To SBTi, or Not to SBTi?

Barbara Chen-Gore

Principal Consultant

Kylee Chang

Principal Consultant

Table of contents

• Reasons for SBTi-Validated Targets
• Reasons against SBTi-Validated Targets
• Other considerations
• The bottom line
• How Anthesis Can Help
• Contact us

Share this article

• Share via Linkedin
• Share via Facebook
• Share via X
• Share via Email

The Science Based Targets initiative’s (SBTi) recent release of the version 2.0 draft of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard adds another layer to the ever-growing stack of sustainability standards, frameworks, and climate nuances that practitioners must navigate.

The rapid and extensive changes transforming the sustainability landscape—including evolving regulations and increasingly complex reporting standards—pose significant challenges, even for the most experienced sustainability professionals striving to uphold their sustainability commitments while maintaining strategic clarity.

Still, SBTi remains a top-tier standard that drives innovation and climate impact reduction within a business while bolstering brand image.

In this article, we explore both the benefits and hurdles of setting SBTi-validated targets to help you decide if they are a strategic fit for your business.

Reasons for SBTi-validated targets

Let’s start with the good. SBTi is still one of the best, if not the best, and most robust emission reduction target-setting standards available for the business sector. Other frameworks, such as Business Ambition for 1.5°C and the Race to Zero campaign, or ISO Net Zero and the Oxford Principles, are either signatory-based or represent a collection of best practices, respectively. They do not serve the function of setting discrete, measurable, time-bound corporate emission reduction targets. SBTi’s standards are one of the only frameworks that serve this niche.  

Key benefits of setting SBTi-validated targets include:

1. Recognised, standardised, comparable targets supported by external validation
2. Reduced target-setting loopholes
3. Holding the line internally
4. Supported by science and industry-specific research
5. Validity across raters and rankers
6. Specific benefits for small and medium-sized enterprises
7. Keeping companies accountable

1. Recognised, standardised, comparable targets supported by external validation

When you set an SBTi-validated target, your customers, peers, investors, and other stakeholders have instant assurance that your target is robust and aligned with the latest climate science and your company has gone the extra step of obtaining SBTi’s seal of approval. Further, by joining the group of 8,500+ companies that have already set SBTi-validated targets, you have the ability to quickly assess how your progress stacks up against your competitors and peers in a standardised and comparable way.

2. Reduced target-setting loopholes

The SBTi framework helps prevent companies from obfuscating emissions growth or focusing on less materially significant emissions sources when setting targets. Specifically, the forthcoming version 2.0 draft standard, although more complex, is purposefully designed to promote a “right action” approach, ensuring that target-setting drives meaningful and high-impact climate outcomes.

3. Holding the line

Choosing to set SBTi-validated targets means that your target ambition (i.e., how much you must reduce and by when) is firmly grounded in the latest scientific consensus.  A common challenge for sustainability practitioners is the progressive dilution of climate commitments during internal negotiations with operational and executive teams. Often, without a starting point or line in the sand, targets are framed solely around what is achievable, rather than what is also aligned with science. Pursuing an SBTi-validated target helps sustainability leaders set this boundary internally and reduce complexity during target implementation.

4. Supported by science and industry-specific research

On a global scale, the science is clear: we must reduce emissions 50% by 2030 and achieve net-zero by 2050 to preserve a habitable planet. Embedded within those overarching targets, however, lie numerous important nuances that shape how we approach climate action on the ground. SBTi has undertaken the laborious work of translating complex climate science into clearly defined standards that account for nuances such as variations in sector-specific approaches, the calibrated role of carbon offsets, and acceptable base years for target setting.  Below, we’ve explored how some of these nuances play out within SBTi’s standards.

