The ISO 14060 Consultation Is Over. Now Comes the Hard Part.

Three months ago, the International Organization for Standardization released the first draft of ISO 14060, its proposed standard for Net Zero Aligned Organizations.

At the time, we pointed out that the easiest way to understand ISO 14060 was not as another climate framework competing with the GHG Protocol or the Science Based Targets initiative, but as a missing layer between them. The GHG Protocol provides the accounting foundation. SBTi establishes the ambition of the target. ISO 14060 is intended to provide a structure for building, implementing, documenting, and independently verifying the transition plan that connects the two.

Now the first consultation is over.

The 12-week review period closed September 9 after giving more than 170 ISO member organizations the opportunity to comment on the draft. ISO will now work through that feedback before the standard can move toward final approval, which is currently expected no earlier than 2027.

And the feedback emerging around the draft raises a more interesting question than whether companies need another net-zero standard.

Can ISO make this one practical enough for companies to actually use?

The Problem ISO 14060 Is Trying to Solve Is Real

The case for ISO 14060 has not really changed since the draft was released.

Companies have become much better at calculating emissions and setting climate targets than they are at demonstrating how those targets will actually be achieved.

A greenhouse gas inventory tells an organization where its emissions come from. A science-based target establishes where those emissions need to go. Neither, by itself, provides the operational roadmap connecting the two.

That is the gap ISO 14060 is designed to fill.

The draft goes beyond asking companies to publish a net-zero commitment. It focuses on the organizational processes required to deliver it, including governance, interim objectives, implementation planning, progress monitoring, and independent verification. Among its requirements is the development of a detailed roadmap within two years of setting a net-zero target.

That focus reflects a broader shift in the climate conversation from setting ambitious targets to demonstrating how they will actually be achieved.

The question is becoming less about whether a company has a 2040 or 2050 commitment and more about what it is doing between now and then.

A 91-Page Standard Creates Its Own Problem

The challenge is that ISO 14060 is trying to make net-zero commitments more rigorous without making credible climate action inaccessible.

According to a recent article, one of the criticisms emerging from the consultation is that the current draft is too complicated. The proposed standard runs more than 90 pages and establishes a substantial set of processes organizations would need to follow to demonstrate alignment.

That may be manageable for a multinational company with a dedicated climate team, sustainability staff, legal support, external consultants, and established assurance processes.

It is a different proposition for a $200 million specialty chemical manufacturer with two people responsible for sustainability alongside several other functions.

And that distinction is particularly important because ISO 14060 is supposed to be applicable across organizations of different sizes.

A standard can be technically rigorous and still fail if only the largest and best-resourced organizations can realistically implement it.

For ISO, the challenge now is to preserve enough rigor that "net-zero aligned" means something without creating a system so complex that the organizations most in need of a practical transition-planning framework cannot use it.

The Relationship With the GHG Protocol Is Becoming Even More Important

The question of usability is not the only issue ISO will have to resolve as it revises the standard. The final shape of ISO 14060 will also depend on how it fits with the greenhouse gas accounting rules underneath it.

ISO and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol are simultaneously working toward greater alignment of their greenhouse gas accounting standards.

That matters because every transition plan ultimately begins with the emissions inventory underneath it.

If organizations calculate Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions differently, the transition plans built from those inventories become harder to compare. The same is true of claims about emissions reductions and progress toward targets.

The accounting rules therefore determine more than the baseline. They determine whether the progress ISO 14060 is designed to document can actually be understood and compared.

That reinforces the framework we laid out when ISO 14060 was first released: accounting, targets, and transition planning are not separate sustainability exercises. They are parts of the same system.

Changes to one layer affect the others.

What Happens Next

The consultation closing does not mean ISO 14060 is finished.

ISO must now review the feedback submitted through its member organizations and determine whether the draft requires significant revisions. If it does, an updated draft would need to circulate before the standard can move to a final approval vote.

ISO's approval process also sets a high bar. The standard ultimately needs support from two-thirds of the committees involved in its development and 75 percent of voting ISO members.

That makes early 2027 the more realistic point to watch for final approval, and potentially later if the consultation produces substantial changes.

For companies following the process, that means the details of ISO 14060 are still moving.

What companies will ultimately need to demonstrate is becoming easier to see.

What Mid-Market Companies Should Take From This

For a mid-market manufacturer, the lesson is not to start implementing every requirement in the current 90-plus-page draft.

It is also not to wait until ISO publishes the final standard before doing anything.

The useful middle ground is to focus on the pieces that are unlikely to disappear regardless of what happens during the revision process.

Companies will still need a credible greenhouse gas inventory. They will need to understand where their most significant emissions occur. They will need credible reduction objectives. And if they are serious about those objectives, they will eventually need to demonstrate the operational actions, responsibilities, investments, and milestones that connect today's emissions to tomorrow's targets.

Those are not ISO-specific requirements. They are the basic components of credible climate management.

For suppliers, the same principle applies. Large customers increasingly need to understand not only their suppliers' emissions, but whether those suppliers have a credible path for reducing them. A well-structured transition plan makes that story considerably easier to substantiate.

A Standard Only Works If Companies Can Use It

When ISO 14060 was released in June, much of the conversation understandably focused on where another climate standard fits into an already crowded landscape.

Three months later, that question is becoming less important.

ISO 14060 has a logical role. The GHG Protocol establishes the emissions baseline. SBTi provides a framework for credible targets. ISO 14060 can provide the structure that connects those targets to implementation and verification.

The harder question is whether ISO can make that structure rigorous enough to be credible and practical enough to be adopted.

That is what the consultation process now has to resolve.

For mid-market companies, it is also the part worth watching most closely. The value of ISO 14060 will not ultimately be determined by how comprehensive the final standard is.

It will be determined by whether companies can actually use it.