ISO's net zero standard: Five things you need to know

In June 2026 the ISO Net Zero Aligned Organisations Standard was released for public comment, after a lengthy consensus-based process building on the 2022 ISO Net Zero Guidelines.

In this pod episode, Kurt Winter joins us to unpack 5 key aspects to the Net Zero Aligned Organisations Standard; from transition planning, linking to global net zero, and pathways, we dive into the detail underpinning the standard.

Kurt Winter was a member on the Australian Standards Committee and was subsequently nominated to the international working group, involved in the consensus process behind the standard's evolution.

ISO Release Information: https://www.iso.org/news/2026/06/standard-for-net-zero-alignment

Consultation at: https://comment.standards.org.au/

Episode Transcript

(00:05):
Hello and welcome to TrackChanges. I'm Franziska Curran.
I'm here on Jaggera and Turrbulland in Brisbane, Mianjin, and
today we're discussing veryexciting developments in the
world of climate targets and netzero. Net zero is a crucial
climate goal. We need to reduceemissions and achieve a balance
between human-induced harm andhealing, so that we can curb
global warming within safelimits. And we know that we need

(00:28):
corporates and organizations onboard to do this. But what do we
need them to do exactly? Howambitious should they be doing
it? What else should they do,and by when? The term net zero
is used by many and meaningdifferent things, and we need a
common definition, and that'swhere the International
Standards Organization comes in.Back in 2022, the ISO released
their net zero guidelines, andjust a few weeks ago, if you're

(00:51):
listening mid July, theyreleased the ISO net zero
aligned organization standard.So today, I'm joined by Kurt
Winter from the Carbon MarketInstitute to discuss the ISO net
zero standard and what it meansfor the world of climate
targets. G'day, Kurt. How areyou today? Very well, thanks.
It's a pleasure to be here. Oh,it's great to have you. Now we

(01:11):
had you a couple of months backfor a good discussion on the
safeguard mechanism, but this issomething else that you've been
working on, and I believe you'realso involved in the background
around the whole ISO process,could you tell us a little bit
about your role in this and andwhat happened behind the scenes
that you can share?
Of course. So as you mentioned afew years ago, there was some

(01:33):
quite substantial workundertaken by ISO in developing
the Net Zero guidelines, andthat was a really important
development because what it didwas it worked across that
landscape of voluntary standardsand guidance and sought to pull
together what was effectively akind of blueprint that could be

(01:53):
worked from that started tospeak to convergence in this
space in terms of net zerostandards for organizational
transition, and it did come tomy attention that the next
significant step in this processwas actually going to be
stepping into what was a muchmore significant development,

(02:13):
which is the development of thefirst international standard on
net zero for organizations. Soat that point, I made the
decision that it was was reallycritical time to become
involved, and I joined theAustralian Standards Committee
and was subsequently nominatedto the international working
group. So just before we begin,I guess I just wanted to
highlight that I am offering mypersonal views today, and so in

(02:37):
my participation in some of thisprocess, it has been in my own
personal capacity, and so theviews that I represent today
don't necessarily represent thepositions of the Carbon Market
Institute, or indeed theleadership team and broader
international working group thathas been leading this process.
And so, for the past two years,this international working group

(03:00):
that has comprised experts fromaround the world has been
working tirelessly throughdifferent time zones and
subgroups to actually bringtogether what is now a draft
international standard. So whatthat does is it moves that that
guidance document that wementioned earlier towards

(03:21):
something that actually sets outclear expectations in terms of
areas where there is anexpectation that companies will
do certain things, as well asagain important recommendations
that that work to kind ofcrystallize this space and move
it towards a really effectiveblueprint for action, so I've

(03:41):
been really privileged to be apart of that process, and I will
say it's it's been a reallyrobust and challenging process.
There's certainly a range ofdifferent views, and they're and
they're really based onimportant considerations around
you know the technologicalchallenges, the economic and
developmental challenges indifferent parts of the world,

