Published June 18, 2026 — the day following the launch of the Draft International Standard ballot.

‍

Yesterday marked a significant moment for corporate climate action. ISO launched the draft International Standard for ISO/DIS 14060 "Net Zero Aligned Organizations" — the document aiming to become an internationally recognized net-zero standard for companies of any size, anywhere. The public consultation runs until September 9, 2026.

Here we analyze the most relevant provisions for carbon credit buyers, including how to deal with ongoing emissions, what qualifies as neutralization at net zero, the quality bar for carbon credits, and how credits can be used during the transition.

‍

1. Scope and architecture

‍

ISO 14060 applies to all organizations — companies, corporations, NGOs, academic institutions — in public and private sectors and covers the entire value chain: Scope 1, 2, and all significant Scope 3 emissions.

The standard establishes a four-stage claims framework:

1. Net zero aspiration: Commits to set a target and publish a transition plan within 2 years
2. Net zero aligned transition plan: Targets and plan are set, implementation begins
3. Net zero aligned progress: Interim targets are being met
4. Net zero achievement: Residual emissions are counterbalanced with durable removals annually

Each stage has time-bound requirements, reporting obligations, and consequences for non-compliance. This is not a badge organizations can claim and forget, it requires annual verification and public reporting at every stage.

‍

2. How to deal with ongoing emissions: The mitigation hierarchy 

‍

The standard establishes a formal mitigation hierarchy where reduction clearly comes first: "Priority shall be given to reducing GHG emissions within the organization's GHG inventory boundary over other mitigation actions."

Organizations must set science-based emission reduction targets for Scope 1, 2, and all significant Scope 3 categories, aligned with sectoral net-zero pathways consistent with the Paris Agreement. Targets must be absolute, cover all greenhouse gas (GHG) types, and be set as separate targets per scope.

The first interim target must be set no more than five years from the target-setting year; subsequent targets at intervals of no more than 10 years. Organizations that miss interim targets enter a structured remedial framework, up to two non-consecutive adjustment or remedial periods, each lasting up to three years.

Carbon credits cannot count toward progress on interim or net zero emission reduction targets. This is stated as a hard requirement.

‍

3. Role of carbon credits during the transition

‍

The standard defines three legitimate use cases for carbon credits during the transition:

3.1 Climate finance portfolio

Organizations must allocate finance for climate action and disclose its value relative to remaining annual GHG emissions. One approach: an internal carbon fee applied to remaining emissions, aiming to cover 100% of them.

This climate finance portfolio can finance "high-integrity climate mitigation, with measurable GHG mitigation outcomes,” which can include, "...capital or other market mechanisms, such as removal and reduction carbon credits, either through direct project investment, purchase and retirement of existing credits, or off-take agreements."

Both reduction and removal credits are eligible here. The standard references the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, Article 6.4, and ICROA as quality benchmarks. This is the "beyond value chain mitigation" use case (parallel to what SBTi now calls Ongoing Emissions Responsibility, OER). Critically, any CO2e impacts from this portfolio must be reported and accounted for separately from the organization's inventory reduction targets.

It is explicitly stated that becoming carbon neutral under the framework on the way to net zero is a legitimate approach for driving near-term financial flows toward climate action without compromising net-zero objectives.

3.2 Remedial action

If an organization misses an interim target, it can address excess emissions by "financing additional and additive climate mitigation activities," which may include "retiring high-quality carbon credits from reduction or removal projects." This is a structured backstop, not a primary pathway.

3.3 High ambition: Historical emissions

Organizations with higher capacity and historical responsibility are encouraged to "purchase and retire carbon reduction or removals credits to address all, or a portion of, historical GHG emissions (prior to base year)." These actions must be reported separately and cannot be used to meet interim or net-zero targets.

‍

4. What qualifies as neutralization at net zero: Counterbalancing residual emissions

‍

For carbon credit buyers, the following directives have the most significant implications for carbon credit quality and procurement strategy.

4.1 Removal credits only 

At the moment of claiming net zero, and to maintain that status annually, organizations must counterbalance residual emissions using "high quality durable carbon dioxide removals."