• Unique Sectoral Approaches: As an example, the energy sector plays an outsized role in driving the climate transition. Achieving net-zero globally necessitates that the energy sector decarbonise more rapidly than other sectors, thereby serving as a springboard for other sectors to decarbonise.  Likewise, the forestry, land, and agriculture (FLAG) sector holds a distinct responsibility in carbon sequestration and atmospheric regulation. Consequently, target-setting methodologies for the energy sector differ significantly from those applied to the FLAG sector, reflecting their respective climate impacts. Choosing to set a SBTi-validated target ensures that your emission reduction goals are tailored specifically to your business context and industry.
• Carbon Offsets: Similarly, carbon offsets carry specific nuances in how they can be applied within an emission reduction target. Internally, organisations often face significant challenges in achieving consensus on the appropriate role of carbon offsets within their sustainability programs. By choosing to set SBTi-validated targets, companies align their positions with the most recent scientific guidance and best practices regarding the role of carbon offsets.

In sum, SBTi has translated complex climate science into a tangible, explicit standard that incorporates critical nuances, effectively distilling scientific insights into practical frameworks for guiding credible climate action. This means organisations don’t need expert-level climate knowledge to set credible, science-aligned emissions reduction targets.

5. Validity across raters and rankers

An SBTi-validated target often enhances an organisation’s performance across leading disclosure and rating platforms, including CDP, DJSI, and Ecovadis. These programs generally award higher scores to companies that adopt emission reduction targets validated by an independent third party and standardised to a recognised science-based framework, compared to those with unvalidated or internally defined targets. Consequently, setting SBTi-validated targets strengthens credibility and comparability in sustainability reporting and benchmarking.

6. Specific benefits for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

If you qualify as an SME, there is a reduced fee and reduced complexity in target-setting with SBTi. We strongly recommend SMEs obtain SBTi validation as there is a low barrier to entry to securing the highest seal of approval.

7. Keeping companies accountable to their commitments

With voluntary requirements to disclose emissions progress annually and a database that tracks and denotes current target validation status (as well as companies that have withdrawn their commitments), SBTi validation can help companies stay on track.

Reasons against SBTi validation

Taking all the benefits into account, there may still be some challenges your business may wish to consider before pursuing SBTi-validated targets.

Common hurdles to setting SBTi-validated targets include:

1. Cost to commit
2. Cost to maintain
3. Updates and stricter requirements
4. Regulatory uncertainty

1. Cost to commit 

Securing official SBTi validation typically involves a fee ranging from approximately $10,000 to $25,000 (USD), depending on whether you are submitting near-term targets alone or alongside net-zero targets. Additional expenses frequently arise from engaging external consultants to interpret SBTi standards, ensure full compliance with rigorous criteria, and navigate the diverse methodologies, timelines, and sector-specific requirements integral to an SBTi-aligned target. Depending on the level of internal capacity versus consultant involvement—which can range from light advisory support to comprehensive end-to-end guidance—total costs often range from $15,000 up to $250,000, and are dependent on various factors include company size and unique needs.

2. Cost to maintain

After SBTi validation, ongoing annual maintenance is required. Beyond regularly updating your greenhouse gas inventory and disclosing your progress, which is standard practice for most established sustainability programs, you must also manage base year adjustments. This includes accounting for changes in methodology, mergers, acquisitions, or divestitures that may affect your emissions baseline. For companies with two or more years of GHG Protocol-aligned inventories, this process is typically familiar. However, organisations undergoing frequent structural changes or anticipating significant methodological shifts should be prepared for additional base year maintenance efforts. Furthermore, companies wishing to maintain an active SBT must also conduct a mandatory five-year review to revalidate their target. While reviewing targets regularly is surely good practice, the burden and cost of additional validation could be another potential obstacle.

3. Upping the ante

SBTi regularly updates its standards, requirements, and validation process to enhance rigor and reflect the latest global emissions reduction progress, as well as insights gained from corporate climate action. For example, in July 2022, SBTi discontinued acceptance of Scope 1 and 2 targets aligned with well-below 2°C pathways in order to accelerate decarbonisation efforts and address the stagnation in global emissions reductions. The draft version 2.0 net-zero standard further rules out some target-setting practices that were previously allowed. These changes and shifts can make staying up-to-date and maintaining the business case for SBTi challenging.