(04:04):
and trying to kind of find somecommon ground through that
process of ISO, which isfundamentally about consensus
building, so that we can startto have a kind of agreed pathway
for those organizations,
and and consensus building withsomething so complex, with so
many different, you know,languages, perspectives. We've

(04:24):
got, you know, countries settingnet zero targets, organizations
setting net zero targets, and asort of urgency. It's, it's, I'm
sure, a fascinating process toget so many people on side and
and agreeing.
Absolutely.
Yeah. Well, today we've got ashortlist. You provided me with
a fantastic shortlist of fivethings that you need to know
about the ISO net zero standard,which obviously is a wonderful

(04:49):
bit of rhyme there. But beforewe jump in, I guess my my first
observation of the net zerostandard is that it creates not
just a definition of a target,which is obviously the first
thing you know I look for whenit comes out. But also, it
defines a sort of whole systemfor a company to adhere to in
order to tick all the boxes thatthe world needs. So many other
elements. One of those was thelinkages to transition planning,

(05:11):
which is our first thing to knowon your list. So keen to hear
your thoughts on this. What wasyour take behind the topic of of
how the ISO links transitionplanning paradigms?
So I guess in recent years we wehave seen a really significant
increase in expectation placedon organizations in terms of how
they communicate theirtransition plans and their

(05:32):
climate strategies to market,and we've seen that most
prominently through regulatorychange in the establishment of
mandatory disclosure inAustralia, but also increasing
scrutiny of greenwashing inAustralia and internationally.
So, in the Australian context,there's been significant climate
litigation launched againstmajor corporates such as Energy

(05:53):
Australia and Santos, as well asincreased regulatory action from
regulators such as ASIC onresponsible and sustainable
investments. What that reallyspeaks to is that investors,
regulators, and consumers wantto be able to actually look
under the bonnet and understandthe credibility and integrity of
an organisation's future plansin terms of how they're

(06:17):
approaching organizational netzero and how they actually plan
to get there, so the developmentof this standard is is quite
significant because it speaks toa corresponding development in
the maturity of net zerogovernance instruments, which
can actually support goodpractice. And so, for years, we
have had standard setterstelling companies that caring

(06:39):
about climate is going to getsimpler and easier, and now
we're actually seeing that cometo fruition finally. So the
landscape on net zero standardsis converging, and companies now
have an operational blueprintwhich enables them to move
which we've obviously now got inAustralia through the AASB s2
forward and actually guide someof that strategic planning and
some of those claims that theymay want to make to market in a

(07:02):
credible way, so transitionplanning is the critical
interface here. And in theprocess, it was quite apparent
that there was a a realcommitment to interoperability
in the way that theinternational working group
worked through the developmentof the standard, so that this
standard becomes a complement tothe kind of things you might

(07:24):
expect in the financial sectorthrough that work of the ISSB
through the the climatereporting, sustainability
reporting,
That's right
standard, yeah, which includesclimate risks and opportunities
in addition to your carbonclimate targets.

(07:46):
That's right, and so there's areal recognition in the standard
of that landscape and thatexpectation, and it really
brings some of that to life in ain a real economy sense of the
kind of things that a companyshould be working through, and
the kind of trade-offs that areat play, and the kind of things
that should be prioritized, andthe time horizon to do those

(08:11):
things. So that comes through inthe sort of target setting
piece, the development of theplans, but also the actions.
Yeah, yeah. So I guess if we'retalking about a transition plan,
that includes not just risks andopportunities and targets, but
also a bit of bit about theimplementation. But your second
thing to know was targets andpathways. Is now a good time to

(08:32):
move on to that one?
Of course.
What are your What are yourthoughts behind the targets and
the pathway requirements thatthe ISO standard puts in, and
kind of how it approaches that.
So I think the significance ofthis draft international
standard is on targets andpathways is that it draws on
that existing best practicethat's reflected in a range of
voluntary standards, but it goesfurther than that and it really

