In the last ten years, the SBTi has become one of the most vital actors in global climate action. By aiding over thousands of companies in target emissions reduction, SBTi has helped sustainability strategies become more aligned with scientific frameworks. For many companies, gaining SBTi’s approval has become the gold standard. It shows that companies’ climate commitments are based on scientifically sound and reasonable pathways instead of empty pledges.
Scrutiny is a consequence of growth. As SBTi expands, it is forced to tackle new issues that include governance, the debates on environmental attribute certificates and scope three emissions. These challenges in no way lessen the value of what SBTi has accomplished but rather highlight the need for more evolution in the SBTi to ensure it continues to champion genuine, science-based decarbonisation.
The Positive Impact of SBTi
Before discussing the challenges, it is important to recognise SBTi’s achievements:
- Global uptake: Over 7,000 companies have either set or committed to science-based targets, covering a significant share of global emissions.
- Investor trust: SBTi validation gives investors confidence that corporate climate strategies are aligned with international climate goals.
- Standardization: In a fragmented ESG landscape, SBTi provides clear benchmarks, helping avoid the confusion of inconsistent or self-defined targets.
- Catalyst for ambition: By requiring companies to align with a 1.5°C trajectory, SBTi has consistently pushed corporate climate action beyond “business as usual.”
In many ways, SBTi has raised the bar for corporate responsibility and set the foundation for meaningful climate disclosure.
The EACs Debate: A Turning Point
One of the most significant debates in 2024 centred on Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs) — a broad category that includes carbon credits, renewable energy certificates, and other instruments that represent environmental benefits.
In April 2024, the SBTi Board of Trustees announced that companies might be allowed to use EACs to meet a portion of their Scope 3 emissions targets.
Supporters argue that this could give companies more flexibility in addressing difficult-to-abate value chain emissions. High-integrity EACs, if carefully designed, can direct finance toward renewable energy, forest protection, and other climate-positive projects that may otherwise struggle for funding. In this view, EACs can be part of the solution — especially for global supply chains where companies have limited direct control.
However, critics worry that incorporating EACs into target achievement risks diluting ambition. Offsets and certificates often face questions about permanence, additionality, double counting, and real-world impact. Allowing them at scale could reduce pressure on companies to deliver deep, internal decarbonisation.
The staff response was strong. An open letter from employees and advisors argued that the Board’s move bypassed the normal technical review process and undermined SBTi’s credibility. The resulting backlash led SBTi to clarify that no standard had yet been changed and that further consultation and evidence review would take place.
While controversial, the EACs debate also reflects a deeper reality: decarbonising Scope 3 is hard, and businesses are searching for workable solutions. The challenge for SBTi is to strike a balance — maintaining scientific integrity while recognising practical complexities.
Governance and Transparency
The EACs controversy also exposed tensions in SBTi’s governance model. Staff and external advisors raised concerns that the Board overstepped by announcing a policy change without adequate consultation of the Technical Council.
This sparked debates about who should make technical versus strategic decisions and how much influence funders and corporate partners should have in shaping standards.
To its credit, SBTi has since opened consultations and emphasised its commitment to evidence-based processes. But the episode highlights why clearer governance structures and greater transparency are needed. As a standard-setter, SBTi’s strength lies in trust. Protecting that trust means ensuring scientific independence is not compromised by political or financial pressures.
The Challenge of Scope 3 Emissions
Perhaps the most complex area for SBTi is Scope 3 emissions — the indirect emissions that occur across supply chains and product use. For many companies, Scope 3 accounts for more than 70% of their footprint, yet it is also the hardest to measure and influence.
SBTi deserves credit for making Scope 3 a priority. Unlike some frameworks that focus narrowly on direct operations, SBTi insists that companies take responsibility for their value chain emissions. This has expanded accountability and raised ambition.
Still, the complexity of Scope 3 data, especially for SMEs and companies in the Global South, can make compliance challenging. Guidance can sometimes feel overwhelming, and critics argue that large companies with more resources have an easier time meeting requirements.
The way forward may involve simplified tools, sector-specific roadmaps, and regional support systems so that Scope 3 action becomes accessible, not exclusionary.
Accountability and Enforcement
Another development in 2024 was the delisting of more than 200 companies that failed to update or validate their targets. On one hand, this demonstrated that SBTi is serious about accountability. On the other, it highlighted the voluntary nature of the system.
Without regulatory teeth, SBTi relies on reputational value and investor expectations to keep companies on track. That makes it all the more important for the “SBTi stamp” to remain credible, consistent, and transparent.
Moving Forward: Building on Strengths
SBTi is not failing — it is evolving. Its core contribution remains invaluable: providing science-based pathways for corporate climate action. But to remain effective, several improvements could reinforce its role:
- Reinforce Scientific Integrity
Ensure all methodological decisions, including on EACs, are led by independent experts and grounded in peer-reviewed evidence. - Balance EACs Carefully
If EACs are allowed, limit them strictly to residual emissions and apply the highest integrity criteria. They must complement, not substitute, real reductions. - Support SMEs and Global South Participation
Provide simplified guidance, financial support, and regional adaptation to ensure inclusivity. - Improve Transparency and Communication
Proactively share governance decisions, funding structures, and consultation outcomes to maintain trust. - Keep Pace with Science
Align updates more quickly with the latest IPCC findings so that targets remain ambitious and credible.
Conclusion: A Necessary but Evolving Standard
The Science Based Targets initiative has already reshaped how businesses approach climate action. By anchoring corporate targets in science, it has helped mainstream climate responsibility across industries.
The debates around Environmental Attribute Certificates, governance, and Scope 3 are not signs of failure, but of maturity. They reflect the real-world challenges of turning climate science into corporate practice.
What matters now is how SBTi responds. If it embraces transparency, strengthens its governance, and ensures that EACs play only a carefully defined role, it can emerge stronger — not weaker.
In the end, SBTi’s journey is a reminder that climate standards are not static. They must evolve with science, markets, and stakeholder expectations. Done well, this evolution can ensure that “science-based targets” remain more than a label: they remain a force for genuine, lasting climate impact.
Sources & References
- Carbon Market Watch – SBTi Board decision on offsetting undermines science (2024)
- Reuters – Offsets row exposes schism over corporate net zero (2024)
- ESG Dive – SBTi walks back carbon offset policy changes after staff backlash (2024)
- Environmental Finance – Why the SBTi must abandon its offsetting proposal (2024)
- Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy – SBTi board undermines integrity (2024)
- The Guardian – Climate target organisation faces staff revolt (2024)
- Reuters – SBTi CEO to step down amid offset controversy (2024)
- Carbon Herald – SBTi CEO resigns amid offset criticism (2024)
- Sustainability Magazine – Why SBTi has delisted more than 200 companies (2024)
- Earth.org – The SBTi is no longer fit for purpose (2024)
- Edie.net – Scientists warn against carbon offsetting for Scope 3 (2024)
- Carbone4 – SBTi accused of greenwashing (2024)
