natureOffice Journal
All posts
Climate & Data
08/07/2026
No
Thoughts of
Target with an arrow in the centre as a symbol for science-based climate targets and reduction pathways according to SBTi.
In this post
Why SBTi is becoming relevant for companies
What the SBTi actually does
Why Scope 3 is the biggest hurdle
A climate target is quickly formulated. The more difficult question is whether it is also technically sound. That is exactly what SBTi is about: not about another label for communication, but about the methodical derivation of a reduction path. And so, the process begins much earlier than many think – with the CO₂ footprint.
Many companies do not engage with SBTi because they voluntarily want to introduce another sustainability system.
Frequently, the trigger is much more practical: a customer asks about climate targets. A corporate group expects science-based reduction targets in the supply chain. A retail company demands emission data. A tender asks for a reduction path. Or the management wants to know whether their own climate strategy is robust enough.
As a result, the role of climate targets is changing. They are no longer just a voluntary external signal, but are increasingly becoming part of supplier assessments, customer requirements, financing questions, and strategic corporate management.
The Science Based Targets initiative offers an internationally recognised framework for this. Companies can develop climate targets and submit them for validation. The SBTi Services check whether the submitted targets meet the relevant standards, criteria, and methods. Validation, therefore, does not mean that a company simply formulates an ambitious target. It means that this target is verified against defined requirements.
For companies, this is precisely the crucial point: an SBTi target is not just a communication statement. It is a methodically derived target path.
Basics
The Science Based Targets initiative develops standards, criteria, tools and guidance with which companies can set greenhouse gas reduction targets in line with climate science.
The Corporate Net-Zero Standard outlines targets that are intended to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and achieving net-zero by 2050 at the latest.
This is not just about a long-term net-zero statement. For many companies, shorter-term, so-called near-term targets are particularly relevant. These targets describe how emissions are to be reduced within a closer timeframe. The basis for this is the company's greenhouse gas balance.
The SBTi distinguishes between Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3. Scope 1 covers direct emissions, for example from owned fuels or vehicle fleets. Scope 2 covers emissions from purchased energy. Scope 3 covers indirect emissions along the value chain, for example from purchased goods, transport, business travel, use of sold products or waste disposal.
Scope 3 in particular is crucial for many companies. According to current SBTi criteria, relevant Scope 3 emissions must be included in near-term targets if they account for 40 per cent or more of total Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions. The corresponding Scope 3 targets must then cover a sufficient proportion of these emissions.
This shows: SBTi does not start with formulating a target. SBTi starts with the question of whether the emissions baseline is complete and robust enough.
Scope 3
In practice, companies often want to know quickly what target they can set. This is understandable. Climate targets appear clearer to the outside world than data tables, emission factors and Scope 3 categories.
Nevertheless, the target figure is not the starting point.
The starting point is the carbon footprint.
A company must know what emissions arise in Scope 1 and 2, which Scope 3 categories are relevant, which data sources were used, what assumptions are included and where uncertainties still exist. Without this foundation, no resilient reduction pathway can be derived.
An incomplete carbon footprint quickly leads to the wrong priorities. If Scope 3 is only viewed cursorily or not at all, even though that is where the majority of emissions lie, a target may sound good but will not hold up methodologically. If locations are missing, data is not cleanly delimited or emission sources are incorrectly allocated, subsequent validation becomes more difficult.
Therefore, an SBTi process should begin with a sober assessment:
The next question
Many medium-sized companies wonder whether the SBTi is right for them at all.
The answer depends on the business model, customer requirements, company size, the supply chain, and the company's own climate targets.
For some companies, the SBTi is an obvious step because key customers demand corresponding targets or because the industry is already moving strongly in this direction. For others, a solid carbon footprint, a Scope 3 relevance analysis, and an internal reduction roadmap make more sense initially before preparing an SBTi submission.
Crucially: the SBTi should not be treated purely as a communications project. A validated target can be valuable externally. Internally, however, it is even more important that the company understands which reductions are genuinely required and which measures are needed to achieve them.
An SBTi process can therefore help make corporate climate action more concrete. It compels businesses to examine emission sources, classify Scope 3, define target years, improve data quality, and not merely describe measures in general terms, but link them directly to a reduction pathway.
This turns the SBTi into an issue of corporate steering. Not every figure requires executive involvement, but the direction, investments, and feasibility certainly do.
A practical corporate example
A medium-sized food supplier delivers to several large retailers. Until now, the company has calculated its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Gas, electricity, vehicle fleet, and refrigerants have been recorded. Initial energy efficiency measures have been implemented.
Then, a key customer inquires about science-based climate targets. At first glance, the task seems manageable: the existing carbon footprint is available, and a target for 2030 could easily be formulated.
On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that Scope 3 is material for the company. Purchased raw materials, packaging, refrigeration, logistics, and potentially end-of-life disposal account for a significant share of emissions. Some data is available, while other areas are only captured as purchasing volumes, supplier lists, or rough material quantities. Product-specific emission data from suppliers is only partially available.
The sensible next step is therefore not the immediate submission of a target, but an SBTi preliminary assessment. This clarifies whether the carbon footprint is sufficiently complete, which Scope 3 categories are relevant, which data needs to be improved, and which target methodology is suitable.
SBTi readiness: what should be clarified before validation
Before a company officially submits targets for validation, it should assess whether the key fundamentals are in place. Such an SBTi readiness check can help to realistically evaluate the workload, gaps, and next steps.
The aim here is not to artificially slow a company down. On the contrary: a good preliminary check prevents targets from being formulated too early and failing to hold up methodologically later on.
Key evaluation questions include:
Is the base year suitable and well-documented?