(08:56):
seeks to strike a balancebetween a expectation that is
robust, taking into accountclimate science, but also what's
feasible in different economiesand sectoral contexts. So does
it does kind of set expectationsaround emissions reductions
targets, activity targets, andalso carbon removal milestones

(09:18):
to support those temperaturegoals under the Paris Agreement,
covering all scopes ofemissions, and then it it really
sets forth criteria thatcompanies should be working
through as they develop theappropriate pathway that
underpins those targets.
Yeah. So as I understand it,they reference reputable

(09:39):
external public publishedpathways, which basically means
an assessment of what a sectoror a type of organization should
be able to achieve, and and whatthat rate of decline is. Have I
got that right there, Kurt?
Yeah, that's right. And this isreally about determining what's
kind of appropriate in aparticular context, whether
that. A global sectoral andnational pathway, and as I

(10:04):
mentioned earlier, trying tryingto get that balance between
something that's robust andambitious, but also feasible in
in a particular context that aorganization might be operating
in.
Yes, and also clear and and ableto be scrutinized. I think one
of the most famous ones waspublished by the IEA, and and
this pathways concept alsounderpins the science based

(10:26):
targets initiatives approach todifferent sectors as well. So
yeah, a good way to externallyvalidate how fast companies
should decline and what'sexpected of different sectors.
And I think what's interestingabout it is is that nuance
around sort of equity and fairshare, which is is actually
quite overt in in this standardin terms of recognizing that in

(10:49):
some jurisdictions companies maybe facing quite different
challenges, and that comes backto one that one of the sort of
fundamental principles of theParis Agreement about common but
differentiated responsibility,that it is an expectation that
companies that are in developedeconomies where there is more

(11:09):
access to capital and totechnology, that they are moving
at a greater pace, different
rate, faster. Yeah, yeah,
yeah. That's right.
And so we do see standards liketo bring up the SBTI again
differentiate between differenteconomies as well as different
sectors, and I think anotherdevelopment happened in the ISO
net zero standard, which talksabout what counts as a feasible

(11:33):
action and like at what pointwill we have hit net zero, which
goes to your third thing to knowabout the ISO, which is
counterbalancing residuals andthe focus on on removals. So
counterbalancing residuals isafter we've reduced our
emissions down to a low enoughpoint, then we have to do
something to negate whateverremains. But a lot of the

(11:55):
contention around net zero, asyou know, Kurt is, you know,
what counts as residual. Whenwhen do we know that we've made
it? And my understanding is thatthe ISO net zero standard has
kind of updated thatunderstanding to around
technically and economicallyfeasible actions. So when you've
taken everything technically andeconomically feasible, then
you've got your residuals. Well,then you've you've sat at at net

(12:17):
zero to to then offset theremaining. Is that what you
meant by this thing to know, orcan you expand on that for me?
Yeah, and they're they're kindof interrelated concepts. So I
think on counterbalancing, thethe standard does seek to
clarify essentially howorganizations should be treating
residual emissions in their netzero journey, and that's quite

(12:38):
significant. There is thatemphasis on prioritizing
emissions reductions, which isof course warranted, in order to
focus efforts on the immediateaction towards internal
decarbonisation.
Yep, and I think that focus onreductions is core to the
definition of net zero morebroadly. Yeah.
Yes, but I think the other quitesignificant development, which

(13:00):
which is something that I thinkisn't as well appreciated in
corporate practice today is thatdue consideration is also needed
on how organizations plan tomanage residual emissions, which
will always be present both atthe state of net zero and in the
journey towards net zero. And sothere's that strengthened
expectation there, and and youdo do see that in around sort of

(13:23):
clause 12, where there is thatexpectation of calculating
anticipated residual emissions,but also critically reporting
progress towards removalmilestones. So we do see this in
in other voluntary standards aswell, but there's this
increasing trend towards anexpectation that companies are