4. Regulatory uncertainty

Regulatory uncertainty around disclosing emission reduction targets has become a heightened concern of many organisations in recent years. While most current regulations focus on emissions and climate risk disclosure, some emerging laws – such as New York’s Fashion Sustainability and Social Accountability Act and earlier drafts of the SEC’s climate disclosure rule – also involve the disclosure of emission reduction targets.

Meanwhile, greenwashing lawsuits are increasing, especially in the realm of consumer protection. High-profile lawsuits against companies like H&M, JBS, and Volkswagen underscore legal risks tied to false or misleading environmental claims that misrepresent a company’s or product’s sustainability impact. It’s important to note, however, that there is little evidence to suggest that companies face legal risks solely for voluntarily committing to reduce their emissions –the vast majority of lawsuits in this space pertain to consumer protection and green claims.

Regulatory developments remain in flux, exemplified by the SEC’s March 2025 decision to end its defense of climate disclosure rules, which has left federal climate disclosure regulation in legal limbo, increasing uncertainty for organisations navigating this space.

Other considerations

When designing and implementing sustainability programs, it is essential to consider both the broader environmental context and the evolving expectations for corporate ambition. The following points highlight key factors that can influence the effectiveness and integrity of target setting beyond SBTi-validated targets.  

• Planetary Boundaries: The SBTi focuses on greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric impacts, not on other critical planetary boundaries like freshwater use, land-system change, or biodiversity loss. Several of these boundaries have already been surpassed or are approaching critical tipping points. When setting emission targets, it’s critical to avoid shifting environmental burdens from one area to another within their decarbonisation roadmaps.
• Ambition Beyond Minimums: The SBTi sets a 42% reduction target for Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, but the Paris Agreement calls for a more aggressive 50% reduction. Many countries have missed their Nationally Determined Contributions, highlighting the urgency for faster cuts. Companies should strive to exceed SBTi targets—especially for emissions directly under their control—to meaningfully contribute to achieving global net-zero goals.

The bottom line

Deciding to pursue SBTi-validated targets is a key step in a company’s sustainability strategy. It’s important to assess how the standard aligns with your business goals and where it may pose limitations. Grounded in science, the SBTi offers a credible, consistent framework aligned with global climate goals. However, the financial costs, ongoing effort, and need to keep up with evolving criteria require careful evaluation of your organisation’s capacity and readiness.

Ultimately, companies must balance the value of external recognition against their internal priorities and capacity. If your company is equipped with the resources and ambition to lead on climate action, SBTi validation can help demonstrate credibility and drive meaningful progress. Alternatively, beginning with science-aligned internal goals and preparing for future validation may be more practical. Target-setting is a driving force for progress rather than a task to complete—start where you can, stay informed, and continuously evaluate the tools and frameworks that best support your sustainability journey.

Focus on building a foundation with complete, accurate GHG emissions data, realistic reduction plans, team collaboration, and systems designed to evolve with future demands. In essence, choose the path that moves your organisation forward—always remembering that starting early amplifies your impact on global climate efforts and fortifies your company’s long-term resilience.

How Anthesis can help

Anthesis supports companies pursuing or renewing SBTi-validated targets, ensuring these targets remain credible, ambitious, and aligned with the latest climate science. Through this process, we help mitigate climate risks and prepare your business for future relevance and resilience in a net-zero economy.

We also assist organisations throughout their decarbonisation journeys, offering comprehensive support across inventory development, target-setting, revalidation, and implementation. Additionally, we guide companies in investing in high-quality carbon removal projects.

For companies not currently pursuing SBTi-validated targets, we provide support to achieve internal and strategic alignment on alternative climate goals, ensuring you have the data, roadmaps, and resources needed to take actionable next steps.

There are numerous complementary strategies that effectively address a company’s climate impact and help mitigate climate and nature risk, both alongside and beyond science-based targets.  These include renewable energy strategies, product life cycle assessment and the implementation of circular business models, supplier engagement and supply chain due diligence, and enhanced nature, biodiversity, and water stewardship.