Most UK sustainability leaders are running two projects that should be one.
On one side, a science based target: baseline, boundary, validation submission, a decarbonisation plan the board will actually fund. On the other, a CSRD data request from a European parent or customer, arriving with its own deadlines, its own definitions and its own materiality logic.
The frustrating part is that both draw on the same underlying numbers. Run them separately and you pay for the same work twice, then spend the autumn explaining why the two sets of figures do not match. Run them together and each one makes the other easier.
Both frameworks moved significantly in 2026, so it is worth starting with where things actually stand.
What Changed and Who It Applies To
CSRD scope narrowed sharply. Omnibus I, Directive (EU) 2026/470, entered into force on 18 March 2026. It raised the CSRD entry test to companies with more than 1,000 employees and at least €450 million net turnover, assessed on a consolidated basis for parents. Both tests must be met. The previous entry point caught large undertakings from 250 employees, and estimates suggest the change removes around 80% of companies from scope. The new scope applies for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027.
The standards themselves got lighter. On 3 July 2026 the European Commission adopted the delegated act containing the revised, simplified ESRS, cutting mandatory datapoints by roughly 60%. They apply for financial years beginning on or after 1 January 2027, with voluntary early application for FY2026, and remain subject to European Parliament and Council scrutiny before entering into force. Double materiality survives intact.
For UK companies, there are two realistic routes into CSRD.
- You are a UK subsidiary of an in scope EU parent. You have no direct obligation, but you sit inside the parent’s consolidated sustainability statement and its double materiality assessment. In practice that means data requests with someone else’s timetable attached.
- You are the parent, caught by the third country route. Non EU groups with more than €450 million turnover generated in the EU, plus either an EU subsidiary or a branch above €200 million, report on financial year 2028.
The first question in 2026 is therefore not “how do we comply” but “is our parent, or are we, still in scope at all”. Some UK teams are building for an obligation that no longer exists. Others have quietly moved into the third country route without noticing.
Worth remembering alongside this: UK SRS S1 and S2 were published in February 2026 and continue as a separate track, drawing on the same emissions data.
Why SBTi Timing Matters Right Now
The SBTi published Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 2.0 on 11 June 2026, and the transition timetable is the single most useful thing to understand before you commit resource.
- Throughout 2026, Version 1.3.1 remains the applicable framework for target validation.
- From Q1 2027, companies can submit under either V1.3.1 or V2.0.
- From 1 February 2028, all new submissions must align with V2.0.
- Existing near term targets stay valid until the end of their target timeframe or their mandatory five year review, whichever comes first.
V2.0 is not a cosmetic update. It shifts emphasis from setting targets to implementing them and evidencing progress, separates Scope 1 and Scope 2 ambition, offers more flexible pathways for different sectors and geographies, clarifies data quality and assurance expectations, and recognises good faith “best efforts” where a company misses a target while demonstrably acting.
The practical implication for climate target setting is a genuine decision, not a default. Submitting under V1.3.1 now gets you validated faster against a known framework. Waiting for V2.0 aligns you with the standard you will eventually be revalidated against, and with the assurance expectations CSRD is heading towards anyway. Either can be right. Drifting into one by accident of timing rarely is.
If you already hold a validated target, find your five year review trigger date this quarter. That date, not 2028, is your real deadline.
Where SBTi And CSRD Genuinely Overlap
This is the part that saves months. Six workstreams serve both frameworks.
- The emissions inventory. Both sit on GHG Protocol foundations. Scope 1, 2 and 3, calculated once, to one methodology.
- Organisational boundary and base year. SBTi requires thresholds to be calculated on a consolidated group basis even where the target boundary sits lower in the group. CSRD consolidation follows the parent. Decide these once, document the reasoning, and you avoid the most common source of divergence between the two reports.
- Targets and progress. ESRS E1 expects greenhouse gas reduction targets and progress against them. A validated science based target is the strongest available evidence for that disclosure, provided the boundary matches.
- The transition plan. Decarbonisation levers, capital requirements, expected reductions. SBTi V2.0 wants implementation evidence. ESRS wants a transition plan. It is one document with two audiences.
- Scope 3 and supplier data. The hardest workstream in both frameworks, and the one where sequencing matters most. Note that Omnibus I introduced a value chain cap, limiting what in scope companies can demand from suppliers below the 1,000 employee threshold.
- Data quality and assurance. CSRD requires assurance. SBTi V2.0 has tightened expectations around data quality and claims. Building an audit trail once, at the point of collection, is far cheaper than reconstructing one later.
A Practical Sequence
1. Confirm the obligation. Establish in writing whether you, or your parent, are in CSRD scope post Omnibus, which financial year applies, and what your SBTi review or submission date is. Everything downstream depends on these dates.
2. Build one inventory, not two. One system, one set of emission factors, one boundary definition, versioned by reporting year. Use DEFRA factors for UK operations and apply territory appropriate factors consistently across the group, with the factor set recorded against each year.
3. Screen Scope 3 before you set anything. A full Scope 3 screen tells you which categories actually matter, which suppliers to engage, and whether your ambition is achievable. Setting targets before this is how companies end up revising them publicly.
4. Choose your SBTi version deliberately. Weigh speed of validation against alignment with V2.0 and with CSRD assurance expectations. Record the decision and the reasoning.
5. Write the transition plan once. Structure it so the same content serves your SBTi submission, your ESRS E1 disclosure and your board pack, rather than producing three variants that slowly diverge.
6. Make it assurance ready from day one. Source documents attached to figures, estimation methods documented, changes logged with a name and a date. This is the difference between a short review and a long one.
Five Mistakes We See Most Often
- Setting targets on an unstable inventory. Fix the data, then commit publicly.
- Treating CSRD as the parent’s problem. The data requests land on your desk regardless, usually with four weeks’ notice.
- Running two systems. Divergent figures between your SBTi submission and your CSRD contribution are visible to auditors and hard to explain.
- Forgetting base year recalculation. Acquisitions and disposals trigger it. Miss it and your progress reporting becomes meaningless.
- Waiting for certainty. Thresholds and standards have moved twice. The underlying data requirements have not changed at all, and that is what takes the longest to build.
How Enistic Helps
We have been working as corporate sustainability compliance consultants since 2002, through SECR, every phase of ESOS, TCFD, CSRD and science based target work, using an AI enabled platform we build and maintain in house. When the rules move, and in this space they move often, we change the platform rather than waiting on a third party roadmap.
That matters for this kind of project because SBTi consulting and CSRD compliance are usually sold separately, by different firms, working from different data. We do both from a single inventory, with named consultants who understand your group structure.
- 5,000+ compliant reports delivered.
- 100% compliance record, with no failures.
- 11.7% audit rate, against an industry average of 33%.
- 98% client renewal rate.
Our carbon consultants, ESOS Lead Assessors and auditors are all in house. One of them is named to your account and stays with you, learning how your business actually works rather than reading from a script. It is covered by one simple monthly payment, with unlimited expert support and no day rates surfacing halfway through the project.
Aligning climate target setting with sustainability reporting is not a compliance exercise for its own sake. Done properly, it means one set of numbers you can defend to an auditor, a customer, an investor and a validation body, without rebuilding them each time.
Book a demo and we will map your SBTi and CSRD obligations against the data you already hold, and show you what is genuinely missing.