Are Scope 1 and Scope 2 fully accounted for?
Has Scope 2 been assessed using the relevant approaches?
Have relevant Scope 3 categories been identified?
Is the share of Scope 3 in total emissions known?
Is the data sufficient to derive a target?
Which emissions are covered by the target?
Which reduction measures are realistic?
Which internal decisions are required for implementation?
What documentation is required for the submission?
These questions reveal whether a company is SBTi-ready or whether the carbon footprint, data quality, and reduction logic should be improved first.
Why realistic measures belong with the target
Although the SBTi validates targets rather than individual action plans in detail, a company still requires a clear idea of which levers will be effective for practical implementation.
For Scope 1 and Scope 2, this can include energy efficiency, renewable electricity, electrification, heating concepts, fleet transition, or process optimisation. For Scope 3, it frequently revolves around procurement, supplier dialogue, material substitution, packaging, logistics, product design, the use phase, or disposal.
The link to investment cycles is particularly vital. Many reductions cannot be achieved overnight. Machinery is replaced at specific intervals, buildings are renovated according to schedule, supplier contracts run for fixed terms, and products have development cycles.
A sound SBTi target should therefore not be developed in isolation from the business. It must align with the carbon footprint, the methodology, and the company's practical capacity for change.
Current developments at the SBTi
The SBTi continues to develop its standards. The Corporate Net-Zero Standard is currently undergoing revision.
According to the SBTi, companies can continue to set new targets under the current Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.3 and Near-Term Criteria V5.3 until 31 December 2027; Version 2.0 is scheduled to become mandatory from 1 January 2028.
This is important for companies because the SBTi is not a static framework. Requirements, criteria, and guidance are subject to ongoing development. Anyone planning an SBTi process should therefore work with the latest documents and verify which standards, sector pathways, and deadlines apply to their specific business.
This is yet another reason not to view the process merely as an exercise in filling out forms. Methodological classification is an integral part from the very start.
Conclusion: the SBTi begins with robust data
The SBTi can send a strong signal for companies. Towards customers, partners, employees, banks, and the public, a validated target demonstrates that climate targets were not arbitrarily drafted, but aligned with recognised criteria. However, the path there does not begin with communication. It begins with a robust carbon footprint, a rigorous Scope 3 classification, and the question of which reductions are genuinely achievable.
For medium-sized enterprises, the primary question is therefore not: which target sounds good?
The better question is: is our emissions baseline robust enough to derive a science-based target from it?
Once these foundations are sound, the SBTi can help make climate targets clearer, more binding, and easier to manage. Not as an additional sustainability burden, but as part of a climate strategy that unites customer requirements, data quality, and commercial decision-making.
Support with carbon accounting and SBTi preparation
If you would like to know whether your carbon footprint provides a suitable foundation for SBTi targets and which steps are sensible prior to potential validation, please feel free to get in touch.
SBTi does not have to be an overwhelming task.
The key first step is to establish where you stand: Is your carbon footprint sufficiently robust? Has Scope 3 been adequately addressed? And can a target be derived that suits your business? We help you examine precisely that – before targets are formulated or submitted for validation.
Arrange orientation
A quick question in the meantime
01
Is the greenhouse gas balance structured in accordance with the GHG Protocol?
02
Are Scope 1 and Scope 2 fully recorded? Which Scope 3 categories are relevant?
03
What is the proportion of Scope 3 in total emissions? Which data are reliable, and which are estimated?
04
Which emission sources were excluded, and why? What data quality is sufficient for deriving a target?
Readiness & Implementation
For many companies, the real challenge does not lie in Scope 1 and Scope 2.
Own fuels, vehicle fleet, refrigerants, electricity and heat can usually be recorded comparatively well. Not always immediately, but with clear responsibilities and sound data sources.
Scope 3 is more difficult because emissions occur outside the direct sphere of influence. Purchased goods, services, materials, packaging, transport, use of sold products or disposal depend on suppliers, customers, logistics partners and assumptions.
This is precisely where the SBTi becomes demanding. A company cannot simply say: “Scope 3 is complicated, so we'll leave it out.” If Scope 3 is material, it must be adequately accounted for. That does not mean that every piece of information has to be perfect at the first step. However, it does mean that relevance, data sources, assumptions and target coverage must be soundly and professionally justified.
Medium-sized companies in particular often underestimate this point. They often have plenty of data in procurement, bills of materials, transport invoices, material lists or customer information. However, this data is not automatically available in a way that generates a Scope 3 inventory and an SBTi-compliant target pathway.
Scope 3 is therefore not just a calculation exercise. It is a structuring exercise.
The SBTi is not a wish list, but a verification process
A common mistake is formulating climate targets off the top of one's head. For example: “We will reduce our emissions by 50 per cent by 2030.”
Such statements may seem ambitious. The decisive factor, however, is whether they align with the inventory, the base year, the methodology, company growth, Scope 3 and the SBTi criteria.
SBTi validation verifies whether a submitted target complies with the relevant standards, methods and criteria. To do this, companies must calculate their emissions data, apply the appropriate methodology and submit their targets for review via SBTi Services.
For companies, this means: The process should not undergo professional review only shortly before submission. It is far more sensible to factor in the SBTi requirements right from the start.
This includes, among other things:
selecting an appropriate base year,
completely accounting for relevant emission sources,
assessing Scope 3 materiality and target coverage,
choosing the appropriate target-setting method,
categorising subsidiaries, sites and business units,
evaluating data gaps,
documenting assumptions,
preparing the submission documentation.
Those who only review these points at the very end risk rounds of corrections. Those who address them early can save time and develop target pathways more realistically.