4.2 Quality criteria for CDR

The standard defines six mandatory quality criteria for any CDR used at net zero:

1. Durable: The removal/storage type must have a durability of at least 100 years, though risk management tools (buffer pools, insurance) can help compensate when physical duration is expected to be under 100 years. This allows for permanence-challenged, nature-based removals, provided adequate risk management is in place, but favors tech-based removals given their inherently lower reversal risk. The standard explicitly names CDR pathways as "examples of carbon dioxide removals with minimal risk of reversal."
   
   
2. Additional: The CDR would not have happened in the absence of the specific investment or project.
   
   
3. Quantified: Quantified using science-based, independently validated methodologies. All upstream and downstream GHG emissions associated with the removal process must be estimated and subtracted. Third-party verification by an accredited body is required prior to credit issuance.
   
   
4. No carbon leakage: Removal activities must not lead to a consequent rise in GHG emissions elsewhere.
   
   
5. No double counting: Credits must be retired in a recognized public registry. Corresponding adjustments under Article 6 are not required, but organizations "should disclose whether the credits use corresponding adjustments or not." This notably does not mandate Article 6.4 credits for counterbalancing, but expects transparency about NDC interaction.
   
   
6. Credibly accounted: Independent verification of measurements and methodologies by a competent third party.

The standard names several quality frameworks as reference points for carbon credits quality: ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCPs), Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, EU CRCF Regulation- none of which replace independent project-level due diligence. 

4.4 Portfolio building before net zero

Organizations are required to begin building CDR capacity well before their net-zero target year, including:

• Setting removal milestones starting no later than five years from the target-setting year
• Reviewing anticipated residual emissions at each planned transition update
• Demonstrating milestones have a trajectory toward full counterbalancing at net zero

The standard recommends a balanced portfolio combining:

• Spot purchases of ex-post CDR credits
• Forward offtake agreements (securing future supply, supporting scale-up of new technologies)

Eligible removal types include technological removals with lower reversal risk, potentially higher delivery risk and nature-based removals with an inherently higher reversal risk, but usually lower delivery risk and co-benefits. 

The standard expects participating buyers to increase their share of durable removals at each milestone. This portfolio approach acknowledges the realities of the CDR market, including existing supply constraints on certain removal pathways. It explicitly calls for organizations to leverage "risk management mechanisms, such as buffer pools, insurance, risk metrics, and bundled removals" to hedge against supply shortages through early contracting and set risk-adjusted procurement schedules to meet target milestones. With its long-standing expertise in structuring forward off-take agreements, CEEZER has dedicated risk mitigation instruments in place to contract and procure carbon removal in time to meet your targets. 

‍

5. Environmental commodity certificates (ECCs): SAFc, EACs, and Scope 2 and 3

‍

ISO 14060 makes an important structural distinction that is aligned with current market standards: carbon credits are not ECCs. Environmental commodity certificates, defined as "contractual instruments representing a verifiable environmental attribute related to GHGs associated with a low carbon product or technology," are a separate instrument category. Examples include energy attribute certificates (EACs) and sustainable aviation fuel certificates (SAFc).

The standard permits ECCs "for emissions associated with an organization’s value chain, which it is not able to trace, directly address, or influence." The framing is important:

• ECCs are for scaling low-carbon supply chains where direct procurement is not yet possible.
• ECCs should be associated with an equivalent emissions type and region — SAFc for aviation emissions, EACs for electricity emissions.
• Separate accounting from physical emissions is required.
• Organizations must explain barriers to direct procurement
• ECCs are not a substitute for emission reductions, they operate under the same mitigation hierarchy as carbon credits.

As with carbon credits, ECCs should follow "existing best practice frameworks and methodologies" and prioritize "transparency, robust quantification, and avoidance of double-counting."

‍

6. Claims framework and greenwashing safeguards

‍

The four-stage claims framework comes with precise language requirements, providing clear guidance on what a company can say:

• Stage 1: "commits to set a net-zero target"
• Stage 2: "committed to implementing a net-zero aligned transition plan to reach net zero by 20XX"
• Stage 3: "on a net zero aligned pathway" or "making progress towards net zero"
• Stage 4: "achieved organizational net zero"

Each stage has a maximum duration with requirements to advance. Organizations that miss interim targets get, at most, two non-consecutive adjustment or remedial periods. If they cannot return to their pathway within three years, they must cease making claims.

If an organization has achieved net zero and subsequently loses net-zero status (e.g., due to CDR reversal or delivery failure), this requires immediate public acknowledgment and a three year window to restore it, after which the claim must be withdrawn until re-verified.