(13:43):
planning much earlier towardsthat state of net zero, and that
means it's at the start of theprocess. It's not a
consideration that comes at 2040
Yep,
it's something you need to belooking at when you're starting
out and setting those targets,and you also need to be
demonstrating progress againstthem, so it's really it's really

(14:05):
a rebalancing of that mitigationhierarchy. I would say
yes, we need to reduce ouractual emissions immediately,
but when should we start usingoffsets or removals?
Yeah, and it's really theexpectation that you're you're
planning early towards that, butit is also an expectation around

(14:25):
the robustness of that planningin terms of it.
It isn't exclusively aboutcarbon credits. It can be
achieved through otherinvestment types and other
investment vehicles. But indeed,as well, there is also some
expectation on quality criteriaas well. So in that same clause
12, you do see that there areparticular criteria around

(14:49):
durability, additionality,carbon leakage, and so forth.
And that's really about makingsure that we can have confidence
in those types of investments aswell.
Yeah, on the journey and at theat the end point or the target
point, and I think it's worthtaking a step back here and sort
of getting some of the termsright. And so we're talking

(15:09):
about broadly carbon credits oroffsets, and I guess the way we
understand it now, that thereare reduction credits which are
generated by you know reducingemissions from a baseline, but
there are also removalsgenerated by actually removing
carbon from the atmosphere, andwe know that the state of net
zeros does need to to beremovals, or or we'd be having

(15:29):
significant residuals. Can youexpand on that a little, or or
shed light on that transition?
Yeah, and I think it comes backto the the actual use case of
what you're using the carboncredits to do. When you're
reaching that point of net zero,it is quite important that
there's a consideration aroundequivalence. And so, if you are

(15:53):
planning to counterbalanceindustrial emissions that have a
long life in the atmosphere,,the kinds of activities also
need to have that that durable,long term degree of confidence
in that in that investment type.That's not to say that those
other investments, for example,the the avoidance or the

(16:15):
reduction credits credits aren'tvaluable. It's just to say that
at that particular point in yournet zero journey, there is there
is a greater significance, Iguess, that needs to be
addressed. And so we do see, youknow, in a range of guidance
that that is starting to comethrough. For example, Oxford Net
Zero in their revised offsettingprinciples really set for for

(16:39):
this really interesting idea ofhow a portfolio of credits might
change over time. So you know,as you're on your pathway
towards net zero, you might bethinking about investing in a
range of different activities.But once you've reduced your
emissions as much as possible,and the credits are really being
used to to counterbalance thoseresidual emissions, it becomes

(17:01):
critically important that theyhave certain characteristics to
be able to provide that degreeof confidence.
Yeah, I find this whole thatwhole aspect really fascinating
because I think the dialog haschanged in the last five five
you know even 5-10 years aroundwhat's acceptable and what we
need to be aiming for, and andas you mentioned at the start of

(17:22):
this this topic, kind of the useof those instruments along the
journey, not just at the endpoint. Perhaps we can move on to
our fourth thing to know, andthat is the ways that the ISO
links the global net zeroconcept. What are your thoughts
there, Kurt?
Yeah, so I guess the startingpoint for the standard has
rightly been aroundorganizational net zero, which

(17:42):
does have a degree of nuancewhen we're comparing that to,
for example, Australia's NDC.So, to give an example, as we
know in sustainability practice,companies are always thinking
about scope one and two, butalso scope three, and that means
that they're in quite a uniqueposition in terms of their their
planning as compared with thegovernment, where where you're

(18:05):
taking a very sort of top downapproach, and scope three might
be dealt with by a differentcountry, for example.
Yeah, that's a really excellentpoint, and so tricky because the
what's within the boundary ofthe emissions that we have a
target around is is so differentif you're a company or if you're
a jurisdiction, and just to torecap, if you're a jurisdiction
like Australia, the emissionsthat would be included in a net

