ISO net-zero standard stalls after member feedback
The world's first attempt at a universal net-zero standard has hit a wall. In September, ISO's draft standard for net-zero alignment failed to win enough votes from member countries to move forward, despite drawing nearly 5,000 public comments during a 12-week consultation. The setback delays a standard that many hoped would bring clarity to one of the most contested areas in corporate climate policy.
For UK businesses navigating net-zero commitments, the failure matters. ISO standards often become the reference point for procurement rules, investor expectations and regulatory frameworks. A globally accepted definition of net-zero could have simplified compliance and reduced the risk of greenwashing accusations. Instead, the vote exposes deep disagreement over what net-zero should actually mean.
The draft, known as ISO/DIS 14060, was published for consultation in June. It aimed to create a common international approach to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, building on earlier guidance issued by ISO in 2022. However, when voting closed in September, the proposal had not reached the two-thirds approval threshold required to advance. At least one-quarter of participating members voted against it.
ISO has confirmed that the draft will return to committee for revision. No new publication date has been set, though the original target of late 2026 or early 2027 now looks increasingly unlikely. The delay leaves businesses and regulators waiting for a benchmark that may take years to finalise.
ISO's proposed net-zero framework and its global reach
ISO launched the consultation through national standards bodies in more than 170 countries. The draft sought to define net zero as a state in which residual human-caused emissions are balanced by human-led removals over a specified period and within defined boundaries. This definition extends work begun under IWA 42:2022, an earlier ISO document offering guiding principles for achieving net-zero emissions globally.
The consultation period ran for 12 weeks, closing on 10 September. According to ISO, the process generated record participation, with close to 5,000 comments submitted. The organisation described the response as evidence of extraordinary engagement and the capacity of ISO to generate discussions and collect valuable feedback.
However, the volume of feedback also signals the scale of disagreement. Reported concerns centred on the treatment of carbon credits and the use of offsets in net-zero claims. Some member bodies also requested more time to assess the draft, suggesting that the consultation period may have been too short for such a complex and politically sensitive standard.
ISO has not disclosed the breakdown of votes or identified which countries voted against the draft. The process requires at least two-thirds approval from participating committee members, with no more than one-quarter opposing. The draft did not meet that bar, and ISO has now sent it back to the committee for further consideration.
Consequently, the timeline for publication has become uncertain. While a 2027 release remains possible in principle, the need for substantial revision and a second ballot makes that schedule less likely. The delay also raises questions about whether ISO can achieve consensus on a topic where national and commercial interests diverge sharply.
Carbon credits and offsets divide member states
The failure to reach consensus reflects broader disputes over the role of carbon credits in net-zero strategies. Offsets allow companies to compensate for emissions by funding reductions or removals elsewhere, often through forestry or renewable energy projects. Proponents argue that offsets are essential for sectors where emissions cannot be eliminated entirely. Critics warn that reliance on offsets can delay real emission cuts and obscure actual progress.
This debate has intensified as more companies announce net-zero targets. In the UK, the government's own net-zero strategy includes limited use of offsets, primarily for residual emissions in sectors like agriculture and aviation. Meanwhile, the Science Based Targets initiative, a widely used framework for corporate climate commitments, restricts the use of offsets and emphasises direct emissions reductions.
ISO's draft standard attempted to navigate these tensions by defining net zero in terms of balancing residual emissions with removals. However, the language around what counts as a removal, and under what conditions offsets can be used, appears to have been a sticking point. Some member states may have objected to definitions that either permitted too much reliance on offsets or imposed restrictions that they considered impractical.
Furthermore, the draft had to address questions about verification, additionality and permanence. Additionality refers to whether a carbon credit represents a reduction that would not have happened otherwise. Permanence concerns the risk that stored carbon, for example in forests, could be released again due to fire or land-use change. These technical issues are central to the credibility of carbon markets but remain subjects of active debate.
The lack of agreement on these points suggests that ISO's revised draft will need to engage more directly with the practical and political realities of carbon accounting. This may mean accepting a more flexible standard that allows different approaches in different sectors, or it could require a more prescriptive framework that limits the use of offsets altogether.
What the delay means for UK businesses and procurement
UK companies with net-zero commitments face a fragmented landscape of standards and expectations. Public sector suppliers already need to demonstrate carbon reduction plans under Procurement Policy Note 06/21, commonly known as PPN 06/21. Large companies must report emissions under the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting regulations. Meanwhile, investors and customers increasingly expect detailed transition plans and science-based targets.
An internationally recognised ISO standard could have provided a common framework for these requirements. It would have offered a single reference point for defining net-zero, reducing the need for businesses to navigate multiple conflicting definitions. The delay in ISO 14060 means that fragmentation will continue for the foreseeable future.
For businesses tendering for public sector contracts, this creates uncertainty. PPN 06/21 requires suppliers to publish carbon reduction plans and demonstrate commitment to net zero by 2050. However, the guidance does not specify in detail what net zero means or how progress should be measured. Suppliers have had to interpret the requirement based on available frameworks, including the Science Based Targets initiative and sector-specific guidance.
