Different artefacts. SBTi validation approves the company’s climate targets — the destination — against the 1.5°C-aligned criteria. Validated targets are dashboard-listed, third-party-verified, and credible. But the targets themselves don’t describe how the company will achieve them.

The net-zero pathway is the operational plan — the lever-by-lever, year-by-year, capex-by-capex roadmap from baseline to net-zero. It’s where the validated trajectory becomes operationally credible: which decarbonisation actions, at what cost per tonne, in what sequence, requiring what capital, delivering what abatement each year. Rating agencies and institutional lenders increasingly recognise the gap — SBTi validation without a defensible underlying pathway is a partial credibility marker. CDP Climate Change C7 scoring penalises generic transition plans. The two services are complementary: SBTi sets the destination; the pathway tells you how to get there.

เอกสาร Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curve ranks decarbonisation levers by their cost per tonne of CO₂e abated, with the width of each lever bar showing the abatement potential. Levers at the left of the curve have negative cost (they pay back via energy savings or operational improvement); levers in the middle have positive but manageable cost; levers at the right have high cost (typically deep decarbonisation technologies like hydrogen, CCS, or process electrification of hard-to-abate processes).

It matters because it forces operational specificity. A pathway with a MAC curve has identified levers, quantified abatement, and costed implementation. A pathway without a MAC curve typically has only ambition statements and generic lever categories. Rating agencies, institutional lenders, and external assurers increasingly require MAC-level transparency for transition plan credibility. The MAC curve also drives deployment sequencing logic: deploy negative-cost levers first, then low-cost, then mid-cost, with high-cost reserved for late-stage abatement after lower-cost options are exhausted.

The terminology is often used loosely, but the SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2 distinguishes them precisely. Voluntary market offsets are emissions reductions or avoidances elsewhere — typically nature-based (forest protection, improved cookstoves) or renewable energy substitution — that the company purchases as credits to claim against its own emissions. Carbon removals are physical extraction of CO₂ from the atmosphere with durable storage — biochar, BECCS (bioenergy with carbon capture & storage), DAC (direct air capture), enhanced weathering, or nature-based removals with strong permanence safeguards.

For SBTi-aligned net-zero, only removals can be used to neutralise residual emissions at the net-zero year — offsets cannot. This is a substantive change from earlier net-zero claims that relied heavily on voluntary market offsets. Companies committing to SBTi net-zero validation need a removals procurement strategy aligned to ICVCM Core Carbon Principles and (where applicable) VERRA, Gold Standard, or Climate Action Reserve methodologies — built into the pathway’s residual emissions strategy.

Hard-to-abate sectors are industrial sectors where deep decarbonisation requires fundamental process changes that current technology either doesn’t yet support commercially or supports only at high cost. The canonical list includes: cement, steel, aluminium, chemicals, oil & gas, heavy-duty trucking, shipping, aviation. For Thailand SET-listed companies, the most relevant hard-to-abate sectors are cement, steel, chemicals, refining, and heavy industry — where SCG, PTT, GC, IRPC, and similar listed companies operate.

It matters because the MAC curve for hard-to-abate sectors looks structurally different. Negative-cost and low-cost levers (energy efficiency, renewable PPAs, fleet electrification) deliver meaningful but limited abatement. The decarbonisation backbone requires mid-cost and high-cost levers (process electrification, hydrogen-DRI for steel, alternative clinker chemistry for cement, electrolytic chemistry for chemicals, CCS for fossil-fuel-coupled processes). Tier 03 Deep engagement is typically needed for hard-to-abate pathway development — both because more lever modelling is required and because sectoral pathway methodology (rather than cross-sector) applies.

SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2 requires at least 90% absolute reduction from the base year by the net-zero target year — meaning residual emissions can be no more than 10% of the base year total. Many sectors are required to achieve higher reductions: financial sector (90% via portfolio decarbonisation); FLAG sector (~70%, with higher land-based removal allowances); cross-sector default (90%).

The reasoning: net-zero is about elimination, not compensation. If a company could offset its way to net-zero without reducing its own emissions, the global carbon budget wouldn’t shrink. SBTi v2 closes this loophole by requiring direct abatement to deliver the bulk of the reduction, with removals (not offsets) neutralising the residual. The 5–10% figure quoted on this page reflects the typical residual for non-hard-to-abate sectors after deep abatement. Hard-to-abate sectors with sector-specific pathways may have higher residuals — but compensation by removals (not offsets) remains the requirement.