(18:26):
zero target are usually, or inAustralia's net zero target, are
anything that happens within theboundary, the geographic
boundary of Australia, not ourexported or imported emissions.
Whereas, like you've said,organizations, there's this
expectation that their supplychain emissions, the emissions
associated with things that theysell or they buy, as well as
other flow-on emission sources,should also be included in their

(18:48):
organizational boundary. So,yes, sorry to take a little step
back there, but it's a reallyimportant. I think it's
interesting because it is adistinction that is perhaps I
wouldn't say easy to make, butit it is made quite often as
maybe a defense against takingmore ambitious action, and I
guess even in in the countrycontext, there are starting to

(19:09):
be quite robust discussionsabout what is our approach to
scope three. So it really goesto ambition, and so by
recognizing this concept ofglobal net zero, you're actually
creating a framework fororganizations to go further than
they might otherwise do, and beable to actually kind of

(19:30):
demonstrate that level ofambition, which is critically
important in a in a world wherewe're kind of relying on
creating sort of a competitivetension, so that companies are
able to kind of demonstrateleadership against their peers,
I think.
Yeah, that's a super interestingpoint as well. And I think
another key distinction-I don'twant to get too detailed here-is

(19:52):
that within that countrycontext, you've got land-based
and removals, which are alreadytaking. Into account on the
journey, so like we've nettedoff land-based emissions from
our total national emissions.It's a negative on our
inventory, whereas you youdon't. It's not the same
expectation placed on companies.I think we've already covered

(20:15):
that, but it is an importantdistinction. Like because you
said companies point to theAustralian or say Paris aligned,
but maybe it doesn't actuallyhave the same meaning.
And so the standard begins toactually create some some
practical guidance on this,which is really helpful,
important. And as I mentioned,it goes to ambition. So when you

(20:36):
look at the the principles partof the standard around Clause
Four, it talks aboutorganizations taking action,
making early, deep, rapid, andsustained reductions. But then
it also talks about contributingtowards global net zero across
its spheres of influence andinvesting early in in carbon
dioxide removals. And then whenyou go to clause 11, which

(20:59):
speaks more to the sort ofpractical realities of that, it
then outlines a range ofrecommendations of the kind of
things that would really help todemonstrate that a company is
taking a high ambition approach.So these aren't necessarily hard
expectations, but they'reactually starting to define what
are some of the things thatmight demonstrate best practice.

(21:21):
It might demonstrate leadership.
Yes.
And so, some examples includerecommendations around climate
solution products and services,climate finance, and and what a
portfolio of that should seek todo. Policy engagement, which is
obviously a really critical onewhen we're in a world where
companies often engage veryclosely with governments and
indeed inform the kind ofregulatory frameworks that are

(21:45):
going to get us to net zero, andthen more broadly around sort of
alignment with sustainabledevelopment goals and empowering
workers and communities affectedby the transition, which speaks
to that just transition lens,which is also critical.
And I think this also talks tothe changes that we've seen over
the last few years in thebroadening of our definition and

(22:07):
understanding of what net zeroand and what that future looks
like. And I think that's reallyexciting that these extra
elements are incorporated in inthe most recent standards and
and discourse around it.
And I would say within that,again, there is a positive story
in terms of how carbon marketsand carbon credits are
recognized. So it's it's aboutcreating that enabling

(22:28):
environment for companies to gofurther, particularly in that in
that framing around climatefinance. Carbon markets are a
one potential vehicle that cantake that forward. And then
coming back to our earlierconversation, there's also a
critical linkage there back withtransition planning and risk
management. So, in thinkingabout best practice approaches

(22:50):
to transition planning,
yes, companies do increasinglyneed to think about their
relationship with these othersort of interdependencies and
how they're kind of managingthat from a from a risk
perspective, and so this helpswith that.
Yeah, absolutely. Shall we moveon to our fifth thing to know
about the ISO?
Of course, that was around theclaims that we can now make.

