OER needs air cover, not just an obligation

When SBTi recognized on-going emissions in the transition to Net Zero and introduced Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER) recognition program in its Net-Zero Standard 2.0 in June, we at the Natural Climate Solutions Alliance welcomed it. For the first time, addressing emissions a company is still responsible for during the net-zero transition has a place in the standard. That could be a real driver for high-integrity credits demand in the years leading up to 2035. But this only matters if companies respond to it, and so far the evidence suggests they are not.

Ask corporates about the OER recognition program and most will say they know it well. In a recent survey of World Business Council on Sustainable Development members (27 responses) asking about carbon procurement, 82% described themselves as very familiar with the framework. 

Of course, WBCSD members are more likely to be on top of the latest SBTi updates than a random sample of companies. But even so, familiarity among these leading companies is not action: just 12% are actively preparing to participate in OER recognition program and another 12% already have an approach in place to do so. Nevertheless, half are still discussing the implications internally, and 19% are still working to understand the standard. 

Again, here we’re just talking about WBCSD companies. I suspect the numbers would be even more stark among the broader corporate community. The risk is that we keep talking to the same usual suspects, and that OER never reaches beyond them.

Why does the OER recognition program sit at the bottom of the priority list? Because companies are rational, economic beings. Currently SBTi offers only a “recognition” for companies that address their on-going emissions; the OER recognition program is competing for budget and attention against a hard 2035 deadline SBTi has set for mandatory removals. Companies have also understood one thing very clearly: the cheque they sign for credits is in addition to internal decarbonization, not a replacement for it. They need a good reason to allocate additional resources toward OER when it currently has no hard deadline, no compliance mandate, no scorecard, and no clear path for recognition.

Our survey shows companies not so much objecting to ongoing responsibility as trying to defend a budget for it. 67% want a stronger business case, and 73% want clear, practical guidance on implementing the OER recognition program. The same share wants greater clarity on claims, standards and regulations, and 40% want evidence of peer participation.

So what would actually move the needle? The OER recognition program will shift only if it converts into a commercial benefit or a reputational asset worth having, not a voluntary checkbox. We are asking companies to take voluntary action, and voluntary action is only as good as it is recognized, rewarded and de-risked. The value to the company is ultimately in recognition.

We hear this consistently. When we ask members whether SBTi recognition for addressing on-going emissions would be sufficient on its own, the answer is no. It needs to be paired with government support, and NGO recognition.

In other words, NGOs and the media must decide whether a company that steps forward to invest in additional climate action beyond their science-based targets is going to be celebrated or attacked. Today, the risk of engaging in carbon procurement outweighs the risk of doing nothing. Perfection doesn’t exist, but companies that are testing, trying and addressing their ongoing emissions deserve to be celebrated. The OER recognition program offers a path to a future where the sharpest criticism is aimed at companies that do nothing. We need to take it.

Environmental NGOs throwing their public support behind companies showing leadership on ongoing emissions responsibility will take courage. But this is only going to work if NGOs step up. In other words, there is ongoing responsibility for all actors in the system. Otherwise, OER will stay voluntary in name and absent in practice, and the companies willing to try will keep asking why they should be the only ones to take the risk.