Science-Based Targets FAQ – Suston Magazine

Vague climate commitments or science-based targets – is there a difference? Here’s a guide to understanding the difference between corporate climate lingo and genuine climate action.

When outdoor brands talk about climate commitments, what are they actually committing to?

It varies. In theory, a company could make a climate commitment without changing a thing. But the expectation is to align these with the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C over pre-industrial temperatures. The pathway to achieving this involves halving global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, again by 2040, and reaching net zero by 2050.

The largest umbrella framework for this kind of action is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Race to Zero campaign. It brings together dozens of initiatives, including the Swedish Textile Initiative for Climate Action (STICA), the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, and the SME Climate Hub. Each of these requires participating organizations to Pledge, Plan, Proceed, and Publish their climate commitments, usually publicly.

For example, the European Outdoor Group now requires Race to Zero participation for all full members. Race to Zero is not a verification scheme, however. It simply outlines the process but leaves the implementation open-ended.

Who then is responsible for checking if a company’s targets are scientifically credible?

Many outdoor companies currently turn to another Race to Zero partner for this. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is a collaboration between CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project), the United Nations Global Compact, the World Resources Institute, and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). Unlike Race to Zero, SBTi actually reviews a company’s emissions reduction plans and approves them if they align with the aforementioned pathway.

Companies can either commit to setting targets – giving them 24 months to submit – or go straight to submitting for validation. Once validated, companies must publicly disclose their targets within six months.

All of this is offered for a modest fee. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), there’s a simplified process with reduced costs and standardized pathways.

What exactly do these targets cover?

Targets typically fall into two categories: Near-term targets (5–10 years), and Net-zero targets that aim for 90%+ reductions by 2050.

They must address emissions from Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned or controlled sources) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased electricity, heat or steam), as well as Scope 3 (all other indirect emissions across the value chain) if these account for more than 40% of the company’s footprint.

SBTi’s methodology is grounded in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol – the world’s most widely used standard for greenhouse gas accounting. The protocol provides guidance on how to measure and categorize emissions across Scopes 1, 2, and 3. Its consistent framework enables comparability across sectors and regions, which is essential for credible target-setting.

Does the SBTi treat all companies alike?

SBTi offers two main approaches to setting emissions reduction targets: the Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA) and the Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA).

ACA is by far the most commonly used of the two approaches, and requires companies to reduce their total emissions by a fixed percentage over time, regardless of business growth. It reflects the logic of a fixed global carbon budget: to avoid exceeding 1.5°C of warming, every actor must contribute to steep, absolute reductions – not just relative improvements or offsets. It is widely viewed as the most transparent and equitable method available, though it can be demanding for fast-growing firms.

The SDA, meanwhile, allows companies in certain sectors, such as power generation or heavy industry, to reduce emissions intensity based on sector-specific pathways.

Are companies actually reducing emissions in line with these targets?

That’s the catch. While SBTi rigorously assesses the targets, it does not currently audit whether companies follow through. Progress is self-reported, often via CDP disclosures. There’s no formal enforcement mechanism – yet.

However, since 2021, SBTi has required companies to update emissions data within five years. Failure to do so can lead to loss of approved status or being marked Non-Compliant on the public target dashboard.

As of late 2023, SBTi has also been developing a monitoring, reporting, and verification framework to introduce stronger accountability – particularly for long-term net-zero pledges.

Without audits, what’s the real value of making a science-based target pledge?

Done seriously, these commitments demonstrate that a company is aligning with climate science, preparing for future regulation, and responding to rising investor and consumer expectations. More than 11,000 companies have already committed to or set science-based targets with SBTi, covering over 40% of global market capitalization and a quarter of global revenues.

Participation also opens access to technical guidance and tools, recognized validation, and not to mention vast peer networks. But such pledges also carry reputational risk – setting targets and failing to deliver can result in public scrutiny and a tarnished reputation.

While the framework is evolving toward greater accountability, for now, the system depends heavily on transparency and good faith. Whether that’s enough will depend on how effective these oversight mechanisms are once put into practice.