(23:14):
Over to you, Kurt.
So I did mention earlier the theincreasing scrutiny on
organizations, and I guess wherethat leads towards is the
specter or the the concernaround green hushing or green
freezing. And indeed, this isthe potential that businesses
don't make claims about theiremissions reduction activities

(23:37):
or don't undertake substantialemissions reductions because
they're concerned about theirability to actually speak about
those activities in a meaningfulway and not be exposed to legal
risk or scrutiny from otherstakeholders and reputational
risk. So claims are quite animportant aspect of

(23:58):
sustainability practice. There'sthat sort of feedback loop in
terms of being able to speak tomarket and get that reputational
benefit from that, and I thinkthe the standard is significant
in in that it it does recognizethat organizations will be at
very different stages in theirnet zero transition.
Yes, yeah. If I recall, itoutlines different terminology

(24:20):
for those different stages, isthat right? That kind of helps
us exactly map where someone isat.
That's right, and it also againstrikes that balance between
robust expectations, but alsopractical tasks that
organizations need to stepthrough in order to get the
benefit of those claims. So, forexample, at the start of the

(24:40):
journey, when a company is is atthat point of aspiration,
they're just starting out. Theyneed to work through
quantification, target setting,and their transition plan. In
that intermediate stage, it'smore around demonstrating
implementation and reporting onprogress. And and throughout all
of this, there is. Sort ofinbuilt time horizons that are

(25:02):
proposed, which which I think isreally around maintaining that
momentum and credibility thatthat the companies are on a
journey to net zero.
Yep, and acknowledging it is itis a journey. It's not
immediate. It's not just thetarget. It's the whole the whole
picture. And I think one of mysort of one of the things I
really don't like is when acompany claims to have net zero,

(25:25):
but it's by their own definitionwithout reference to a
particular standard. And I guessit's maybe the more common a
common definition or a sort ofinferred definition from the
terms. Does this kind of presenta solution to that, or is it are
there still concerns in thisarea?
I think it does provide a wayforward. It's always going to be

(25:46):
a conversation of getting theright balance between those
different dimensions, and so Iwould encourage people to
actually read through the detailand engage with the consultation
to see whether it does strikethe right balance. The other
interesting area of thisdimension is around remedial
action. So there is arecognition within the standards

(26:08):
that circumstances may changethat prevent an organization
from meeting those interimtargets in full, and so it
provides pathways fororganizations to maintain their
claims for limited time horizonwith certain safeguards while
they address the permissibleovershoot, again is question

(26:29):
around those safeguards, and I'msure different people in market
will have different views arounddoesn't strike the right
balance. Is it flexible enoughfor the realities of a
decarbonisation journey that youknow is subject to all these
external forces and all therisks and and climate
opportunities as well. Yeah,
that's right. And then the otherthe other nuance is, of course,

(26:52):
around organizational size andcapabilities. So the standard
does have a have an annex thatis really addressed to small and
medium-sized enterprises. Thoseprovisions are not intended to
be binding. It is a kind ofguidance, but there's a
recognition there that thisstandard does have a normative

(27:14):
effect, and organizations,regardless of their size, need
to be able to have a relevantpathway to be able to engage and
think about their next steps inthat planning and transition
process.
Absolutely. Well, why don't wetalk about next steps and how
and why companies should getinvolved? What's what's next?