Similarly, companies reporting under SECR must disclose emissions and energy use, but the regulation does not mandate net-zero targets or specify how such targets should be set. Many businesses have voluntarily adopted net-zero commitments to meet investor or customer expectations, but the lack of a common standard makes it difficult to compare progress across companies or sectors.
The delay also affects businesses investing in carbon removal or offsetting projects. Without a recognised international standard, companies must rely on third-party certification schemes, such as those offered by the Woodland Carbon Code or the International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance. These schemes vary in their requirements and credibility, creating risk for businesses that invest in offsets that may later be challenged.
Moreover, the absence of a standard creates reputational risk. Companies that claim to be net-zero aligned without a clear, widely accepted definition may face accusations of greenwashing. This risk is particularly acute for businesses in sectors where emissions are hard to eliminate, such as construction, manufacturing and transport. These companies may rely on offsets to achieve net-zero targets, but without a recognised framework, such claims can be difficult to defend.
Ultimately, the delay means that businesses will need to continue making judgement calls about what constitutes a credible net-zero commitment. This requires understanding the expectations of different stakeholders, from procurement teams to investors to regulators, and ensuring that claims can be substantiated with transparent data.
Core details for UK businesses tracking the standard
- ISO's draft net-zero standard, ISO/DIS 14060, failed to achieve the two-thirds approval needed to advance after a September vote.
- The consultation drew nearly 5,000 comments from national standards bodies in over 170 countries, described by ISO as record participation.
- Key objections reportedly focused on the treatment of carbon credits and requests for more time to review the draft.
- The standard aimed to define net zero as a balance between residual emissions and human-led removals within specified boundaries.
- No revised publication date has been set, though the original target was late 2026 or early 2027.
- ISO will now review extensive feedback and decide whether to redraft the standard for another ballot.
- The delay prolongs uncertainty for businesses, investors and regulators over what constitutes credible net-zero alignment.
Navigating net-zero commitments without global consensus
The stalled ISO standard underscores a practical challenge we see regularly in our work with UK SMEs. Net-zero commitments are increasingly expected, but the rules for making and proving those claims remain unclear. Businesses need to act now, even as the international framework continues to evolve.
First, focus on what you can control. Measure your emissions accurately and set reduction targets based on credible methodologies. The Science Based Targets initiative provides a widely respected framework for setting emission reduction goals, particularly for Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Even if an ISO standard eventually emerges, the underlying principle of reducing direct emissions before relying on offsets is unlikely to change.
Second, be cautious with carbon credits. Offsets can play a role in a net-zero strategy, but they should not replace genuine emission reductions. If you do use offsets, ensure they meet high standards for additionality, verification and permanence. The Woodland Carbon Code and Peatland Code, both overseen by Scottish Forestry, offer robust certification for UK-based removal projects.
Third, prepare for procurement requirements to tighten. Public sector contracts already require carbon reduction plans under PPN 06/21. As net-zero frameworks mature, expect greater scrutiny of how those plans are constructed and whether they deliver real reductions. Our net-zero program for carbon reporting compliance helps suppliers meet these requirements with transparent, defensible data.
Fourth, document your assumptions and methodology. In the absence of a universal standard, transparency becomes your strongest defence against greenwashing accusations. Clearly state what you include in your net-zero target, what you exclude, and why. Explain how you calculate residual emissions and what types of removals or offsets you count. This level of detail protects your reputation and builds trust with stakeholders.
Finally, stay informed. The ISO committee will now review the feedback from the consultation and decide whether to revise the draft. When a new version emerges, it may include significant changes to definitions, scope or the treatment of carbon credits. Businesses that track these developments will be better positioned to adapt quickly once a standard is finalised.
The delay in ISO 14060 is frustrating, but it does not change the underlying imperative. Climate expectations from investors, customers and regulators will continue to grow, regardless of whether a global standard exists. The businesses that succeed will be those that take action based on the best available guidance, while remaining flexible enough to adjust as frameworks evolve.
Where to find authoritative guidance on net-zero commitments
ISO has published a statement on the consultation outcome confirming that the draft will return to committee for revision. The organisation has not yet announced a revised timeline for publication.
The UK government's net-zero strategy, published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, sets out the national approach to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. It includes sector-specific pathways and clarifies the role of carbon removals and offsets in meeting the national target.
For businesses supplying the public sector, the Procurement Policy Note 06/21 outlines the requirements for carbon reduction plans. Suppliers must demonstrate commitment to net zero by 2050 and publish credible plans for reducing emissions.
The Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting guidance, published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, explains the requirements for emissions disclosure under UK law. It applies to quoted companies and large unquoted companies and limited liability partnerships.
For detailed support with carbon reporting, compliance and sustainable procurement, explore our ESG compliance services and sustainable procurement support.