Net Zero & Climate Risk Advisory
Develop a Credible Decarbonization Pathway While Preparing for Physical and Transition Risks
Knowledge Kraft helps organizations connect greenhouse-gas reduction with business planning, investment, operations, supply chains and climate resilience.
Our approach supports practical target setting, initiative prioritization, climate-risk assessment and progress governance.
Related Services
Net Zero & Climate Risk Advisory at a Glance
Service objective: To develop credible emissions-reduction pathways and strengthen organizational preparedness for climate-related risks and opportunities.
Suitable For
- Organizations establishing climate targets
- Companies responding to customer net-zero requirements
- Businesses with significant energy consumption
- Manufacturers with supply-chain emissions
- Construction and infrastructure organizations
- Companies preparing climate disclosures
- Businesses facing physical climate exposure
- Organizations seeking science-based targets
- Multi-location companies
- Leadership teams developing transition plans
Knowledge Kraft Can Support
- Climate-readiness assessment
- GHG baseline review
- Reduction-target development
- Decarbonization pathway design
- Initiative prioritization
- Abatement-roadmap development
- Physical-risk assessment
- Transition-risk assessment
- Climate scenario workshops
- Governance development
- Climate indicators
- Progress monitoring
- Disclosure readiness
- Transition-plan development
What Are Net Zero and Climate-Risk Advisory Services?
Net zero generally refers to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions deeply across relevant scopes and neutralizing residual emissions according to the applicable target framework.
A credible net-zero pathway normally requires:
- A reliable GHG inventory
- Near-term reductions
- Long-term targets
- Operational decarbonization
- Energy transition
- Value-chain engagement
- Capital planning
- Transparent treatment of residual emissions
- Progress monitoring
As of August 2026, SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard Version 1.3.1 remains the framework used for target validation during 2026. Version 2.0 has been published, with target submissions under the new version expected to open in early 2027 during a transition period.
Physical Risks – Risks arising from climate-related hazards, including acute events and longer-term changes.
Transition Risks – Risks arising from policy, market, technology, legal and reputational changes during the transition to a lower-carbon economy.
Climate Opportunities – Potential benefits involving resource efficiency, new technologies, products, markets and resilience.
IFRS S2 requires disclosures concerning climate-related physical risks, transition risks and opportunities that could reasonably affect an entity’s prospects, structured around governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets. IFRS S2 has been effective since January 1, 2024, with targeted GHG-disclosure amendments issued in December 2025.
Challenges We Help Customers Address
- Net-zero commitments lack a reliable emissions baseline
- Targets are announced without a transition plan
- Scope 3 emissions are excluded from decision-making
- Reduction opportunities are not financially prioritized
- Carbon offsets are considered before operational reduction
- Climate responsibilities are unclear
- Physical risks are not linked with locations or assets
- Climate risk is treated only as a sustainability issue
- Capital planning does not consider transition needs
- Suppliers are not engaged
- Progress is measured against inconsistent boundaries
- Management receives too many disconnected climate indicators
- Scenario analysis is overly theoretical
- Claims are not aligned with the applicable framework
- Climate disclosure and operational planning are disconnected
What Knowledge Kraft Delivers
Knowledge Kraft develops the advisory programme around the organization’s emissions profile, business model and intended commitments.
- Reviewing climate and customer requirements
- Assessing current climate maturity
- Reviewing the GHG inventory
- Confirming base-year information
- Identifying emissions hotspots
- Developing reduction scenarios
- Establishing near-term priorities
- Developing long-term pathways
- Identifying operational initiatives
- Reviewing renewable-energy options
- Identifying process and technology opportunities
- Developing supplier-engagement approaches
- Preparing abatement opportunity registers
- Assessing cost, feasibility and impact
- Reviewing residual-emission assumptions
- Identifying physical climate hazards
- Assessing vulnerable sites and activities
- Identifying transition risks
- Facilitating climate scenario workshops
- Developing climate-risk registers
- Establishing governance and ownership
- Developing climate metrics
- Preparing transition roadmaps
- Supporting target documentation
- Supporting climate-disclosure readiness
- Reviewing progress periodically
Scope and assurance boundary: Formal target validation, financial assurance, engineering design and carbon-credit verification require appropriate independent or specialist providers.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not necessarily. Net-zero frameworks generally emphasize deep emissions reduction across the value chain before addressing residual emissions.
The requirement depends on the chosen target framework and relevance of value-chain emissions. Scope 3 is material for many organizations.
SBTi states that Version 1.3.1 remains applicable for target validation throughout 2026, while Version 2.0 submissions are expected to begin in early 2027.
It is a phased plan identifying reduction initiatives, responsibilities, investment needs, timelines and expected emissions impact.
They include risks from acute events or longer-term climate changes that may affect assets, people, supply chains or operations.
They arise from changes in policy, technology, markets, customer expectations, legal exposure or reputation during economic decarbonization.
No. Carbon-market procurement or brokerage would require a separately defined service and due diligence.
Yes. Climate risks can be evaluated, assigned and reviewed through existing risk-governance processes.
No. Validation decisions are made independently by the relevant target-setting or assurance organization.