(27:35):
Yeah. So we are at a criticalinflection point with this
standard. So at the moment, thestandard is in draft stage, and
that's often referred to as theinquiry stage. And this is
really the main opportunity forexternal stakeholders to provide
input before the standard isfinalized. So up until this
point, there's been a two-yearprocess which has involved

(27:57):
extensive negotiations withhundreds of experts around the
world. It has indeed beencirculated to national
committees as well for comment.But now, across all of the
national standards bodies ofISO, which is around 170
countries around the world,there will be an opportunity for
public comment. And so, in theAustralian context, public

(28:20):
consultation to this mid July,not in the future.
That's right. In Australia,public consultation is open
until the 31st of July, and thisis one of the few moments where
you can actually help to shapethe rules, rather than having to
consider whether or not you canalign with them, or indeed

(28:43):
comply with them. So it's quitea unique opportunity to to shape
the standard, and I would reallyencourage companies and
individual experts to engagedirectly. There's also that
opportunity to gain earlyinsights. So sitting in that
sort of organizational chair,think about what your next step
is in your net zero pathway, andwhat are the sort of emerging

(29:04):
trends and developments that youmight need to consider further,
but also critically demonstrateleadership in terms of
participating in that process,which is a consensus building
one, and one that's ultimatelygoing to lead towards a stronger
form of of climateaccountability, where we really
do have a much more equalplaying field for companies

(29:26):
across the globe.
Yeah, fantastic. One otherquestion, while while I've got
you, Kurt, I suppose this addsanother building block in the
broader frameworks that we candraw on in the Australian, but
national, global, andorganizational contexts. How
does this link to some otherframeworks that are going on?

(29:48):
Perhaps the SBTI standard 2.0that we just saw released, or or
any others that you're thatyou're thinking about.
Yeah, so I guess in some waysthere's a linkage in terms. Of
the trends that we're seeing,and there are some common
dimensions to all of thesestandards in terms of the types
of expectations. So, regardlessof whether a company goes down

(30:11):
the path of formally sort ofcertifying against this
standard, those elements will beinformative of the direction of
travel, and they'll help toshape the the practice of
companies and organizationsaround the world. In more
concrete terms, standards thatare developed by ISO do have a
pathway to be formallyrecognized in in individual

(30:35):
countries. So in Australia, thisstandard could go on to be
adopted by Standards Australia.
Could be the next thing from theAASB S2 , and in terms of
heavily encouraged standards,
That's right, and that willobviously involve more
consultation again. So there'llbe an opportunity to perhaps
create a bit of nuance in termsof how it operates in the

(30:56):
Australian context. There isalso a history of Australian
standards being actually builtinto regulation,
yep.
Um, because of that consensusforming process that that ISO
and Standards Australia are sogood at leading. So in the
Australian context, you know, wehave had this history of of
climate active. Yes, there is abig question mark about what's

(31:18):
the next thing to come, and youknow this could be one blueprint
towards that. The otherinteresting dimension about ISO
and international standards isthat ISO does actually leverage
a global quality infrastructurein terms of assurance and
accreditation processes that isvery robust and that is, I

(31:41):
guess, distinct from some ofthose voluntary standards that
have tended to be run by verywell-resourced not-for-profit
organizations and the like.
Yeah.
And there's also a criticalinterface with international
trade law, actually, because
really
there is a consideration atlevel that countries that
subscribe to international tradelaw actually do consider

(32:03):
international standards whenthey're thinking about the the
kinds of regulations that theyhave in place. So that's an
interesting lens because whenwe're sort of talking about this
aspect of competitive marketsand how companies are going to
thrive in this future lowemissions economy, international
standards can play a reallycritical role in leveling the

(32:24):
playing field and actuallystarting to define what that
sort of common understanding
is. Fantastic. Well, Kurt, thishas been a wonderful
conversation. I mean, I'mobviously I'm a real nerd about
these things, and I think it'sso important. So, thanks so much
for your time. We reallyappreciate your time and
insights.
Thanks so much.
Well, I hope you enjoy that asmuch as I did. I find it really

(32:48):
fascinating to think about theprocesses behind the scenes, and
all of the dimensions that areadded to something like a
standard for for such animportant thing, and hopefully
the ISO net zero standard,amongst other voluntary
standards, increasingly getadopted on the journey to net
zero. See you next time.