‍

7. Key Differences from Existing Frameworks

‍

8. What this means for CEEZER clients

‍

While ISO 14060 is still in draft form, it establishes a highly structured, auditable corporate compliance framework that emphasizes some rules around carbon procurement. Transitioning to these standards requires sophisticated portfolio architecture, which is why CEEZER has mapped these requirements directly into our platform capabilities.

Here is how CEEZER helps you operationalize each requirement:

Organizations currently in transition: Build your 5-year milestone strategy

The ISO requirement: The standard creates an immediate imperative to set explicit carbon dioxide removal (CDR) milestones starting no later than 5 years after target-setting. This means companies setting targets in 2026–2027 must have operational removal strategies in place by 2031–2032 at the latest, utilizing a balanced portfolio that increases in durability over time.

How CEEZER supports you: Sourcing high-quality CDR takes time, and waiting until your milestone year exposes you to severe market bottlenecks. CEEZER allows you to model long-term procurement pathways today, giving you immediate access to immediate ex-post removals alongside forward off-take agreements to secure future supply before demand spikes drive prices upward.

Companies approaching net zero: Guarantee a 100% durable position

The ISO requirement: The total exclusion of reduction and avoidance credits from counterbalancing is fully enshrined in the standard and established market best practice. Any organization planning to claim net-zero achievement requires a 100% durable removal-backed portfolio based on strict quality criteria.

How CEEZER supports you: CEEZER’s platform natively categorizes and filters carbon assets by their precise physical storage durability and reversal risk. Our in-house science and climate strategy team helps carbon buyers navigate the complexities of portfolio building in a one-on-one approach to make sure your carbon procurement strategy is tailored to your individual needs. This ensures your neutralization pipeline is built exclusively on high-permanence CDR (such as DACCS, biochar, or enhanced weathering) that strictly complies with ISO's quality guardrails, shielding your final net-zero claim from greenwashing risks.

For the climate finance portfolio: Streamline data transparency and quality

The ISO requirement: During the transition phase, all credit types (including reduction and avoidance) remain eligible for your global climate finance footprint. However, the standard expects high quality (such as ICVCM CCPs or Article 6.4), transparent reporting, and clear CO2 impact disclosure.

How CEEZER supports you: CEEZER provides institutional-grade risk screening across millions of data points for every credit on the platform. We clearly surface independent quality markers, additionality scores, and conservative quantification metrics. This gives your procurement team the compliance-grade, auditable documentation required to easily pass first-, second-, or third-party standard verification.

On corresponding adjustments: Navigate the transparency mandate

The ISO requirement: The standard does not mandate Article 6 corresponding adjustments (CAs) as a hard gate for corporate counterbalancing, but it makes the public disclosure of whether a credit carries a CA fully mandatory. This puts responsibility on organizations to navigate country-level authorizations without restricting their current pool of eligible regional instruments, such as the EU CRCF.

How CEEZER supports you: CEEZER actively tracks and aggregates registry-level authorization data. Our platform clearly displays the corresponding adjustment status of every removal asset, allowing your team to maintain absolute reporting transparency under ISO guidelines while seamlessly sourcing high-integrity regional and international credits.

‍

Conclusion

‍

ISO 14060 does not tighten targets beyond what science requires, but it builds an enforceable, internationally recognized claims architecture around the net-zero journey that will make greenwashing substantially harder.

For the carbon market, the signal is clear: removal credits — durable, verified, registry-tracked, with disclosed corresponding adjustment status — are the instrument of the future. Reduction and avoidance credits remain relevant during the transition as climate finance, but their role at the moment of net zero achievement is formally closed.

The consultation is open until September 9, 2026. CEEZER looks forward to engaging with the standard to support making it an ambitious enough tool to achieve global net zero while maintaining a pragmatic approach for corporate buyers acting today. Contact us if you would like to discuss your specific portfolio in light of this new draft - our experts will walk you through it.

‍

‍

‍

ISO/DIS 14060:2026, "Net Zero Aligned Organizations." DIS ballot open June 17 – September 9, 2026. TC 207/SC 7. Section references in parentheses refer to clauses and annexes of the draft standard. This analysis focuses on provisions relevant to carbon markets and is not a complete summary of all requirements.