The MAC curve directly drives capital allocation alignment — one of the IFRS S2 § 14 transition plan disclosure requirements. The deployment schedule shows when each lever requires capex, allowing the CFO and treasury function to align capital expenditure planning with the trajectory. The Capital Allocation Memo deliverable presents this as a capex envelope by 5-year milestone — useful for board sustainability committee review, audit committee review, and (where applicable) sustainable finance issuance framework substantiation.

For companies issuing green bonds, sustainability-linked bonds, or sustainability-linked loans, the pathway becomes the framework substantiation document. The lever-level capex envelope substantiates green bond use-of-proceeds. The trajectory + interim milestones substantiate sustainability-linked KPI selection. The MAC curve substantiates issuance volume. Linked external review (Second Party Opinion from Sustainalytics, S&P Global, Vigeo Eiris) typically reviews the pathway as part of the framework approval process.

Different elements have different refresh cadences. Annual refresh (Refresh Tier engagement) updates current-year inventory data, refreshes lever cost data against market conditions, updates grid emission factor trajectory forecasts, refreshes carbon price assumptions, and produces variance analysis between trajectory plan and actual emissions performance. This is the standard annual reporting cycle integration.

Full pathway rebuild (Standard Tier engagement) typically every 3–5 years or upon material structural change: M&A, new sector entry, divestiture, methodology updates (e.g., AR5 → AR6 GWP transition), new lever availability (e.g., green hydrogen reaching commercial viability), or SBTi re-validation. Refresh on demand for specific events: sustainable finance issuance, institutional investor engagement response, rating agency methodology updates affecting transition plan scoring weight. Multi-year retainer structures cover both annual refresh and event-driven refresh efficiently.

The pathway engagement can run in three configurations relative to SBTi validation. (1) Post-validation — SBTi targets validated, pathway operationalises them. Most common context. Standard Tier engagement.

(2) Parallel to validation — SBTi commitment letter submitted (24-month window open), pathway development running in parallel with target development. Useful where the board has committed publicly and the operational plan needs to develop alongside the formal SBTi target proposal. Deep Tier engagement typically. (3) Pre-validation — no SBTi commitment yet, pathway development informing the eventual SBTi commitment level. Useful where the board wants to understand operational feasibility (which targets are achievable at what cost) before committing externally. Deep Tier engagement with embedded SBTi readiness scoping. In all three cases, pathway methodology aligns with SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard v2 trajectory criteria.

Yes. Othello responds to formal procurement processes for net-zero pathway engagements from SET-listed corporates, prospective listing applicants, post-M&A integration teams, sustainable finance issuers, hard-to-abate sector companies (cement, steel, chemicals, refining), and procurement teams scoping larger ESG advisory engagements. Standard procurement requirements are met: ISO 17100:2015 certification, in-house IFRS Foundation S2 certified specialist for § 14 transition plan disclosure alignment, in-house ISO 14064 Lead Auditor (CQI/IRCA accredited) for per-lever abatement quantification to ISO 14064-2 standard, in-house TGO CFO + CFP Auditor for Thai national reconciliation, in-house AA1000AS ACSAP for assurance-readiness, in-house VERRA Lead Assessor + CORSIA Verifier for residual removals strategy aligned to ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, MAC-curve-driven methodology, GDPR + PDPA compliance, mutual NDA from first email, and SET-listed engagement references available under mutual NDA at procurement stage.

Standard RFP response is 3–5 วันทำการ. RFP response covers: methodology approach (6-phase Othello workflow from trajectory maths to disclosure pack), MAC curve methodology, sectoral pathway determination, residual removals strategy approach, tier recommendation per scenario, in-house bench credentials, capacity allocation, pricing structure (fixed engagement fee + optional annual maintenance retainer), engagement timeline including SBTi alignment context, integration approach with IFRS S2 § 14 + 56-1 Part 1.3.3, and sample MAC excerpt (anonymised). Quote response on engagement scoping is within one business hour of receipt of source files and signed NDA.