Relates to SBTi

The timing of the draft release is notable. ISO published the draft less than a week after the Science Based Targets initiative finalized Version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard.

The two organizations have been explicit that alignment is a priority.

SBTi remains focused on target ambition and scientific alignment. Its recently finalized Version 2.0 continues to define what constitutes a credible science-based target and how organizations should approach emissions reductions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3.

ISO 14060 focuses on the transition plan itself.

A company may use SBTi to establish and validate its targets, then use ISO 14060 to structure, document, and independently verify the plan designed to achieve them.

The frameworks are complementary. One establishes where an organization needs to go. The other provides a framework for demonstrating how it intends to get there.

This distinction is particularly relevant for mid-market organizations. Not every company is ready to pursue formal SBTi validation today, but many are already being asked by customers to demonstrate credible climate action. ISO 14060 may ultimately provide a recognized structure for documenting and validating that progress.

How ISO 14060 Relates to the GHG Protocol

The GHG Protocol sits beneath both frameworks as the accounting foundation.

Organizations cannot develop credible transition plans or science-based targets without first understanding their emissions profile. The GHG Protocol remains the dominant framework for quantifying Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions and serves as the basis for many of the climate disclosures and target-setting frameworks used today.

Put a different way, without reliable emissions data, neither targets nor transition plans can withstand scrutiny.

The connection between ISO and the GHG Protocol is also becoming increasingly formal, not less. In September 2025, to develop more closely aligned greenhouse gas accounting standards while broader revisions to the GHG Protocol continue.

A More Useful Way to Think About Sustainability Frameworks

The sustainability landscape is often described as an alphabet soup of frameworks, standards, ratings, and regulations.

A more useful perspective is to view them as layers of a single system.

• The GHG Protocol is the accounting layer. It establishes how emissions are measured.

• SBTi is the target layer. It establishes how ambitious climate targets should be.

• ISO 14060 is the planning and verification layer. It establishes how transition plans are built, documented, and verified.

Each serves a different purpose.

The organizations that struggle most with sustainability reporting often treat every framework as a separate project. The organizations making the most progress build a single foundation of data, governance, and operational processes that can support multiple frameworks simultaneously.

That distinction becomes increasingly important as standards continue to evolve.

What This Means for Mid-Market Manufacturers

As with many sustainability frameworks, the standard itself may remain voluntary. The underlying expectations often do not.

Large customers building their own net-zero transition plans will look for credible, ideally verifiable evidence of progress from their supply chain, because their value-chain emissions depend on yours. A verifiable transition planning standard with explicit provisions for smaller organizations gives those customers a clearer reference point for what they expect, and gives suppliers a recognized way to demonstrate they are taking the work seriously. Over time, the standards that begin as voluntary references have a habit of becoming the language of procurement questionnaires and customer scorecards.

The more useful response is not to wait and see which framework wins. It is to make sure the foundation underneath all three layers is sound. A complete and well-structured emissions inventory, targets that hold up to scrutiny, and a transition plan that can withstand third-party review are the assets that carry across every framework, regardless of how the alphabet soup evolves.

Contact ADB Sustainability to start the conversation about building that foundation.