Navigating the SBTi’s Revised Minimum Ambition
How the April 2026 Update Affects Your Decarbonisation Roadmap and Target Validation
Insights
Contents
Share this article
On 14 April 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) issued an update to how it calculates the minimum ambition for absolute contraction near-term targets under the corporate submission pathway. This change pertains to the current SBTi criteria (CNZ1.3). We will assess any relevancy to the revised Corporate Net Zero Standard V2.0 once the standard revision process has been finalised.
Although described in SBTi documentation as a “non-substantive update”, the revised calculation can materially lower the minimum annual emissions reductions required for companies with recent base years. This has important implications for organisations preparing targets for validation, as well as those with targets already validated under the previous approach. Though this change could be seen as an opportunity to lower ambition, companies should first reflect on their existing (or planned) targets, decarbonisation plans and feasibility analysis, and the level of business alignment, in order to identify an appropriate level of ambition. This may result in a target that is more ambitious than the new minimum trajectory.
What has changed?
Previously, SBTi’s minimum ambition thresholds effectively required companies with base years from 2020 onwards to deliver at least a 42% reduction by 2030 for Scopes 1 and 2 (1.5°C) and a 25% reduction by 2030 for Scope 3 (well-below 2°C).
From 14 April 2026, SBTi updated this logic to align more closely with a linear net-zero trajectory, reducing the minimum near-term reduction requirement for companies selecting more recent base years.
What this means in practice
Before: In practice, this means that a company submitting a 2025–2030 target before 14 April 2026 would typically have been required to reduce emissions by at least 42% by 2030 for Scopes 1 and 2 combined, and by 25% by 2030 for Scope 3.
After: The same company submitting after 14 April 2026 may now see minimum ambition levels of 21% for Scope 1 and 33.33% for Scope 2; the minimum combined Scope 1 + 2 reduction then depends on the relative weighting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in the base year. For Scope 3, the minimum ambition is now a 15% reduction over the same timeframe.
The summary below illustrates the change in minimum ambition for a 2025–2030 target timeframe.
Who does this affect?
This update is most relevant for companies preparing to submit or update their targets and applies to absolute contraction targets submitted via the corporate pathway.
It does not apply to all target types: for example, the calculation logic for Scope 3 intensity targets is unchanged. For organisations currently deciding between absolute and intensity approaches (particularly for Scope 3), this change may warrant rerunning target option modelling to understand which route is now most appropriate – and how it impacts internal decarbonisation planning and target narrative.
Companies with already validated targets are not required to revisit their targets as a result of this change.
Why did SBTi change the calculation?
SBTi explains the change in its Method Appendix as an adjustment to avoid very steep annual reduction rates for companies choosing recent base years:
“The adjustment presented a challenge for companies setting targets with recent base years, which led to annual reduction rates of 8.4% for targets with a 2025 base year, 10.5% with a 2026 base year, etc. The reduction rate is adjusted dynamically according to the time remaining between the company’s base year and the pathway’s net-zero year (or the company’s own net-zero target year, if earlier). This ensures that the rate reflects the time available to achieve the same overall reduction magnitude required by the reference pathway. Minimum near-term reduction rates are imposed on each target type to ensure that minimum ambition is maintained.”
Read plainly, SBTi is acknowledging that the previous approach could produce near-term targets that felt too steep for some organisations with base years after 2020 – and potentially too disruptive to implement at pace. SBTi’s justification for the previous method was that the science required a 42% reduction by 2030 for a 1.5°C pathway to remain within reach – and that delaying target-setting should not make the outcome easier, only the annual reduction rate steeper.
Against that backdrop, the new, lower minimum pathways raise questions about what this means for alignment with a 1.5°C world, particularly where a company’s emissions have increased between 2020 and its most recent reporting year. SBTi maintains that the revised approach remains consistent with achieving net zero by 2050 – the ultimate goal.
Resolving ambition discrepancies between near- and long-term targets
Notably, SBTi’s update addresses an issue that some companies have faced recently when setting second-generation near-term targets. For companies with existing net zero long-term targets – which had made significant progress on their first-generation near-term targets – the previous method required them to have a higher ambition level for their second-generation near-term targets than is required by their long-term target. The SBTi update addresses this issue by putting in place an upper limit of 90% on combined target ambition to ensure that near-term target ambition does not exceed combined long-term target ambition requirements.
What companies should do now
- If you are preparing to submit (not yet submitted): re-run your minimum ambition checks using the updated tool/version and confirm whether you still want to submit at the previous (more ambitious) level or align to the new minimums based on your existing decarbonisation plans and business case.
- If you are mid-way through internal approvals: update your leadership pack with a clear comparison of old vs new minimum pathways, the delivery implications (capex, opex, operational change) and any reputational considerations of revising ambition downwards.
- If your targets are already validated: consider whether to keep your existing targets (to maintain continuity and credibility) or explore an update at your next re-validation/mandatory review point; document the rationale either way.
- Reassess target type choices (especially Scope 3): as Scope 3 intensity calculations are unchanged, organisations comparing absolute vs intensity routes should re-model both options to see which is now most appropriate and defensible.
- Re-baselining and growth effects: if emissions have increased since 2020, test how different base years affect required reductions and investment needs, and ensure your narrative explains the choice transparently.
- Check governance and claims: align your external statements and internal KPIs to the pathway you choose, and make sure any change is approved through the right governance route.
- Keep focused on delivery: regardless of minimum thresholds, prioritise measures that can be implemented quickly and deliver business returns while you develop longer-lead and higher investment projects.
Target-setting is resource-intensive. It requires detailed decarbonisation planning, engagement with leadership and operational teams to secure budget, and sustained buy-in across the business. That level of effort is often justified by the ambition embedded in SBTi pathways and their stated alignment with global net-zero goals. While many decarbonisation measures can reduce costs, others require substantial upfront investment and/or payback periods that exceed typical internal thresholds.
For organisations that have already done this work, a key question is whether to stay with the more ambitious trajectory they prepared for, or to recalibrate to the new minimums to ease delivery.
At Anthesis, we keep on top of the latest developments so we can give clients the best possible guidance on how to transition to sustainable performance.
If you are considering what this change means for your business – including whether to rescope, re-model or reaffirm your targets – please get in touch.
