This is a genuine evolution. SBTi is clearly expanding its scope of responsibility: it is no longer simply validating an emissions reduction target, but a full net zero target at the company level. What was once a minor component of a transition plan, setting a numerical ambition, now represents nearly the entirety of what counts as recognized climate action. And that is a real step forward.
“Climate science as the sole driver of corporate action is over. With this standard, SBTi reconnects with business reality.”
The key message, to my mind, is the return to business reality. For ten years, the Science Based Targets initiative operated by applying climate science directly to companies. That approach helped drive mobilization through target-setting. But a net zero company no longer has anything particularly “science-based” about it.
With this new standard, SBTi is partly stepping away from climate science in order to realign with the real world of business: geopolitical disruptions, investment constraints, the natural inertia of systems companies depend on, and the lead times involved in developing new products and services.
The clearest illustration of this shift is the best effort framework: a company can set targets, fall short of them, and remain in the programme as long as it can account for the obstacles encountered. That kind of flexibility would have been unthinkable five years ago.
Both. It is very good news for companies, because SBTi is finally aligning with their operational reality. A transition plan in all its dimensions, including the introduction of an internal carbon price and the financing of climate projects (the Ongoing Emission Responsibility), is now formally recognized within the framework.
Whether it is good news for the climate, however, is another question, and I am less optimistic on that front. The 1.5°C target is now out of reach. And we should be honest: there is also an economic reality for SBTi itself. With more than 10,000 companies enrolled, it cannot afford to lose its members. Lowering the reduction targets on Scope 1 and 2 from -42% to -21% in absolute terms, and on Scope 3 from -25% to -15%, is also a way of reassuring companies and keeping them in the system.
I see three. First, SBTi remains locked in a claims-based logic, meaning it still centres on a company’s ability to assert a status. That matters, but claims imply communication, and that limits the move to the next stage: measuring actual performance.
Second, climate solutions are almost entirely absent from the document. The term appears only three times, and exclusively in the context of project financing. Companies that sell climate solutions, so-called enablers, are not recognized as such. That is a significant blind spot.
Third, project financing only becomes mandatory in 2035 for Category A companies. That leaves ten years of ambiguity, at a time when capital for the just transition is needed right now.
Yes. SBTi, ISO, and the GHG Protocol all seem to be moving in the same direction: they are looking beyond CO2 as the sole measure of positive impact. They are distinguishing between emissions reduction, the deployment of solutions, and financing; and they are differentiating by geography, company size, and sector. There is a broad movement toward reconnecting with the realities of business models.
On that note, ISO 14060, the ISO Net Zero Standard, has just been submitted for a 12-week public consultation. It goes further than SBTi’s NZCS on several points: explicit recognition of Climate Solutions, mandatory project financing, and sector-specific reduction targets adapted to country-level decarbonization roadmaps. Its legitimacy also strikes me as qualitatively different: an ISO standard is an official normative process, not a private initiative.
At the very least, it complements the landscape well. By staying within a claims-based logic and categorizing companies solely by size (Category A or B), SBTi does not go far enough. The Climate Contribution Framework goes further: it differentiates companies by industry and by their contributory potential toward global net zero. Each sector tells a different chapter of the story. And crucially, it introduces a performance measurement logic: is the company performing well or not? By how much? It is no longer a question of making a claim; it is a question of measurable contribution, which makes it genuinely useful for investors.
Reconciliation. A reconciliation between climate ambition and business reality. It is a necessary step. But the next one is measuring performance, not just claiming a label.
1. SBTi is expanding its scope, and that is a positive development. A transition plan in all its dimensions, including project financing and internal carbon pricing, means that corporate climate action is now assessed in its entirety.
2. Climate science as the sole driver of corporate action is over. The best effort framework and the downward revision of reduction ambitions signal a deliberate return to business model realities.
3. Gaps remain. Recognition of climate solution providers, mandatory financing starting now rather than in 2035, and the shift from a claims-based to a performance-based logic are all unfinished business, areas where the Climate Contribution Framework offers a meaningful response.
Sweep makes sustainability work for your business. Not the other way round. We connect all your sustainability data and turn it into business intelligence to help you unlock performance – from compliance and risk reduction, all the way to cost-savings, and market differentiation.
With Sweep, you can:
