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 enterprises wonder whether SBTi is even a good fit for them.
The answer depends on the business model, customer requirements, company size, the supply chain and one's own climate targets.
For some companies, SBTi is an obvious step because key customers demand corresponding targets or because the industry is already working strongly in this direction. For others, a good CO₂ footprint, a Scope 3 relevance analysis and an internal reduction roadmap are more sensible first steps before preparing an SBTi submission.
Crucially, SBTi should not be understood as a pure communications project. A validated target can be valuable externally. Internally, however, it is even more important that the company understands which reductions are actually required and which measures are needed to achieve them.
An SBTi process can therefore help to make climate action within the company more concrete. It forces the company to review emission sources, classify Scope 3, set target years, improve data quality and not just describe measures in general terms, but link them to a reduction pathway.
This turns SBTi into a matter of corporate management. Not every figure is a matter for the CEO. But the direction, the investments and the feasibility certainly are.
A practical business example
A medium-sized food supplier delivers to several large retail companies. So far, the company has calculated its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Gas, electricity, vehicle fleet and refrigerants are recorded. Initial energy efficiency measures have been implemented.
Then, a key customer asks for science-based climate targets. At first glance, the task seems manageable: the existing footprint is available, and a target for 2030 could be formulated.
Upon closer examination, however, it becomes clear that Scope 3 is material for the company. Purchased raw materials, packaging, cooling, logistics and potentially waste disposal make up a significant proportion of the emissions. Some data is available, while other data exists only 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 pre-assessment. This clarifies whether the footprint is complete enough, which Scope 3 categories are relevant, which data needs to be improved and which target methodology is suitable.
Only then can a target pathway be developed that not only sounds good but actually fits the company's real emissions structure.
SBTi Readiness: What should be clarified before validation
Before a company officially submits targets for validation, it should check whether the key foundations are in place. Such an SBTi readiness assessment can help to realistically estimate the effort, gaps and next steps.
The aim here is not to artificially slow down a company. On the contrary: a good pre-assessment prevents targets from being formulated too early only to prove methodologically unsustainable later on.
Key assessment questions include:
Is the base year suitable and well-documented?
Are Scope 1 and Scope 2 fully recorded?
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 for deriving a target?
Which emissions are covered by the target?
Which reduction measures are realistic?
Which internal decisions are necessary for implementation?
Which documents are required for the submission?
These questions show whether a company is SBTi-ready or whether the footprint, data quality and reduction logic should be improved first.
Why realistic measures are part of the target
A science-based target is more than just a number in a document. Companies need to understand internally how this target can be achieved.
Although the SBTi validates targets rather than individual detailed action plans, a company still needs a clear idea of which levers will be effective for practical implementation.
For Scope 1 and Scope 2, this could include energy efficiency, renewable electricity, electrification, heating concepts, fleet conversion or process optimisations. For Scope 3, it often involves purchasing, supplier dialogue, material switching, packaging, logistics, product design, the use phase or waste disposal.
The link to investment cycles is particularly important. Many reductions cannot be implemented overnight. Machines are replaced at specific times, buildings are renovated according to plan, supplier contracts run for fixed terms, and products have development cycles.
A good SBTi target should therefore not be created in isolation from the business. It must fit the footprint, the methodology and the company's practical capacity to change.
Current developments at SBTi
SBTi is continuing to develop its standards. The Corporate Net-Zero Standard is currently being revised.
According to the SBTi, companies can continue to set new targets under the current Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.3 and the Near-Term Criteria V5.3 until 31 December 2027; Version 2.0 is expected to become mandatory from 1 January 2028.
This is important for companies because SBTi is not a static system. Requirements, criteria and guidance can evolve. Anyone planning an SBTi process should therefore work with the latest documents and check which standards, sector pathways and deadlines apply to their own company.
This is another reason not to view the process merely as a form-filling exercise. Methodological alignment must be part of it from the very beginning.
Conclusion: SBTi starts with robust data
SBTi can be a strong signal for companies. To customers, partners, employees, banks and the public, a validated target demonstrates that climate goals have not been formulated arbitrarily but are aligned with recognised criteria.
However, the journey there does not begin with communication. It starts with a robust CO₂ footprint, a clean Scope 3 classification and the question of which reductions are actually possible.
For medium-sized enterprises, therefore, the first question is not: Which target sounds good?
The better question is: Is our emissions baseline good enough to derive a science-based target from it?
If this foundation is sound, SBTi can help make climate targets clearer, more binding and easier to manage. Not as an additional sustainability chore, but as part of a climate strategy that brings together customer requirements, data quality and corporate decision-making.
Support with CO₂ accounting and SBTi preparation
If you would like to know whether your CO₂ footprint provides a suitable basis for SBTi targets and which steps are sensible before a potential validation, please feel free to contact us.
SBTi does not have to be a daunting task.
The first important step is to see where you stand: Is the CO₂ footprint robust enough? Has Scope 3 been sufficiently assessed? And can a target be derived from this that fits the company? We help you check exactly 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 relatively well. Not always immediately, but with clear responsibility and proper 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 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 taken into account. This does not mean that every piece of information has to be perfect in the first step. However, it does mean that relevance, data sources, assumptions and target coverage must be professionally and soundly justified.
Medium-sized companies in particular often underestimate this point. They often have plenty of data in purchasing, bills of materials, transport invoices, material lists or customer information. However, this data is not automatically available in a way that allows a Scope 3 inventory and an SBTi-compliant target pathway to be created.
Scope 3 is therefore not just a calculation task. It is a structuring task.
SBTi is not a wishful target, but a validation process
A common mistake is to formulate climate targets based on gut feeling. For example: "We will reduce our emissions by 50 per cent by 2030."
Such statements may seem ambitious. What is crucial, however, is whether they match the inventory, the base year, the methodology, company growth, Scope 3 and the SBTi criteria.
SBTi validation checks 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 to SBTi Services for validation.
For companies, this means that the process should not only be professionally reviewed shortly before submission. It makes more sense to integrate SBTi requirements into the planning from the very beginning.
This includes, among other things:
the choice of a suitable base year,
the complete recording of relevant emission sources,
the assessment of Scope 3 relevance and target coverage,
the selection of the appropriate target methodology,
the classification of subsidiaries, locations and business units,
the assessment of data gaps,
the documentation of assumptions,
the preparation of the submission documents.
Those who only check these points at the very end risk correction loops. Those who address them early can save time and develop target pathways more realistically.