Science Based Targets
CARBON
CONFIDENCE HIGH · ANALYSIS ONLY, NOT AN AUDIT OR CERTIFICATION
Our read
SBTi is the most credible target-setting framework in corporate climate work, and its criteria are genuinely demanding: 1.5C alignment, a mandatory Scope 3 target once Scope 3 passes 40 percent of the footprint, and an explicit rule that carbon credits do not count as reductions. The single most-misread point is what validation means. SBTi validates a plan, not a performance. Its own guidance states it does not track or verify actual emissions reductions; companies self-report progress through annual reports or CDP. A brand with a validated target may have reduced nothing. Two events should temper the weight given to the mark. In April 2024 the Board of Trustees announced an extension of environmental attribute certificates for Scope 3 abatement, bypassing the technical review then underway; staff issued public clarifications and an open letter, and NewClimate Institute said the statement was not grounded in science or due process. In March 2024 SBTi removed net-zero commitments from 239 companies, including Microsoft, Walmart, Unilever and Procter & Gamble, for failing to submit targets within the 24-month window. Both point the same way: read the target status, the target year, and the disclosed progress, not the badge.
What it covers
- Independent check that a company's stated emissions target is consistent with a 1.5C pathway
- Near-term targets covering 5 to 10 years from submission
- Net-zero targets requiring deep absolute reduction before residual neutralisation
- Mandatory Scope 3 target where Scope 3 exceeds 40 percent of combined scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions
- Minimum 67 percent Scope 3 coverage for near-term targets under the V1 criteria
- Explicit prohibition on counting carbon credits as reductions toward a science-based target
- Published commitment and target status on a public dashboard
What it leaves out
Not a criticism of the scheme. A standard is a scope, and this is where this one ends.
- Does not measure, audit or verify actual emissions; it validates the target document only
- No site visit and no independent audit of the underlying GHG inventory
- No sanction for setting a validated target and then missing it
- V2 introduces a best-efforts compliance framing under which a company can remain compliant without hitting the target
- Under V2 only Category A companies must set near-term Scope 3 targets
- V2 permits exclusion of Scope 3 categories below 5 percent of emissions or where influence is limited
- Says nothing about water, biodiversity, labour, packaging or product content
- Validation is paid for by the applicant and performed by a subsidiary of the body that writes the standard
The scheme
| Issued by | SBTi |
|---|---|
| Where it applies | Global |
| Audit and renewal | Targets must be reviewed at least every five years from initial validation or last full update; near-term targets run 5 to 10 years from submission |
| Cost | SBTi Services validation fees are tiered by revenue and service, from approximately USD 1,250 for the SME near-term service to approximately USD 49,800 for the largest financial institution tier. A combined near-term and net-zero package for a company under EUR 1B revenue is priced around GBP 12,885. |
What we read
SBTi Corporate Near-Term Criteria Version 5.3.1 (April 2026); Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.3.1 (in force for 2026 submissions); Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 (published 11 June 2026, submissions open early 2027)
- what_it_omits (no verification of actual reductions), yko_assessment — companies should report their company-wide GHG emissions and progress against targets through annual reports, sustainability reports, the company's website, and/or disclosure through CDP's annual questionnaire
- what_it_covers (offsets prohibited, Scope 3 threshold and coverage, timeframe, five-year review) — The use of carbon credits must not be counted as emission reductions toward the progress of companies' near- or long-term science-based targets.
- standard_version_read, what_it_omits (V2 Scope 3 and best-efforts framing) — a 'best-efforts' framework allowing companies to remain compliant even if targets aren't achieved
- yko_assessment (2024 EAC governance dispute) — decided to extend [the use of EACs] for the purpose of abatement of Scope 3 related emissions beyond the current limits
- yko_assessment (critique of the EAC statement) — The SBTi Board's statement on carbon credits is not grounded in science or due process
- yko_assessment (mass commitment removals) — 239 companies had net-zero commitments removed by the Science Based Targets initiative
- independence_score, issuer — SBTi Services is a distinct legal entity and operates independently from the standard-setter
- cost_range — SBTi validation fees are tiered by annual company revenue, and vary depending on the service.
What we could not establish
Independence is scored 2 rather than 4 because validation is a desk review of applicant-submitted documentation with no site audit and no independent accreditation body above SBTi; the 2023 separation of SBTi Services is a governance improvement but the validator remains a wholly owned subsidiary of the standard-setter and is paid by the applicant. Enforcement is scored 3 rather than 4 because the published removals are for failure to submit a target within the commitment window, not for failure to deliver against a validated target, and V2's best-efforts framing makes non-delivery explicitly non-disqualifying. Could not confirm from the primary criteria PDF (machine-unreadable when fetched) the exact minimum annual linear reduction rate stated in Version 5.3.1; the commonly cited 4.2 percent figure is therefore not asserted here. Full Category A / Category B definitions under V2 were not read in the primary standard.
If you hold this certification, it is already on your record. What a buyer cannot see there yet is the evidence behind the parts this standard does not reach.