Overview
The Science Based Targets initiative, universally known as SBTi, is a partnership between four organisations: CDP, the UN Global Compact, the World Resources Institute (WRI), and WWF. It was launched in 2015, the same year as the Paris Agreement, and its purpose is to provide independent validation of corporate emissions reduction targets.
The core idea is deceptively simple: a company says it will reduce emissions by X percent by Y year. SBTi checks whether that commitment, if delivered, would keep the company’s share of global warming within the limits set by the IPCC. If the target passes, the company gets to say it has an “SBTi-validated” or “science-based” target. If it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t, and there’s no workaround.
That binary validation mechanism is what makes SBTi influential. In a landscape full of self-declared net-zero commitments and Greenwashing, an external body that independently reviews the maths and says yes or no provides something rare: a credibility signal that carries real weight with investors, journalists, and informed stakeholders.
How Validation Works
Companies submit their proposed emissions reduction targets to SBTi for assessment. The methodology varies by sector, a steel company faces different requirements than a financial institution, but all targets must be consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, in line with The 1.5°C Threshold set by the Paris Agreement.
For most sectors, this means absolute emissions reductions, actual cuts in tonnes of CO2 equivalent, not just intensity reductions (which could allow total emissions to rise if a company grows). Targets must cover GHG Scopes 1 and 2 at a minimum, and companies with significant Scope 3 emissions, the indirect emissions in their supply chains and value chains, face requirements to address those too.
Once validated, targets must be met. Companies that miss their targets or withdraw their commitments lose their SBTi status. This creates accountability that goes beyond the point of validation, though critics note that enforcement depends on the company continuing to report honestly, and the consequences for withdrawing are primarily reputational rather than legal.
The Net Zero Standard
In 2021, SBTi launched the Corporate Net Zero Standard, the first science-based framework specifically for corporate net-zero claims. This was significant because it drew a sharp line between Net Zero vs Carbon Neutral approaches. Under the SBTi standard, a company cannot reach net zero by buying cheap carbon offsets to cancel out ongoing emissions. It must first reduce its own emissions deeply, typically 90–95% by 2050, before any residual emissions can be addressed through removals or high-quality Carbon Offsets.
This was a direct intervention in a debate that had grown increasingly heated. Many corporate “net zero by 2050” announcements relied heavily on the purchase of carbon offset credits, particularly through forestry projects. SBTi’s position was that this approach was scientifically inadequate and potentially misleading. The standard gave investors, journalists, and regulators a clear benchmark for distinguishing serious commitments from less credible ones.
The 2024 Controversy
In 2024, SBTi opened a consultation on whether to allow the use of carbon credits to meet Scope 3 targets, the indirect emissions that are hardest for companies to control. The proposal generated immediate and intense backlash from the scientific and NGO community. Critics argued that permitting offsets for Scope 3 would undermine the integrity of the entire framework and effectively allow companies to pay their way out of supply chain decarbonisation.
Several SBTi board members and scientists publicly opposed the proposal. The controversy exposed tensions within the initiative between pragmatism, the recognition that Scope 3 targets are genuinely difficult to meet without some flexibility, and scientific integrity. The episode became a prominent case study in the difficulty of maintaining credibility standards in a space under constant commercial pressure.