Personal Note from Patrick, the Editor

Hi Reader, have you heard about science-based targets?

Almost every large company with corporate sustainability goals has SBTs - from AstraZeneca to Eppendorf.

And some like Johnson & Johnson got theirs revoked... But what are those targets actually about?

Let’s find out what they include and what that means for you.

Number of the Day

WAs of recently, there were 11 458 companies with verified targets worldwide. That means these companies want to contribute to a greener world. 11 458 is an impressive number, certainly signaling strong interest among many corporations. However, is it too many? When we look around us, whether in the laboratory or in our everyday lives, we still see plenty of room for improvement. So are we dealing with a bloated number of empty promises here?

11 458

Understanding the SBTi

The purpose of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is to set a voluntary corporate emissions-reduction standard.

It was initially founded in 2015 as a collaboration between CDP, the UN Global Compact, the We Mean Business Coalition, WRI, and WWF.

In essence, the initiative does two things for companies that want to commit to reducing their emissions:

• First, it has defined what an emissions-reduction target must look like. In short, it has built guidance on what is consistent with current climate science and what is needed to limit warming to 1.5°C.

• Second, its subsidiary, SBTi Services Limited, validates what companies submit, so that “science-based” becomes a checked claim rather than a self-awarded one.

Given the number of companies that have set targets, it is the
de-facto global reference for corporate climate goals.

What Makes a Target “Science-Based”

Science-based” means the target is not just a “we’ll cut 30% because that sounds ambitious.”

Required emissions reductions are calculated against climate-science pathways: how much and how fast emissions need to fall to align with limiting warming to 1.5°C.

When companies want to claim a commitment, the SBTi checks whether the goals align with their pledge. Three elements are worth remembering:

• Companies set near-term targets, roughly 5–10 years out, and, under the Net-Zero Standard, a net-zero target for 2050 at the latest. The near-term layer is there precisely to prevent companies from delaying action.

• Targets must cover a company’s direct emissions (scope 1), purchased energy (scope 2), and, if they make up more than 40% of all emissions, also scope 3.

• Meaningful reductions, not just neutralization: In its guidelines, the SBTi describes how, for example, using biobased feedstock cannot drive deforestation, and how offsets or carbon credits cannot substitute for cutting emissions. For offsetting, only a residual share may eventually be accounted for, and only once deep reductions have been made.

Still, a company is not submitting a sustainability plan with concrete actions. It is submitting a technical target-validation package:

• Which legal entities, business units, and emissions sources are included
• Emissions data with emission factors, extrapolation methods, and methodology notes
• The targets themselves, including the target year, boundaries, etc.
• Sector-specific pieces, where relevant, for example FLAG emissions for forest, land, and agriculture, buildings-related data, etc.
• With Version 2.0, how the company will report annual emissions and progress.

Important Changes

The framework is not standing still. In June 2026, the SBTi published Version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard.

The new version moves from “target ambition” toward “implementation.”

It requires separate scope 1 and scope 2 targets, and companies must develop a transition plan showing how they will implement their science-based targets as well as report on them.

However, it also includes a “best efforts” principle that lets companies stay if they transparently fall short despite genuine action.

Also, long-term net-zero targets become largely optional - required only in specific cases.

If you want to read more about what companies must include, or how the base year for emissions can be chosen, visit the SBTi website.

SBTi is quite transparent, whether it's their revenue/sponsors or its guidelines, they are all freely available.

Where the SBTi Is Limited

Overall, I had the impression that the SBTi made sure to be rigorous, with emissions reductions derived from hypothetical scenarios not being counted and companies required to report on 100% of their emissions.

However, I believe there are a few weaknesses you should be aware of.

• It validates targets, not results. The SBTi checks whether your goal is consistent with the science; it does not check whether companies actually hit it:

• The data underneath is largely self-reported.​
  Scope 3 figures in particular rest on estimates and industry averages, so two companies with identical validated targets can be measuring very different things. Version 2.0 introduces assurance requirements for large companies, which is a step forward, but the numbers still go in unaudited.

• The bar almost went downward.​
  While many of SBTi’s updates seem useful, in 2024 the SBTi’s own board suggested that carbon credits might count toward scope 3 targets, prompting an open revolt from its staff and, a few months later, the departure of its CEO. The new “best efforts” principle, as well as optional net-zero goals in Version 2.0, leaves room for discussion too.

Applying the Knowledge

Science-based targets are essentially a label indicating that companies have the monitoring systems in place and willing to commit to specific climate targets.

With Version 2.0, they also created a fundamental strategy for Scope 1 and 2 and documented previous actions.

Overall, SBTi deserves credit for turning “we care about the climate” into a claim with a method behind it.

And we can do something to support science-based targets.

For example, you can embed SBTi language in purchase contracts:

Making this a KPI in supplier scorecards, or co-developing decarbonisation roadmaps with strategic suppliers, are also options.

But remember: a validated target tells you where a company wants to go - it tells you much less about whether it is getting there.

How We Feel Today

References

Roelfsema, M., et al., 2024. Comparing the ambition of EU companies with science-based targets to EU regulation-imposed reductions. npj Climate Action, 3, p.21. doi:10.1038/s44168-024-00098-1.

If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email.
​​
Otherwise, wish you a beautiful week!
See you again on the 16th : )

​
Edited by Patrick Penndorf
Connection@ReAdvance.com
Lutherstraße 159, 07743, Jena, Thuringia, Germany
​Data Protection & Impressum​
​
If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe​